I know almost no one here agrees with me, but let me put my thoughts in
another way:
Let's compare this with AG's digital/analog comparisons. If I compare a CD
with a CD reissue of a vinyl record, is the comparison fair? Does anyone
make this comparison? I can hear the tweeks and the golden ears screaming
already. Yet this is exactly what we do when we compare scanned film with
digital.
I know this makes web comparisons impossible, but we don't make our audio
decisions on the basis of emailed mp3 files, either.
I still prefer an optical print of film to anything else. It has a character
all its own, and I think it goes back to AG's point about position. I've
examined scan and print results everywhere from long viewing distances to
under a magnifier, and there is a difference from an optical print. The scan
and print (everything from Noritsu to Durst to Lightjet) looks sublty
smeared.
I just don't see how you can make a sound judgement when both options are in
so many ways the same.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|