Re: DSLR vs. Drum/PMT gamut
Re: DSLR vs. Drum/PMT gamut
- Subject: Re: DSLR vs. Drum/PMT gamut
- From: Sam Landry <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:54:28 -0700
Hi Douglas,
You wrote:
The ICC profiles for various digital cameras out there, be they profiles for
tungsten, day, or any other lighting scenario, consistently have
significantly more volume that the profiles from my drum scanner for various
film, Fuji, Agfa, Kodak.
Older drum scanner can be set in a seemingly infinite set of settings that would warrant profiles for each. There is a great article from Don Hutchison in PDF format.
http://www.hutchcolor.com/CMS_notes.html Click on "Scanning Guide"
As you will see, those measly few digital color settings could be dwarfed with the variation of conventional film. Imagine all of the profiles needed to offset every exposure, lighting or chemical processing variation applied by conventional film photography. That is if you were to match the photographed subject. (Many thanks to Don for his experience and research as well as the development of these procedures).
This is true in that digital cameras cannot control the temperature of lighting conditions (Kelvin). A scanner can and does. The fact of the matter is that an older high-end drum scanner can do amazing things to change color, density. Etc. However, the older drum scanners had the most control in the analog side of the process, and are designed to change the final color of the scan to “something better”. Newer scanners are designed around the fact that 16 bit color and lots of control in newer software will achieve the same thing. Some would argue all day on these points, and this posting may generate some interesting discussions. :^) What are the chances that the photograph represents a match to the subject that was photographed? Most resign to matching the original as a starting place. As you can see, matching the photograph is not always the intent of the final reproduction. Then you go into the digital world for corrections.
Taking only my observations from this exercise, one could deduce the
only advantage a drum scanner has over a digital camera is it's resolving
power.
This resolving power is over the accuracy or quality of a conventional photograph while it is being scanned.
What is going on?
Does a DSLR have the ability to capture a greater color space than Fuji
Velvia for example
The “Mechanics’’ of film are very limiting. The older drum scanners were painstakingly engineered to offset these mechanical obstacles. The answer to your question is that the newer CCD CMOS technologies (and what ever is coming down the pike) of the “DSLR” have a greater advantage over encapsulated dyes that are ruptured by light and chemistry on a piece of substrate. As far as all of that film that is populating cabinets all over the world, as it sets, is a pretty cost effective and sure way of archiving them as they are. You would of course need a good scanner to use them in the modern world.
Sigh! Scanners: Can’t live with them and you can’t live without them. :^)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden