[filmscanners] Re: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

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

At 01:16 AM 2/4/2003, you wrote:
>Interestingly, in this month's Shutterbug Jay Abend does a 1ds vs. film
>comparison on a
>live job (to be used as a 2-page spread), and finds that though he admits
>that the  film
>has better resolution, he liked the proof off the digicam file better.
>This test is under
>very different conditions than luminous landscape--in a studio, stopped
>down well into
>diffraction-limited territory.
>
>To me this means inadequate adjustment of the film file--if you like the
>file with less
>resolution better, unless it's an instance where a soft-focus filter would
>have been
>appropriate (and it wasn't), the only really important issue left is
>tonality and color
>rendition. If your raw scan doesn't have blown out highlights or shadows
>any deficiency in
>color /tonal content falls on the shoulders of the operator, not film itself.
>
>Andre wrote:

I've been thinking about this for a few days now: Am I right in thinking
that the film grain size is in the same order of magnitude as the
scanners  sensor? Ok, so it may be a few times smaller, like 2-4 times
smaller, but we're not talking of 100 times smaller, right?

If the above thinking is correct, I can also see the possibility of the
scanner having interference patterns depending on how the grain and the CCD
cells line up, such that the borders of something that is very sharp on the
film itself is not necessarily going to have as sharp a border on the
scanned result, because of this interference?

This is just me thinking out loud, so I could have:
1) Misunderstood something.
2) Got the grain size/CCD cell size wrong.
3) All of the above wrong...

Obviously, the CCD in a digicam would not have a interference problem of
this kind, only unsharpness would be caused by the original light hitting
the CCD on the border between two cells, but this would be the same as
film-grain being "slightly" hit by light...

Anyone else having any thoughts?

To me, this debate is a bit pointless, as I'm normally using 400 ASA Fuji
Reala, which isn't exactly the finest grain available, but it's good enough
for my purposes in most cases. I tend to take most of my photos at
race-tracks with motorcycles, and this forces fast film as well as steady
hand for holding the 400 mm lens... And the result still needs cropping
down to work nicely in the end.

--
Mats

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