[filmscanners] Re: Digi, film and scanning in movies

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

George,

Were you potty trained too early, by chance?

The common usage, by everyone including every film manufacturer and just
about everyone else who works in this industry , is indeed "grain" when
referring to color films.  The image does indeed start out in the
exposure process as a grain of silver halide, which indeed also
determines the size of the image producing component.  Yes, the actual
silver is bleached out and what is left on the film is "organic dye
clouds".  You must be the ONLY person who doesn't know that when grain
is referred to in color films, it refers to the resultant dye-clouds.
I'm sorry the complexity of that transition cannot readily take place in
your mind, and that it so bends you out of shape.

I'd imagine you must lead a rather stressful existence in a world where
  people use generalization and creative language to simplify concepts.

Is there anyone else on this list who did not understand what Frank
meant when he referred to "fine grain" relative to color film?

Perhaps, if you are so concerned about the misuse of this term, you
should mount a campaign against the film manufacturers first.

Art

George Harrison wrote:
>>I took the G3 out on a hike with my Nikon F100 loaded with Kodak Portra
>>UC, which although touted as fine-grain for a 400 ASA film, is still
>>fairly grainy.
>
>
> Why do you refer to "grain" when there is NO grain at all in a processed
> colour negative?
>
> It's not only wrong it is misleading.
>
>
> George Harrison
>
>

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