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
