[LRflex] Re: DMR question .

OK guys let me throw another monkey wrench into the discussion here. The 
computer and Tv are very quickly joining forces. What I'm curious is instead of 
projecting from your computer to digital projector, what would the results be 
if output were directed to a high def plasma screen TV?
  And I also have my worries about digital storage of my pictures--anybody out 
there still using 5.5 floppies? 
David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Jerry Lehrer wrote:

>Bill,
>
>Wow! You spent over a kilobuck for slide processing, right? Can I assume
>that you do the same with slides as I do? Project them with a Leica projector?
>
>Now if you go digital, WTF would you do to equal that? When using digital,
>you would have to make prints, right? I have seen the best digital projectors,
>
>and their results would make me sick. There is nothing to equal a good 35mm
>slide, except a 6x6cm Hasselblad or Rolleiflex side.
>
>For prints, I am sure that digital will approach equality with color negative
>film.
>
>Jerry
> 
>
G'Mornin' Jerry!

You are right... nothing equals a good slide, and digital projectors 
are, at this stage, lousy.

However, digital shots, when displayed on a good monitor, have a 
luminosity which is very close to a slide. After all, the light is 
coming from behind the image, and shadow detail lost in prints is quite 
visible on the screen. Of course, it's a rather small 'screen', as 
compared to a projector's' screen, but then, how many folks look at 
slides these days?

I know that about 10 years ago, I moved to colour neg film, simply 
because nobody, not even my ex, wanted to look at my slides. Bring out 
the projector and they run! Yet, put an album in front of them, and 
they'll happily browse through the photos - sometimes for hours!

It's probably true, that digital might not equal a good slide... though 
I believe that DM-R shots on a screen, can comes close. At print sizes 
of 12"x18" or less, top line digital images can certainly equal the best 
results from film when printed.

As Tim Bedsted said:

>To me the really tragic thing about digital is the digital P&S cameras. I have 
>yet to see pictures comparable to what one can obtain with old P&S film based 
>cameras, and lets face it the vast majority of human content/historic pictures 
>are taken with such instruments.
> 
>
This is sad, because most folks take photos to preserve the memories of 
their kids and holidays. Not only is low priced digital not up to the 
quality standards of P&S film based cameras, the images take more effort 
to store. You need to write a CD-Rom and then re-copy it to fresh media 
or new formats every 3 to 4 years. If you do, there is no reason that 
digital images should not survive for a very long time. The sad truth, 
however, is that people put their slides and negatives away and never 
touch them for a decade or more. Then, they dig them out and have some 
prints made. With black and white, that's fine if they're simply kept 
dry. With colour negs/slides it *may* be fine, depending on the storage 
methods and original film choice. But for digital, it's not so fine. 
Those photos are simply not going to be there for them. :-( Very sad, 
indeed.

Just some random thoughts from a randomly organized brain.

Cheers!

-- 
David Young,
Logan Lake, BC 
CANADA. 

Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
  



------  >--
Regards
YXAndy


------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: