I don't disagree with much that you stated. A good deal of the extra
file size in a scanned silver halide image is just grain artifacts, and
offers no image information. However, if the same processing that is
done to digital images in camera were done to the film image, a lot of
the grain
Since I have not used VueScan in years, I have to take your word on that;
but white balance/color temp is a very significant element in many cases
along with exposure that I use Camera RAW for which is not available from
within Photoshop. But I think we are on t he same page and not really in
any
David,
Remember that this discussion started with my attempt to explain why Getty
and other high end stock photography houses might insist on professional
drum scans over high end prosumer CDD scanners. The main justification is
that they know the quality that their clients demand but they do
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
However, if the same processing that is done to digital images in
camera were done to the film image, a lot of the grain could be
suppressed.
Yeah, but would you want to suppress the grain? I did a test for a
video camera manufacturer last
One last point here. Film will probably never be as flat as a piece of
silicon.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel.
R. Jackson wrote:
On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
snip
Look here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html
See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed
On 05/07/2007 David J. Littleboy wrote:
I don't buy it.
AIUI the colour fringing is a combination of chromatic aberration in the
lens and Bayer colour interpolation.
Vignetting is due to the microlenses presenting a smaller effective
aperture to off-axis rays.
You get both together, but
On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Laurie wrote:
While Digital SLRs might know or identify the lens focal length,
aperture
setting, focus, etc., It cannot identify the glass that is used in
any given
lens or the optical properties specific to that particular lens.
Since most
DSLRs allow for
On 05/07/2007 gary wrote:
Seems to me the camera should be able to compensate for the
vignetting.
It knows the lens and the sensor, so it should know the light
falloff.
There are software strategies for dealing with both vignetting and
chromatic aberratuon artifacts, also barrel/pincushion
Rob,
Actually, the Olympus stuff does know what lens is on the camera and
can be set to compensate.
Is that only for Olympus brand lenses or does it apply to third party lenses
like Sigmas and the like?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your math is good; I got 26.2 degrees off vertical. But I don't know the
significance of that angle with respect to the sensor tunnels. It sounds
like a rather large angle to me.
You might do the math for, say, the Contax G-series 21mm Biogong. (The
rear
There seems to be two main issues with depth of focus with film. One,
when the image is captured within the camera, and two, when it is then
reproduced, either as a print, or made into a digital file.
With 35mm frames, in my experience, the second one is not that
significant as long as the
On 7/5/07 5:44 PM, David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a serious
format. If one is concerned with image quality.
I think that for you to say this is equivalent, in the film world, of saying
that 35mm cameras are not
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at the
film plan versus aperture of lens used?
No, but the plane of focus itself is not flat, it's usually a section of a
sphere that is only part corrected to flatness. This becomes an issue
I thought the lens design has elements to compensate for field
flattening. In any event, the predictably flat silicon focal plane has
to be better than the lottery of film.
Tony Sleep wrote:
On 06/07/2007 Arthur Entlich wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a chart which shows depth of focus at
With respect to lenses, the only lenses that I know of that have adjustable
elements for compensating for field curvature and producing effective,
although not complete, flattening are flat field copy lenses and true macro
lenses. I will not comment on silicon sensors except to say that no matter
That's fine. But there are thousands of professional and serious amateur
photographers out there that do not have that restriction. I shot 4x5 for a
while, and there is no denying the beauty of large format for certain types
of images. I discovered a small spider web once on a barb of a wire
On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:44 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
The 4/3 sensor is 1/4 the area of the FF sensors, and not really a
serious
format. If one is concerned with image quality.
Technically, there's merit to what you're saying. Given a the current
10 megapixel 4/3 sensor with a 4.7 micron
Art,
There was a depth of focus formula in the American Cinematographer
Handbook that was gospel until proven wrong. The depth of focus, given
a specific blur circle size, is a trig function of the cone angle Tan
½Angle = .5 x f# ÷ Lens Focal Length. Without special pressure plates
or
19 matches
Mail list logo
