Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] RE: grain
- To: lexa@lexa.ru
- Subject: [filmscanners] RE: grain
- From: "" <robg@wordweb.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 11:15:42 +1000
- In-reply-to: <3EF7683B002F1E03@mta2.wss.scd.yahoo.com> (added by postmaster@mail.san.yahoo.com)
- Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk
"George Harrison" <gh50@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Why do you refer to "grain" when there is NO
> grain at all in a processed colour negative?
I went through this argument when I was trying to discuss the issue of grain
aliasing on the list years ago. Yes, I know there are pedants who want
to be precise about these things, but it's painful writing "apparent grain"
instead of just "grain". I think it's not unreasonable to assume that
regardless
of the cause of the "grain" we're seeing, it's simpler just to call it grain.
Rob
-------------
How do you know if you never try?
(Rob Geraghty 25 June 2002)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
|
