[rollei_list] Re: Slide film is still alive
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "New Rollei List" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:19:54 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: [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
>
What kind of digital, or rather electronic, projectors
are you talking about? I think maybe people are assuming
facts not in evidence. I don't think digital theater
projectors use LCD's.
In any case, since careless setup can apply equally to
film and electronic projection any inherent quality
difference should still apply. Note that electronic means
still requires an old fashioned lens. If one fixes
keystoning or other geometric problems by distorting the
image to compensate its still not going to compensate for
the fact that the image plane, object plane, and lens are
not parallel so there will certainly be variations of focus,
hence resolution, across the picture.
I suppose that viewing with a proper optical viewer,
that is, one which allows binocular vision and has proper
illumination with no flare, is superior to projection.
Unfortunately, few projectors (I don't know of any) have
adjustments to allow parallelism of the optical path where
the projector can not be exactly on axis to the screen.
Note, the old editorial building at Fox still stands.
Its made of explosion proof re-inforced concrete, maybe even
poured ferroconcrete. All the little editing vaults now have
digital editing stuff in them. I think this building is so
strong that demolishing it would cost a fortune, so its
still there.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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:
