[rollei_list] Re: Slide film is still alive

Jim/Austin -

From an engineer's POV you may well be right, but from that of the
practitioner/artists with which I work with, there is no contest. You
are not accounting for the receiving end of the exchange; projection
is a very non-critical display medium because commonly almost no one
is even at ortho viewing conditions when projecting; thus it is rather
non-critical relative to resolution. In contrast, a typically loupe
provides much higher effective mag.  Brightness is much more of a
factor on the "wow" end of the equation, and here there is no contest.
Contrast... the eye cannot distinguish between 4 stops and 6 stops, it
looks for the relative number of tones, and digital does just fine
here. And you did not speak to all the other production factors which
digital allows that make for a high-end presentation with real
impact...

I love film as much or more than the next guy, but even to most of the
most devout film-makers, digital post-production and projection is the
way to go. They'll shoot on negative, and then it is all digital from
there...


Eric Goldstein

--

On 2/23/08, Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I believe Austin is correct. From my experience and from the simple
>  physics of it, transmitting light 'through' a large piece of film vs
>  projecting a bright LCD image, well, the film image wins every time.
>  The dynamic range / density range visible on the screen trumps the
>  projected LCD image. When we view 6x6 film vs digital projection
>  (workshop critique) it is at our local dealer (pro shop) so the
>  projector used is the best that they sell, a Canon that has a street
>  price of around $7000. They actually do not sell a lot of these but
>  when compared with the $1000-$2000 projectors, this projectors stands
>  wins handily. So I guess if one had unlimited funds, one might be able
>  to buy a digital projection set-up that might compete with 6x6 film
>  projection. But I still have my doubts. It's like looking at a
>  projected slide vs looking at a print. The transmitted image has a
>  huge dynamic range. The print doesn't. I can attest to this because I
>  print a lot of my 6x6 images - the same images that I have projected.
>
>
>  Jim
>
>
>
>
>  On Feb 23, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>  > Hi Eric,
>  >
>  > Your observations have me curious (and you're surprised, eh? ;-)
>  > I'd like
>  > to understand more about what you've seen.  Stereo not withstanding,
>  > since
>  > I've never seen it.
>  >
>  > If you have any info on high resolution projectors that are above
>  > 1400 x
>  > 1050 (the highest I could find on B&H, though I didn't ferret all that
>  > hard...but it was $11k!), I'd like to know.  Clearly, a 6x6 slide
>  > has far
>  > more resolution than that.  Certainly resolution isn't everything
>  > when it
>  > comes to image quality, but at least in the resolution category, I
>  > don't
>  > find any $10k and below projectors that even come close.
>  >
>  > At least for the digital projectors I've designed (which was a
>  > decade ago),
>  > they work nearly identical to a typical slide projector.  They go
>  > bulb ->
>  > imager -> lense, with possibly condensers and mirrors as well.  IOW,
>  > the
>  > only difference in the two is the slide is replaced by an LCD
>  > imager.  Do
>  > you know if it is done any differently in the ones you've seen?  If
>  > their
>  > architecture is as similar, as I expect, then if a digital projector
>  > is
>  > brighter than a slide projector, it's because of a brighter light
>  > source.
>  > The B&H $11k projector uses a 250W bulb, as does the Rollei 66
>  > projector, so
>  > any increase in brightness between these two is due to the imager/
>  > slide, but
>  > would be at a density price (next paragraph).  Optically, the issues
>  > should
>  > be identical, except for the difference in film/imager size.
>  >
>  > The density range of the imagers I've seen is typically far less
>  > than that
>  > of a slide, though there may be some high end ones I don't know
>  > about.  The
>  > highest end one at B&H that I saw was 800:1, or a D of 2.9.  Slides
>  > are
>  > typically much higher than that, 3.2 to 4.2 or even higher.
>  >
>  > It would seem to reason, at least based on resolution and density
>  > range,
>  > that dollar for dollar, MF slide projection is probably far better
>  > than MF
>  > digital projection.
>  >
>  > Out of curiosity, have you seen a Hasselblad projector in use?  I've
>  > got an
>  > older Rollei one that is pretty decent, but from my experience, the
>  > Hasselblad one is much better.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > Austin
>
>  ---
>
> Rollei List
>
>  - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>  - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>  in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
>  - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>  'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
>  - Online, searchable archives are available at
>  http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: