On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:50:52 +0200 Anthony Atkielski
(anthony@atkielski.com) wrote:
> Sure. Slides sacrifice detail at the extremes in order to make the
> dynamic
> range in the middle more detailed and realistic.
Which was the point I was trying to get across. Information that is
sacrificed has gone forever.
> The total amount of
> image
> information recorded, however, is the same.
We were not talking about the film's capacity for information storage, but
its capacity for information capture, as above. If you want to digress to a
discussion of information storage capacity, tranny has a greater capacity
for tonal resolution thanks to its wider range of dye densities.
> > Believe me, the original scene was not like that
> > thru' the viewfinder.
>
> Actually it was; it's just that your eye adjusted as it moved between
> areas
> of sharply different luminosities. Unfortunately, film can't do that.
The adaptive properties of the eye are nothing to do with this. Reality
does not exhibit blown highlights and blocked shadows, light meters do not
suddenly whiz off the scale to infinity nor plunge to zero.
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
