On: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 Jorge Parra wrote: > The lack of grain and the extended range of digital provide ample help and > flexibility. Actually many photogs end up adding grain artificially to > bring the image a sense of "film-like" quality. In my opinion, this is just > a practice that comes from all those years scanning film and living and > getting used to the "aesthetics " of grain and emulsion as part of the > digital file. It looks different because it is a different capture method.
It may be "film-like", but it does not look like film. Film is film, and a digital file with noise added, looks like a digital file with noise added. It may look like grain to most viewers, and I am happy with that, but what is not being considered is the way processed grain within the emulsion actually holds an image to give it "prescence". This is a very important aspect of successfully scanning film and often overlooked, which is to show - not emphasise - the grain. > Personally, I am happy with the absence of grain. Scan just look dirty now. > And, if and when I want grain, then I add it to my satisfaction. Bob > suggested the use of the KPT filters, and they work really well for this. > Grain can not be removed from scans, only smoothed,along with the whole > image. There is only one really good filter for emulating grain, and that is the KPT "Hue Protected Noise" filter - period. It is also excellent for eliminating banding in sky areas. > THe rumour of what is Canon bringing to the market in the next PMA ( march) > goes around a camera ( many have called them the D80) with a smaller file > size than the 1Ds, since the economy in file size provides a better and > faster performance of the camera. You may remember I have said many times > over that bigger file sizes would only introduce slugginesh and poor > performance without any major improvement in file quality at all ( ask > Kodak). What you are saying is that in real-world performance, the circuitry plus internal software and onboard processor, is not really up to it in terms of everyday practical use. That the new chip is being piggybacked on an old motherboard with proven performance is not a bad thing. With a product cycle time of nine months, it is safe to assume that any current digicam on the market is in effect, a working prototype. > Talk says it is going to be an 8+MP camera. THis file would provide > a native 32 Mb RGB tiff, and this could set a real landmark in commercial > photography, considering the price would be a tad slower than that of the > 1Ds.( around the 4K US$, just to go after the never-showing- Kodak14n) and > still being a file size that can easily compete with medium format scans for > most average applications. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
