Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: digital/film comparisons

Subject: [OM] Re: digital/film comparisons
From: ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:14:01 -0400
Oh, I quite agree and have often stated in this forum that I prefer to
look at/judge image quality based on prints, not on screen views,
regardless of how high the resolution might be.  I struggle to grasp
to what degree the screen image predicts the printed image.

Any image on a computer screen is, regardless of origin, digital.

Reminds me of a story . . .

When one of the iterations of Star Wars was released in analog AND
digital, I called the local Star theatre that was showing it and
happened to reach the manager.  They had made a huge investment in
digital projection equipment and he was very unhappy with the whole
process.  Turns out they were refunding lots of tickets because
patrons were complaining about lack of clarity and headaches caused by
viewing the digifilm.  And this was state of the art set up,
installed, calibrated and tested by the company that developed the
system.  From what I've heard, such problems occurred throughout the
U.S. and most theatres removed the digi-systems and replaced them with
opticals.  In fact, I don't know if any other movies have been release
to theatres in digital format.

Others here have Serious Experience with motion picture technology;
any comments?

ScottGee1

On 10/4/06, Bill Pearce <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
==============================================

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