[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Austin Franklin wrote:

>

>>is
>>indistinguishable from the original, projected side by side at
>>approx 6 feet wide.
>>
>
> Understood, and I'd say you're probably %100 right, but that's projection,
> which really doesn't allow for the most critical viewing.  Now, not that
> that doesn't work perfectly for some applications, that's not in question.
>


Yes, that can be the "rub"... If you are using Kodak projection lenses,
you might as well be shooting through "Vaseline" coated lenses.

I was amazed what I discovered in projection settings once I sprang for
some Navitar Gold lenses.  I have never quite understood this, quite
honestly.  We pay a minor fortune on top quality 35mm lenses for our
cameras and then project the slide results with lenses from the "dark
ages" (excuse the pun)...


> Since I'm a B&W person (in a photographic sense at least), I will be using
> film for a while.


At least, and, I suspect, in many more ways ;-)

I'm wondering if there are currently available either black and white
digital film backs or or digital cameras.  I'd think that a true
non-(Bayer pattern matrix) filtered CCD could produce a pretty nice high
res black and white image digitally.  Is there such a beast and has
anyone used one?

Art


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body