[HUG ] Re: tripods

Bob Adler wrote:


You are absolutely correct from a techincal standpoint. But I believe
there is still a problem with comparing digital camera files to scanned
negatives on a purely technical basis. Software must interpret what is
scanned into what you see.
Once they are pixels, the software used to display the image doesn't know or care where the pixels come from. "All pixels are created equal" as far as the process of displaying is concerned. You can add extra info, instructing the software to treat pixels differently though.
I've been scanning Velvia on a Nikon 9000 for years now, and I believe that the color fidelity is better on my Canon DSLR than on these scanned images. 
My scanned images were about 400MB in size.


That was my point.
A 400 MB file could contain a certain amount of data. And that could be good, or bad data, or even empty space (Our Nikon scanners, for instance, do not produce 16 bits per pixel. So depending on how they arrange the bits and byes in the file, some of those 400 MB may well be empty.) But whether good colour, bad colour or no colour at all, a 4000x4000 pixel image always is 4000x4000 pixel large. 




=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: