[rollei_list] Re: Slide film is still alive

  • From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:24:35 -0800

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.


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

Other related posts: