On Wednesday 07 December 2005 4:45 pm, you wrote:
> I'm beginning to think proper film scanning is a Mystical Art rather
> than the Simple Science one would think it should be. I've seen some
> exceptionally fine examples both on the Web and in print. But those
> seem to be just that -- exceptions.
>
> I'm baffled as to why folks using identical equipment get very
> different results. If one person can use a Canoscan 4000 and do
> justice to film, why can't the second person do the same? Scanning
> seems a mechanical, repeatable operation very different from the
> creative, individual use of a camera. Perhaps the exposure and/or
> processing the film is a significant variable? Or the film itself?
>
> ScottGee1
I've experienced the same kind of frustration. I have a feeling that
there
are a lot of varibles that are significant some of the time and not others. I
think there is a big interaction between picture detail, grain, scanner
pixels, software and printer pixels. I've had an easy time scanning one frame
on a roll and a difficult time scanning another.
Part of the problem is film is optimised for chemical processes from
begining
to end. Digital is optimized from the begining to end to treat a picture as a
bunch of bytes.
I have a feeling there is a lot of sensitivity to small changes in
converting
from the random pattern CMY color space of film to the raster pattern CMY of
a scanner(or is it RGB) to the dot pattern CMYK of a printer.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|