Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Scanning slides vs. negs (was How many pixels in a 35mm film im

Subject: Re: [OM] Scanning slides vs. negs (was How many pixels in a 35mm film image)
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 23:11:09 +0800
Your words about "scanning film is still not mature" triggered me to think
about the film printing process, the digital age is already started and
traditional film printing's day is counting but the film printing process is
still very disappointing, as least many of us has poor experience in
printing labs. Although they are one hour labs but the equipment has been
developed for many years and they are professional equipment, why the
results are still not satisfying? Is the basic reason the nature of
negative? is it inherent hard to print? When will the scanning and printing
be mature?

To me shooting slide and scanning slide is more predictable, I
can get them output with much better result. It is not emotional, negative
definitely has its limitation. I don't think I have not spent enough time
in learning how to scan negative, I have a film scanner since 1993 and
at that time I shoot 900f negative. I think I can master it to some
extend may be I'm a bit slow in learning but slide is just more straight
forward.

BTW, in my web site I still have many photos that were scanned from
negative.

http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/index.shtml

C.H.Ling


----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:17 AM
Subject: [OM] Scanning slides vs. negs (was How many pixels in a 35mm film
image)


> A couple of years of reading this list hs convinced me that both ease of
> use and quality of results in scanning film are highly variable across
> hardware, software and wetware. Film scanning is not a mature consumer
> technology like bicycles, automobiles, water faucets, door knobs, etc.,
> where virtually anyone fimiliar with the operation of some examples can
> readily use different examples with fully satisfactory results.
>
> Some of us report that slides are easier than negs. Others report that
> negs are easy, but slides 'impossible', and so on.  The basic process,
> reading light intensity of 3 colors, is inherently neutral to whether
> the subject is a positive or negative image of the light reflected from
> some scene elsewhere in space-time, scrawlings on a piece of clear
> plastic, coffee stains on newspaper, etc. etc.
>
> Some observations from my experience and reading about the experiences
> of others:
>
> It seems likely to me that all curent, major brand scanners are capable
> of equal quality results from either form of film.
>
> The time to make one scanning pass is the same for either form of film.
>
> Noise in the dark areas of finished scans/prints is more
> noticable/annoying than in the light areas. Thus slides are more
> sensitive to scanner noise at high source densities than are negs. and
> may require more scanning passes or lower noise scanners to produce
> visually equal results from scenes with substantial very dark areas. On
> my particular scanner, slides with dark areas may take longer than negs
> because of the need for multiple passes. This is apparently less of an
> issue with some of the latest scanners.
>
> The software that runs the scanner can make a big difference in results.
> Vuescan gives better results with my scanner than the software provided
> with it.
>
> Preferrences and predjudices often affect how people perceive the world.
> Two people using the same hardware and software may experience the
> process and results quite differently:
>
> A person who is emotionally predisposed to feel slides are superior may
> be perfectly happy spending several hours learning how to get excellent
> scanning results from slides and feel rewarded by the effort. Presented
> with the need to scan negative film, towards which he/she has
> emotionally negative feelings, a few minutes spent learning to get the
> (possibly unconsciously) expected unsatisfactory results may lead to the
> emotionally satisfying conclusion that negs are harder to scan and give
> poorer results. The reverse scenario will be played out by other
> individuals. Although speculative as to any one of us, these kinds of
> factors underly enormous portions of human behavior. Without them the
> whole business of branding and advertising would be almost
> unrecognizably different.
>
> Moose
>



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz