Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Raphael Bustin wrote:

 > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:
 >
 >
 >> Rafe wrote:
 >>
 >>> Fuji Reala is beautiful.  Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't
 >>> bad, either.  But Supra (100) is my current favorite.
 >>
 >> I was under the impression that there was little if any
 >> difference between the current generation Superia 100
 >> and Reala.  When Fuji announced the extra colour layer,
 >> it seemed to point to the same technology.  Can anyone
 >> confirm this?
 >>
 >> I haven't attempted resolution tests with Supra 100 to
 >> have some sort of meaningful comparison, but to my eye
 >> there was little difference in grain between Superia
 >> 100 and Supra 100 which made it hard to justify a
 >> premium price for the Kodak film.
 >>
 >> Rob
 >
 >
 >
 > First off, Supra is a C41 print film.  Superia,
 > as I recall, as an E6 positive film.  Fuji's
 > "equivalent" to Supra might be Reala, perhaps.
 >

Enough people have corrected this that I don't need to add to that.

Fuji is almost as bad as Minolta in naming their scanners, but not quite ;-)

I'm sure some of the product name confusion (in the film market) is no
accident.  Having Superia and Supra sound so similar, and be similar
product niches one Fuji, the later Kodak, is likely quite purposeful.

Art