As the old joke goes, we are in agreement; now we're just quibbling over price... ;-) Thanks QG, Bob Bob Adler Palo Alto, CA rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx http://www.raflexions.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@xxxxxxxxxx> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:26:50 AM Subject: [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.