Richard N. wrote:
> The word "tone" means almost anything, depending on the background of the
individual.
In this case, at least as I saw it, the word "tone" meant "Really Screwed
Up." But you're right--words have a tendency to let us down just when we
need them most. :-) Some sage wrote, "Using words to describe a work of art
is like playing a trumpet solo to describe a piece of architecture."
What I saw in the first link cited (below) was a "glowing review" for a
damned-expensive piece of equipment (as it well might have been!) . What I
saw in the second link was artifacts that I'd never allow to be published,
if it were my sign-off responsibility. I commend the guy who did (or girl,
for that matter), just for their forthright honesty, but John is absolutely
right--the picture, for all its *technical brilliance*, was hideous! I seem
to recall seeing its like in a demo picture extolling the virtues of ICE,
ROC & GEM not too long ago. Yuch.
Duhhhh, excuse me, but am I supposed to be *blinded by words*, here? Don't
think so, sorry--I used to pay my rent that way. "When I use a word, it
means just exactly what I mean it to mean--nothing more, nothing less."
(Dodson, aka "Lewis Carrol").
Best regards--LRA
------Original Message------
From: "Richard N. Moyer" <dickmoyer@mail.earthlink.net>
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Sent: May 19, 2001 6:46:44 PM GMT
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
If you (John Brownlow below) could talk in terms of digital imaging
terms, maybe I could understand precisely what you are talking about.
The word "tone" means almost anything, depending on the background of
the individual.
What I would like www.robgalbraith.com to post is the gamut breadth
and fidelity of the DCS 760. Tone to me is gamut accuracy (meaning
chroma and hue angle). But more than that it is the ability to
accurately capture "chromas" and "hue angles" at resolutions that
match the best film recording media; i.e. Ektachrome, The gamut
latitude of Ektachrome exceeds that of all negative films (the last I
checked), but I don't know where this digital camera stands in that
regard. And accuracy, pixel by pixel is another matter. So, what can
the DSC750 do with gamut latitude. gamut accuracy? Nothing seems to
be ever posted about this.
Also, unless a digital "picture", or scan is shown in direct
comparison with its competition (meaning film in this case - not
another digital camera), one can't come to meaningful conclusions
because the eye is easily seduced into thinking "that's a really
great picture". There must be side by side comparisons. That is the
convincing hurdle to cross.
And of course, the film scan, or Ektachrome scan must be first class,
so that the gamut of its image is completely captured. And this
requires a pretty good understanding of scanning techniques, and
color management, measurement, and control. Not a small undertaking.
Since the DSC760 avoids the scanning process and the uncertainties
and errors of color management in scanning, it has a leg up in that
regard. Maybe.
Yet to be convinced. But open to hard information. -
>on 5/19/01 8:30 AM, Steve Greenbank at steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk wrote:
>
>> See this :
>>
>
> >
>>
>> and in particular this : (be warned it's 1.4M)
>>
>
> >
>
>well, it's very very sharp and grain free.
>
>but the tonality is HIDEOUS. It looks like a grab from a video picture.
Look
>at the highlights on the hair. Agh. Is this progress?
>
>run! very fast! in the opposite direction!
>
>I could do substantially better with my super speed graphic, a 50 year old
>lens, some APX 100 and a jug of Xtol.
>
>tone! tone! tone!
>
>obviously that camera can do a bazillion wunnerful things but film has a
few
>tricks up its sleeve yet methinks.
>--
>John Brownlow
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at
