At 09:43 AM 4/04/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
>OK, but as I mentioned earlier - we're talking about *negatives*
>where this problem is most evident, not transparencies, so the
>colour the CCD sees isn't blue at all.
>
>Does anyone know whether the grain sizes vary with the dye
>colour?
Yes, they certainly
Robert E. Wright wrote:
> I think every reference I've seen regarding noise is scanned images
> identifies the Blue channel as being the most noisy. I have never seen an
> explanation of why this is so, but does not appear to be dependant on the
> light source or specific scanner. Maybe the no
Joe wrote:
> CCD's (Charged Couple Device) used in scanners and digital cameras
> are least sensitive to blues, making it difficult for them to
> interpret those colors correctly. File compression (such as with
> jpeg) can also contribute to noise in the blue channel.
OK, but as I mentioned earli
"Robert E. Wright" wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
>
> > ...
> > I
> I think every reference I've seen regarding noise is scanned images
> identifies the Blue channel as being the most noisy. I have never seen an
> explanation of why this is so, but does not appear to be dependant on the
> light source or specific scanner. Maybe the noise isn't coming the film?
>
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
> ...
> I believe that for some reason there is more CCD noise in the blue channel
>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:13:43 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think I just have to accept the limitations of neg film, in that the
greater
> exposure latitude is at the cost of much more grain.
But it isn't! I am 100% certain that what you are seeing as grain, especially
from
Bob wrote:
>I think what you may have here derives in part from the sky and other nominally
>bright parts of images on negatives being the darkest -- most dense --
in
>the film. So sky in negs can be more difficult and show grain and/or noise
>much like dark shadow areas of slides are the difficu
>I think there may be an issue here with what is "apparent grain" and what
>is "real grain" and what is "grain aliasing". In any case, I have yet to
>find a neg film which *doesn't* show unacceptable amounts of "grain" in
>things like blue sky, while pretty much *every* slide film gives reasonabl
Tony wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>> Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty
>> much every other neg film I've tried.
> Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one
> time, and had no problems wi
Tony wrote:
>Printing at A3 is a *lot* of enlargement for 35mm, by whatever route.
For "professional" resolution images, I agree. But I have 50x70cm poster
prints at home which I'm quite happy with. It all depends - as you mention
- on your expectations.
>Not saying you are, or haven't the ex
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty much
> every other neg film I've tried.
Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS10
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:12:11 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> FYI last night I tried my first A3 (not A3+) print from a 2700dpi scan.
> The image was scanned from 100ASA print film with a Nikon LS30. The result
> is good, but perhaps not as sharp as I'd like - but for a real tes
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:29:49 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty much
> every other neg film I've tried.
Now that /is/ intriguing. I scanned Reala on an LS1000 at one time, and
had no problems with grain aliasing
>Rob: Why don't you try a Fuji REALA negative at that size?
Reala suffers from grain aliasing on the LS30 just as badly as pretty much
every other neg film I've tried. It would be better than the old kodak
neg, but a better one to try would be Provia 100F for a complete lack of
grain. Then I ca
Rob: Why don't you try a Fuji REALA negative at that size?
Mike M.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> FYI last night I tried my first A3 (not A3+) print from a 2700dpi scan.
> The image was scanned from 100ASA print film with a Nikon LS30. The result
> is good, but perhaps not as sharp as I'd like - but f
16 matches
Mail list logo
