[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints

["" <derek_c@cix.co.uk>]

Of course each pixel of a scanned film has all three colours faithfully
reproduced.

The interesting question though is what that pixels's actual colour was?

Unlike a camera, a film scan records something that has already been
sampled into RGB, that's what film does!

Yes the film grain is much smaller, and randomly scattered to boot.

Sample aliasing means that each scanned pixel overlaps a number of film
grain dye images, each an individual R G or B. So the pixel itself is
effectively just an average like a Bayer filter pixel quad is an average.

So it seems to me that there is no real moral high ground there, film
scanning is just as much an averaging process as a Bayer camera.

In article <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJMEMNIHAB.austin@darkroom.com>,
austin@darkroom.com (Austin Franklin) wrote:

> Roger,
>
> So what if it's second generation?  Unless you can analyze the fidelity
> of
> it to make claims from, that's simply an argument that has no teeth.
>
> Fact is, digicam pixels have some %66 of the red, %66 of the blue and
> %50 of
> the green data interpolated.  Scanned film data does not.  It has all
> three
> color values as original information.  So, second generation or not, the
> fidelity (which is what is important) of the data from scanned film far
> outweighs digicam data of the same "resolution".
>
> How good the scanned data is, depends a lot on how good the original
> film
> image is, as well as how good the scanner/operator is.  Not all scanners
> scan 4000 PPI the same.
>
> Even if you recorded Ozzie live with your 8 track tape recorder, my nth
> generation CD will have a far higher fidelity.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

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