On 18.07.01 21:41, "Jochum Berg" <email@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
> --
Jochum
I don't share your opinion regarding 35mm film and a scanner (I have used
both and I know the results), and I have explained that, not by numbers and
names but just by looking to the final medium (VR).
Perhaps I am wrong by prefering a digital camera like a D1 for VR work, but
this is the way I like it.
So please! let me be wrong.
Santiago
------------------------
Santiago Ribas
http://www.sribascad.comhttp://www.360portugal.com
email@hidden
email@hidden
