[rollei_list] Re: Slide film is still alive
- From: "Austin Franklin" <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:55:24 -0500
Hi Eric,
> 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.
I was speaking from my experience as well as understanding the dynamics of
the system.
> 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.
There is a distinct difference in the MF projection shows I've seen
(compared to 35mm, and compared to digital), as the images are really large,
and lower resolution would certainly (and does) show.
> Brightness is much more of a
> factor on the "wow" end of the equation, and here there is no contest.
Hum. They both are using the same wattage lamps...and perhaps the LCD, not
having a good low end of the density range, might give a brighter
projection. By how much, I'm not sure. But, knowing LCD displays (which is
what is used, they just don't use the backlighting and project directly
through the LCD, unless using a DMD, which gives ever lower color fidelity),
I'm hard pressed to believe the transparency of the LCD is better than that
of film, so you'll get a shift on that end of the scale as well.
> 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.
I'm not sure about that. 4 stops is only a density range of 1.2, and 6
stops is a density range of 1.8. That sure is awful low...
> And you did not speak to all the other production factors which
> digital allows that make for a high-end presentation with real
> impact...
Well, if it was done right on the film in the first place... ;-) But that
argument doesn't work for typical slide projection that, at least, I would
do. I don't do any post production stuff to my images, they print and
project just fine as they are shot...typically. I'd prefer to spend my time
doing other things than futzing around with images in PS, where an extra few
seconds up front solves the problem. In fact, I'd prefer to go to
Woodman's!
> 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.
Sure, but I don't think the reason is because of higher fidelity imaging,
I'd say it's because of ease of post processing. Converting back from
digital to film is not practical, and leaving it in digital is.
Sounds like we need Jim to put on a slide show for us ;-)
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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
