Aaron Reynolds writes:
> Gordon Willis talks about underexposing The Godfather Part II by six
> stops and sometimes more to make it washed out and colourless in the
> Vegas sequences, and also talks about underexposing by a couple of stops
> as a rule to defeat "helpful" lab people who try to "br
If you'd like to try motion picture film in your still camera, you can
buy it wound onto 35mm reels and packed in canisters from RGB studios in
Hollywood, California, USA. (You can get their phone number. They're in
the 323 area code.) They'll process it and print it as a positive film
or on pape
Feature motion pictures are shot with negative film. The final release is on what is
called "print
film" it gives a positive tranparency.
--graywolf
dave o'brien wrote:
>
> Interesting. Is standard movie film closer to print film or slide
> film for latitude?
--
Tom Rittenhouse
Graywolf Pho
"dave o'brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>>"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
>>
>>Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
>
>George Lucas is filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones
>with digital. I sure hope the movie is better t
dave o'brien wrote:
> Interesting. Is standard movie film closer to print film or slide
> film for latitude?
It's a negative film, with fairly wide latitude (depending on which you
choose, of course).
Gordon Willis talks about underexposing The Godfather Part II by six
stops and sometimes more
A scroll of mail from Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 5 Sep
2001 10:11:39 -0400
Read it? y
>"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
>
>> Can
>> you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
George Lucas is filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones
with digital
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Aaron and Mark,
> Check out:
>
> http://leicam2.home.texas.net/
>
> You'll notice that George offers his prints for free. I requested some and
> he sent them to me. Although small, they're generally really
excellent--the
> best look as good as 4x5 conta
Trying to chase the future is futile. Holding back a little gives you
room to breathe, and consider where the future is actually heading.
:-)
Best,
Jostein
who takes pride that he hasn't lusted for the MZ-s yet either...(but
it's getting harder...) :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Ritte
Mark D. wrote:
>> My exploration into digital B&W has not been very
>> satisfactory.
and Aaron responded:
> I haven't seen any samples that have wowed me; I had thought that maybe
> it was just because the people making the samples didn't know how to
> fully take advantage of the materials yet
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've had reasonable results making duotones with deep chocolatey browns
> and then printing them just with our colour inkset (after some
> tweaking). So far, for regular materials, this seems to be the best
> way. I guess I'll have to drop the money on
"Mark D." wrote:
> Are you gonna use the Peizography software and inks or are you gonna work
> with the MIS Hextone inks?
I hadn't decided yet. Lyson also sell a set of quadtone inks, again, no software.
The Cone stuff is expensive, because of the software. I hear it's good, though.
> My exp
I do my BW contact sheets digitally. I scan them on an Agfa Duoscan 2500
T we have at work and print them on an Epson 1200. Just fine for
contacts. But my experiments with printing digital BW photos have been
just so-so. The darkroom is still the best place for that. I have had
good success scanni
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and white darkroom is
> still quite active, for two reasons:
>
> 1) it's a pain in the ass to do a contact sheet digitally,
> 2) without a printer that has been converted for monochrome printing,
> digital
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:23:00 -0400, David J Brooks wrote:
> I use a program called ACDC and print out my
> thumbnails (from the D1)from this.I can manipulate the size and
> print them out on hi res Epson paper for viewing
> at shows.So far reactions have been positive
I think that's ACDSee, Dave
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
> Aaron,
> Which inks are you using in the Epson printers?
The 7500 uses the same pigment set as the 2000P. I haven't decided
which monochrome inkset to go with yet for the 1200.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http
I use a program called ACDC and print out my
thumbnails (from the D1)from this.I can manipulate the size and
print them out on hi res Epson paper for viewing
at shows.So far reactions have been positive
Dave
Begin Original Message
My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and
Mark Roberts wrote:
> What Mike spent on his setup is a lot less than some people spend for one camera
> or one lens. One should also take note of the fact that a lot of his gear can be
> used for printing scans of negatives or slides. I have a similar setup only with
> a film scanner instead of
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs digital)
>
>
> John Coyle writes:
>
> > It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who
> > decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling
> of some words in his famous
> > dictionary, which was t
> -Original Message-
> From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Hey Christian, don't start this one again - we had a long
> series on this just
> recently!
> However, I might just remind you that the English language
> originated in
> England (not the Americas), and that part o
Hey, someone had to clean up the language
Norm
John Coyle wrote:
> It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who
> decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling of some words in his famous
> dictionary, which was then adopted as standard American spelling.
-
This message is from the
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's really not all that much, given that you'd be discovering a whole new
>way of making images and starting to learn about the most revolutionary
>development in photography since Godowsky and Mannes invented Kodachrome in
>1936. Let's face it, this
Hey Christian, don't start this one again - we had a long series on this just
recently!
However, I might just remind you that the English language originated in
England (not the Americas), and that part of it's vocabulary comes from the
French. Therefore, French 'couleur' = English 'colour', a
24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
Dave wrote:
> If you know of something suitable let me know :)
Dave,
Check out:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html
That's not exactly it, but it's a pretty nice camera. BTW it's smaller than
it looks in pi
Dave wrote:
> If you know of something suitable let me know :)
Dave,
Check out:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html
That's not exactly it, but it's a pretty nice camera. BTW it's smaller than
it looks in pictures, and it's almost affordable.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discus
"Christian Skofteland" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Cory or Brenda Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more
>> than ten years ago
>> in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from
>> that timeframe
>> in a week.
Reminds me of a guy I met in business about 12 years ago. His specialty was "twilight
industries", those
dying out. He ended up buying all the machines to press vinyl (albums) that he could,
he was at that
time the only company doing it in the US and cornered the (then small) market. Now he
is
Mike Johnston wrote:
"by 2012 the river would be twelve feet long"
In January the temperature was 2 degrees C. In August it was 25 degrees C.
If the temperature continues to rise at this rate then I would give the
polar ice caps no more than 5 months. We're all doomed, doomed I say!
Regards
Jim B
Humm. Does the term "neoluddite" come to mind. Yepper, it surely does.
You think things are going too fast? When I feel that way I think of my dad. When he
was born
automobiles (you could hardly call them cars) were a curiosity, the first airplane had
not yet
flown. Before he knew it the
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^)
>
> They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more
> interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed.
>
> Bob
good point
Christian S
I have, and one day I might actually get one. BUT, I would only use it for snaps
to email, etc. I only shoot color now just for snapshots, the real joy in
photography to me is Plus-X in my 6x7 followed up with a darkroom experience. I
really enjoy the craft side of the art. So, yes, I might buy on
> -Original Message-
> From: Cory or Brenda Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more
> than ten years ago
> in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from
> that timeframe
> in a week. The CDs work no problem but the n
William Robb wrote:
>
> ...advantage lies with the incumbent technology, as it has a long
> and well proven track record of reliablilty.
I guess that is true, that must be why the good old reliable horse and
buggy still dominates transportation, and the new-fangled and imperfect
automobile has n
"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
>
> What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^)
They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more
interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed.
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://ww
> > How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED
> digital?
> > I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance?
I did some product shots for the web about three months ago
using my boss's Sony Mavica (the one with the 10x zoom lens).
I covered up the built-in f
Jostein wrote:
"There's no digital medium (or print) with a lifetime
expectancy longer than a negative."
Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more than ten years ago
in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from that timeframe
in a week. The CDs work no problem but
7bit
Subject: Re: Grainless at 3200 was: Re: Slides vs digital
Message-ID: <3B95548E.22924.A74341@localhost>
In-reply-to: <004401c135b8$e0db2f40$d7bbfea9@markd>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 Sep 200
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> It has all the basic problems of a P&S (Slow AF, delay on shutter
> firing, single lens)
Just as a FYI, in case you didn't know, you can get screw-on adapters that
expand the capabilities of the lens. Nikon makes a fisheye, wide-angle,
and two telephoto
he shot was screwed up or not and get
another.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> Snip<
>
> How many
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Mike Johnston
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
>
>
> ...And now I have a slightly different tack to take
> than in my last message.
>
> How many of y
...And now I have a slightly different tack to take than in my last message.
How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital?
I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance?
One of the common themes I encounter ceaselessly on the digicam forums is a
great s
01 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> > Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting
to
> > happen is an indicator.
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain
wrote
> a funny essay in which he calcu
> Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to
> happen is an indicator.
Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain wrote
a funny essay in which he calculated the rate at which the Mississippi river
was getting shorter, as the result of e
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The really ironic part of this scenario is that computers
>themselves are among the worst polluters now. They are a
>manufactured object, which eats up natural resources and energy
>resources to produce, then they eat up more energy resources in
>use, an
>My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of
>sitting down before one of them silly PC-boxes just to get an
>image on a piece of paper, that's not convenient technology in
>_most_ people's eyes.
Jostein, I couldn't agree more! That's why I make it a lot easier on
myself and si
Robert Wetmore wrote:
Very interesting and thoughtful views.
>I'll not buy a digital camera any time soon - I have no interest in simply
>the outward appearances of images.
I think the notion that film/chemical images are more than just "outward
appearances" of images in a way that digital im
of elitism and makes this group just that much less interesting.
Jerry in Houston
-Original Message-
From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:24 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
Collin Brendem
There is one other aspect which may, for just a few folks, impede the total
triumph of digital over slide film - even after the resolution, cost, and
all other functional limitations are removed (which will of course happen
very soon indeed): namely, the questionable authenticity of a digital i
ford them.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton"
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> Sadly, the
;^)
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
So, where do we obtain books on creating
our own paper emulsions for paper & glass?
T
William Robb wrote :
"What I find really stupid is all the talk about film being
replaced by digital."
Which was the point I was making in the first place! Granted I did not use
the words "stupid" or "moronic" because I'm new to this forum and didn't
want to offend anyone. ;^)
C
Absolutely! That was my point. According to Bruce Dayton
(elsewhere in this thread) this is already happening.
So if the memorycards of today's digital cameras fits tomorrow's
digital labs, all will be well...?
...or?
Bit sceptical still...
Jostein
-- Original Message -
William Robb wrote:
> I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
> users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who
> is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs
> by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market
> that is driving
>> If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I
>> could see this being the thing that turns the masses to
>> digital.
>
>If photofinishing becomes regulated as I think it will be, there
>will be no choice but to turn to digital.
>William Robb
I expect this will happen too.
The scenario as
So, where do we obtain books on creating
our own paper emulsions for paper & glass?
That seems about the only way the craft will survive
the next 2 decades. (and I'm serious!)
Here's the future that I dread:
Clubs of people in their 50s learning to mix chemicals for paper and plates. They
shoo
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
. If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I
> could see this being the thing that turns t
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Jostein [ISO-8859-1] Xksne wrote:
> Hi, Alexandre.
> You missed my point...
> It's easy for computer literals to convert between media. We
> eagerly await the future for another chance to convert our images
> to brave new technology...:-)
>
> My point was that the conversi
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre A. P. Suaide"
> Maybe we can have an idea. I don't know the prices but how
much expensive
> is a super-8 film today when compared to 30 years ago. We
should remember
> to take into account the inflaction of this period. Maybe the
price will
> be alm
Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dayton"
> Subject:
Hi, Alexandre.
You missed my point...
It's easy for computer literals to convert between media. We
eagerly await the future for another chance to convert our images
to brave new technology...:-)
My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of
sitting down before one of them silly
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Mike Johnston wrote:
> Christian wrote:
>
> > I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively
> > expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about
> > every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL.
>
>
> I just don't
At 05:15 PM 9/4/01 +0800, you wrote:
>Trouble is I've never played a (vinyl) record that didn't have the odd
>crackle or snap. If you can ignore that - then yes, it sounds surprisingly
>good. Film on the hand has no such artefacts (to my amateur eyes ;-)) so it
>should be able to put up a good f
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton"
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly
starting to
> happen is an indicator.
I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
users abandoning film in droves
How real do people turn...? Silly question, sorry...:-)
IMHO, the advance of digital photography is related to other
issues than _just_ the advance of affordable technology.
[enter rambling mode...]
A great number of people will have a lot of pleasure in producing
images digitally, view them
gt;
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
>
>
> So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost.
> When f
"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
> Can
> you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
Actually, with the very best we've got today, if he had shot with DV
after doing the same testing he would with film stocks, I'd bet we
couldn't tell the difference.
Funny story from
8:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
Pat,
I'll keep buying film as long it's there.
:-)
And I don't think film will die easily. Even if "everybody" wants
their images to go digital in some way.
Placing a CCD in a tabletop scanner is dead cheap c
Pat,
I'll keep buying film as long it's there.
:-)
And I don't think film will die easily. Even if "everybody" wants
their images to go digital in some way.
Placing a CCD in a tabletop scanner is dead cheap compared to
fitting one to a camera. Tech developments are bound to improve
both type
>I agree, I would also buy that 6 Mpix MZ-S lookalike, we have all
>seen the prototype of, for a reasonable price :-)
>
>But it will take a long while before it can come level with the
>good old slide emulsions, if ever in our lifetime.
Not within our lifetime???
Try within a few years. Sooner i
- Original Message -
From: "Lewis, Gerald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
> Movie film is on positive transparency film...
>
(snip)
Not so. As a general rule only amateurs and pre-video news gatherers
used transparency films. Feature films are shot on colour negative and
printed on a
My feeling is that film will always have the edge in resolution, since CCDs
and other light sensors are electrical components with a certain minimum size,
while film works on a molecular scale. I'm sure everyone has noticed that
film continues to improve. The cost/availability factor is another
At 06:37 5.9.2001 -0400, you wrote:
>I'd consider buying a Pentax K-mount (as long as it takes my manual focus
>lenses!) digital camera. But only as a snap-shooter. It would never
>replace my LX and Velvia for nature photography.
>
>Christian Skofteland
I agree, I would also buy that 6 Mpix MZ
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 7:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote:
>I really do not understand the comparison. Slides offer the highest
>resolution available in colour film. Start comparing digital to say 3200
>
If it's not Jar-Jar it will be some other lame character
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: David A. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Eve
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost.
When film is less utilized, the price to produce will go up and the price to
develop will go up. Aft
At 08:14 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200...
>
>Hey Tom,
>
>Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would
>want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200.
For the same reasons you'd ever want a g
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200...
Hey Tom,
Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would
want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200. When I think of of ISO 3200, I think
"nightime" and "grainy." What shooting condition are
yes, motion picture industry is a very valid point somehow we all have been
missing so far.
>From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:52:
"Mark D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars
>> movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put
>> onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment)
At 06:18 PM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote:
>
>Forget the technical arguments about pixel count vs
>resolution vs everything else.
Yes, please...I have to laugh a bit when I read or hear people using
suspect mathematics to prove that digital can't produ
nal Message-
>From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:14 AM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
>
>
>I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at
>the theate
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars
> movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put
> onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment)
> displayed it digitally, so what the viewe
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> Hehee! Who said this? Somebody who hasn't printed digital yet, obviously.
> You can control the contrast and saturation of a digiprint to degrees not
> even conceivable on film.
(snip)
And it's even better when you start with film and digitize it on a
high-end scanner.
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote:
>I really do not understand the comparison. Slides offer the highest
>resolution available in colour film. Start comparing digital to say 3200
>negative film.
Don't read it here - go try it yourself. Digital is as
good as 35mm film - right now - for
At 12:50 AM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:18 AM 9/3/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>For your information, vinyl sales grew at a faster rate than CDs last
>>year! There are now upgraded versions of CD with higher sampling rates
>>to try and emulate vinyl more closely. If CDs were so perfect then SACD
I think that there may be some confusion here. May I add to it?
>>And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
>that
>>video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture
>>and documentary industry.
>
>And that's one replacement that I can guarante
Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be
a few--very few--years).
I'll bet still "chemical" photography survives much longer than motion picture
film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion
pictures is lower than for stills. The material
]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
>And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
that
>video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture
>and documentary industry.
And that
>And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
that
>video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture
>and documentary industry.
And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the
motion picture and documentary makers will s
Crikey, dont start them on this one, we have already had vinyl/CD and
cinema film/digital - lets not do video/DVD/film too!
-Original Message-
From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 September 2001 17:12
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs. di
September 04, 2001 11:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
Even if the digital images are transferred to film, if the resulting color
saturation and contrast looks like film, then the digital image must have
been that good in the first place for film to capture it.
Fur
7;
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at
the theater
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
r 04, 2001 10:30 AM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
>
>
>Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated
>digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality
>color saturation and contrast. That cap
Sorry, it was in the original post you responded to...sorry
Jerry
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
Hey! You misquoted, I didn't say that.
tv
"Lewis, Ger
I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at
the theater
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
lity is certainly there for
> digital, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer
> level.
>
> Jerry in Houston
>
> -Original Message-
> From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
"Nenad Djurdjevic" writes:
>As far as I know digital technology has no answer to slides. Does anyone know if
>digital >technology can produce high resolution slides that can be projected? (and I
>don't mean >via one of those projection TV systems).
Hi, yesterday I was with a lab guy, and he
.
Jerry in Houston
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
>
> There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high
> quality color transparency fil
"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
>
> I (and I'm sure most people on this list) do not agree.
>
> Print film, slide film, any film will not go away.
He didn't say that.
> Digital imaging will
> never replace a photograph.
This statement makes no sense.
>
> There is no substitution for the
In biblical terms, Legion would be a gathering of
demons. :)
Collin
Original
As Dave Mann points out, that number is turning out to be legion. A legion
that swells its numbers with every passing day.
- --Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
Bob R. wrote:
> In order for digital to match conventional processes, the dynamic range must
> be increased and then the linear range must be translated to the standard
> "S" curve to give the gradations available to conventional film and print
> material. Think here of a d-max of greater that 6.
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
