|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Santiago You wrote refering to me before: > If you didn't use "Right" in your text, I would not have to defend my teory > and blabla bla bla bla... -blabla bla bla bla... its three bla too much, it is real close that I should take this as you are impolite, since its You I belive its only a slip on the keyboard, or? You shall know, with all respect, that if someone writes to hundreds of people on this list in the headline that someone else has "wrong" you must expect that the target of that will answere, I think everyone should, if then someone meet these polite argument with "blabla bla bla bla" is not only something we did in kindergarten but shows also that the argument runs short. Though you know I also have problem to express myself all correctly in english here I suppose the same _could_ sometime happens for You, so until I receive a explanation I consider this to only be a "slip" or that our different language-background makes me misunderstanding you. > In numbers prehaps you have more "tonal-range" etc etc with your film > camera, but than again you have to face THE Scanner, and end up with a final > image that is a poor copy of the original, before facing THE realtime > decompression. -These numbers are not only "numbers", the numbers are a measurement of and reflect the reality and if the number says something have better tonal-range then it must say something about the performance! Facing the scanner I _can_ if I _want_ scan with 36bit colors in 2700dpi get some number more "tonal-range" and resolution then a digital I'm almost sure of, on top of that I can change the scanners lightsetting so it gets optimum to darker areas or bright windows, I have a lot more of tonal space to squeese out info from so I dont have to travel and reshoot the place if it is badly exposed. The "realtime decompression" I am unsure what exactly you mean? > In my opinion the difference between both (35mm film and good quality > digital cameras) "if exists" is so little that does not justify all the > films, scanning, ASA change etc etc involved in the process.....that ends > with a small window showing a real time moving image with a 25-50% > compression. -Yes, that the differense can be small and not justify the more work involved with film, (however it is not much work to never change ASA, I always shoot with 100ASA) its your opinion and thats OK, I cant say this is wrong, note that I never had said that, this was not the issue how convenient it is with digital, what I only wrote was that film are better on this very narrow field of matter tonal range and that must be seen in the result depending on some factors. If it is worth all the job to bring forth a chair from the shadows I have no opinion of. I think this is not a major advantage for film. It is only because you wrote I had wrong I continue with this boring and timeconsuming writing. Though relevant to this I can add I make also panoramas for CD and use on my computer and these panos windows are about 640 wide and compressed with 50% jpeg and I am quite certain there will be a noticeable but small difference in advantage to film. -- Regards/ email@hidden
Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
Copyright © 2011 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.