[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

["Mats Petersson" <mats.petersson@btconnect.com>]

Brian wrote:
> > In "practical" way of comparing, out put from DSLR and Film/Slide are
> > converted to some other form(Print) and then compared. This is not a
> > direct comparison of DSLR v/s Film/Slide. Other than using print as
> > for comparison, I do not know any other (experimental)way of comparing
> > it.
>
>Fellow Listreaders:
>
>We also must consider that inkjet output is not the ONLY end use
>our images will have. For those of us who's images wind up on the
>printed page or as output to some other device, we need ways of
>seeing how our images will appear.
>
>I have often wondered if there is some piece of software that will
>simulate this. Does anybody know of anything?


I have a hard time figuring how you could do that, but it would of course
be handy to have a way of simulating different printing methods on
different materials etc. It probably exists.

On the other hand, seeing as almost everything other than "wet darkroom
pictures" would be produced via a computer, it's only the actual printing
process that is different. Ok, so the way that a offset print is produced
is quite different from a ink-jet printed page. But that should be a fairly
well-known scenario for those familiar with the printing process, and as
far as I understand, the rules for printing via offset or some other
method, is very similar. You translate square (or rectangular) pixels to
different size dots (or drops in the Inkjet) that are representing the
darkness of the image in three, four, six or seven different base colours,
and then use this to recreate the original colour more or less sucessfully.

But the quality of the print will ultimately come down to two things: The
quality of the original pixels (i.e. if the data is good in each pixel),
and how many pixels you have. But more pixels aren't going to help if they
don't add useful information (good data). If the pixels are just "more",
then it's not going to produce a better print.

Someone had a fair comment that the Drum scan was obviously much better
than the "homescan". But then that drum-scan also cost $300, which isn't
much if the print is going to the centrefold in a big magazine that pays a
great amount of money for it, but it's not what you do to print a 16" x 20"
to sell in the local art dealers (unless you can get lots of  money for
your print, and/or you sell hundreds of them).

I'd love to have a 1Ds (or a 1D for that matter), but the cost is a bit
prohibitive for me, unfortunately. It would pay for itself eventually,
seeing as a single (negative) film is about $7 including processing, and
the motorcycle race meetings I go to uses about 5-10 films per day. It
would be nice to not have to spend every evening for a week or two scanning
too... ;-)

--
Mats

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