I would really, really, REALLY have to see final prints of all the digital
manipulation to conclude that "it" is "just like" the various film emulsions.
There are ALWAYS trade-offs, some of which are not measurable. Not to say
that some trade-offs are not more than acceptable for a specific application.
But this all reminds me of the 1982(?) introduction of the CD: "Perfect
sound forever!"
How many improvements to 16/44.1 CD players have there been? And what is the
current CD standard for "perfect sound"?
Earl
On Thursday 13 May 2004 21:03, you wrote:
> On May 13, 2004, at 5:10 PM, Philippe Le Zuikomane wrote:
> > Am I making any sense, or could one argue that switching between types
> > and brands of film is tantamount to operating with a variety of
> > opto-chemical sensors? I would feel a little limited by one sensor in
> > a camera body. {Phil}
>
> True, but unless you are talking about variable processing the
> "opto-chemical sensors" have a fixed response, which you could modify
> of course with post processing. The digital sensor's response is
> remarkably variable both with built-in software/hardware as well as
> post processing. So it is somewhat different. What you may find
> interesting is that you can load custom processing curves into some
> digital cameras that mimic the response curves of various films like
> Velvia or Provia, or you can do it afterword as an action in Photoshop.
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
>
>
> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
> List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|