[rollei_list] Re: Slide film is still alive
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:19:47 -0500
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
> //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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
