8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

Jon Pike posted:
"BC" wrote in news:1102685610.504238.45520
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Jon Pike wrote:

If you check more carefully, you will find that the enlarger and
its
lens is *not* a perfect device either. Some of its problems are
*identical* to the problems faced by the scanner designer (lens
imperfections, film flatness issues, alignment of film carrier
etc.)

Never said it was perfect, but they -are- the best we have right now
for
all practical purposes, and they -do- show much more detail than any
scans
I've seen to date.

As I've pointed out earlier, there are obvious reasons why the optics
in scanners, especially drum scanners, have a significant advantage
over enlarging lenses. Can you point to any well done study that
actually proves that traditional enlarging is "the best we have right
now for all practical purposes". Every time I've ever heard a
statement like that it sounds like wishful thinking without any basis
in experimental fact.

Simple.
No scanner anywhere can clearly resolve actual grain. Or grain clumps. Or
whatever the hell you want to call it.
Enlarger lenses can.


Hmm. 3 microns is pretty close (according to this site
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html):

And this scanner goes to 3 microns:
http://www.aztek.com/Products/Premier.htm

And this one's probably even better:
http://www.screenusa.com/products.cf...&sub_nav=specs

The question still remains - What for? How many images can I store on
my computer @ approx. 5 GB each?!?

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Jon Pike wrote:

... "proof" doesn't mean "it looks better to me!"
It means quantified, measured results.

Not necessarily. One major pattern in the history
of science is consensus theory. Even mathematical
proofs often require years or even decades of
discussion and peer review before they're commonly
accepted. Photography is a visual perceptive art,
and the highest standards therein are not scientific,
but esthetic, unless you're creating forensic documents.
Despite the "number of grains per square millimeter"
factor, if this has a negative or zero effect on
esthetic considerations, in the judgment of respected
peers, then the "scientific" opinion will be biased
toward the esthetic side.

The philosophy of science is nowhere near as
positively logical as you presume it to be. There
are still raging debates as to what constitutes
"scientific" judgment, what is the basis for calling
an opinion valid, and in fact, who is a "scientist."
Your insistence on eliminating all arguments that
do not adhere to your numerical, logical, naive
(in the technical sense) and positivist approach
actually places you in a very narrow band of
scientific thinking, and one which is for all practical
purposes, extremely narrow and obsolete.

There are a number of scholars of science and
philosophy who would say your statement above
is 100% incorrect. A group of respected photographers,
agreeing that one group of photographs "look better
to me" than another group, in one major slice
of modern scientific theory, would take precedence
over your "quantified, measured results."

What you are describing is not the end of science,
it is but one tool of science, and you confuse the two.

Jon Pike wrote:

... "proof" doesn't mean "it looks better to me!"
It means quantified, measured results.

Not necessarily. One major pattern in the history
of science is consensus theory. Even mathematical
proofs often require years or even decades of
discussion and peer review before they're commonly
accepted. Photography is a visual perceptive art,
and the highest standards therein are not scientific,
but esthetic, unless you're creating forensic documents.
Despite the "number of grains per square millimeter"
factor, if this has a negative or zero effect on
esthetic considerations, in the judgment of respected
peers, then the "scientific" opinion will be biased
toward the esthetic side.

The philosophy of science is nowhere near as
positively logical as you presume it to be. There
are still raging debates as to what constitutes
"scientific" judgment, what is the basis for calling
an opinion valid, and in fact, who is a "scientist."
Your insistence on eliminating all arguments that
do not adhere to your numerical, logical, naive
(in the technical sense) and positivist approach
actually places you in a very narrow band of
scientific thinking, and one which is for all practical
purposes, extremely narrow and obsolete.

There are a number of scholars of science and
philosophy who would say your statement above
is 100% incorrect. A group of respected photographers,
agreeing that one group of photographs "look better
to me" than another group, in one major slice
of modern scientific theory, would take precedence
over your "quantified, measured results."

What you are describing is not the end of science,
it is but one tool of science, and you confuse the two.

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

snip

Sorry, but what two numbers did you divide to get 10%? I've lost
track.

Then go back through the thread.

Too bad, it's too much trouble. I'll just ignore that number from now
on.

You've ignored it from the get-go. So really, there'll be no change. How
terribly scientific of you. Ignoring stuff that disagrees with what you
think. And for no reason.

How terribly scientific of you; refusing to give a reference for your
claim.

Oh, sorry, that was an insult, wasn't it? And scientists don't insult
people...

It seems like you're chosing to ignore
those pages. Why is that?

Because, as I recall, you were complaining about any reduction in
limiting spatial resolution as a serious loss of image detail. And
that's not clear at all.

You all seem to assume that the exact opposite is the case,

No, we just run the numbers

"run the numbers" ? you mean look at them?

No, I mean multiplying by all the MTF's between the scene and the
display, and then taking into account the spatial frequency content
of a typical image and the limits of human visual acuity.

and have serious doubts.

based on....
oh that's right. nothing.

No, based on the entire system, rather than one number.

You just keep
whining that there is some number that the digital cameras can't
match, and that means that film will give better images. And pick at
the details of any test that suggests otherwise. It would be easy to
shut us up by showing us results of a properly conducted test.

A much better test than roger's has already been posted to this thread.
It shows that unscanned film has much higher resolution than digital.
You've ignored it because it disagrees with what you say.

Again, no reference. The only comparisons I have seen showed, at best,
rough parity between film and digital. No matter what Marcus says.

and there's
no foundation to make that assumption whatsoever.
What we do know is there is a measurable loss of resolution,

Sigh.
and that is
-not- "noise," and it is -not- grain. Yet you choose to ignore it
anyway, because it goes against what you think.

Let's see. What I found

What YOU found? Where are YOUR tests then?

Well, if you missed them, why should I give you a pointer?

If these are 'scientific' findings of any sort, by all means, share with
us your methodology and your results. Don't just spout off numbers with
no support!

Look at the URL I posted early in the week:

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~wes...equencies.html

was at perhaps 2% modulation at 70
cycles/mm. Put that through a high-quality enlarging lens, and you get
perhaps 0.5%-1%. Seems reasonable to demand proof that that would
make a visible difference in a real image.

Yup, ignored that question again.

snip

Right. Any imperfection that *you* see in the technique invalidates
the results completely. Not that his results contradict any results
you have; it's only your opinion that conflicts.

that 10% wasn't what *I* saw, it was posted by someone else on someone
else's webpage after doing their own tests.

Huh? Wasn't your 10% based on some test by someone other than Roger?
So why do you attribute it to Roger? Or are you claiming that if one
person got slightly different numbers for limiting resolution (which
is a vague concept to begin with), that proves that all scanners
always destroy so much detail that any attempt to assess film
quantitatively by scanning an image is hopeless? That's quite a claim
to base on two numbers in a single table.

snip

No way. Ever tried to register a scanned image?

If it wasn't his image to begin with, he's got no right to put a 'c' on
it. It's that simple.

You keep harping on the plagiarism issue. If you don't believe that image
was plagiarized, don't bring it up.

And I guess you don't have experience with pixel-registering scanned
images. Take my word: his image wasn't scanned.

snip

Sorry, what do you mean by "screwed up"? The test is to look at the
image on your monitor and note whatever differences are visible
between the top half and the bottom. Either you can see the
difference, or you can't.

That's not testing anything with any degree of accuracy or precision.
It could be testing my monitor. It could be testing my resolution. It
could be testing my eyes. It could be testing the background EM
interference that might be jumbling up the image on my screen.
There are so many OTHER things that it could be 'testing' that it makes
the idea that it's testing only this ONE thing complete hogwash. That's
what I mean by "screwed up."

Ah, you looked at the image and couldn't see a difference, so you
attack the test. If there is so much wrong with your viewing
conditions that you can't see a 14% reduction in MTF, you need to fix
things, don't you? After all, 10% is unacceptable loss to you, and you
keep claiming that it would cause a visible difference in the image. I
don't believe that, because there is no evidence (e.g. images with and
without the loss to compare) to support it.

snip

Yes, I'm trying to change it to whether the imperfection you noted
would make any difference in the *result*.

If you don't stop trying to change the subject to suit your needs, you're
going to stop getting replies.

Not in this lifetime, Jon. You just live for the attention.

And the subject we were on was whether there was useful information on
Roger's site. Oh, and the whole digital vs. film silliness.

You really don't see the point, do you? If his technique was less than
perfect (and every real experiment or measurement is), we have to ask
the question, "How did this affect the results?"

snip

Actually, it's trying to test whether you can actually *see a
difference*. Which is a question that doesn't seem to matter to you.
What method do you use to evaluate image quality? Care to share some
frequency spectra for some of your best images?

*sigh*
if you can't see that it makes a huge difference whether I have a
1024x768 resolution on a 13 inch monitor vs a 640x480 resolution on a 22
inch monitor, you're really not even worth talking to anymore.

So what must I do to make the difference of 14% attenuation of the top
frequency visible in that image? I displayed it on my nice Sony
HDM-F500R monitor under good conditions and the degradation was
totally invisible.

As for "equivalent to 35mm", I suppose that no digital camera will
consistently give identical results to any 35mm still film camera.
But if we broaden that to "meeting the same requirement as 35mm",
it's clear that various digital cameras have done this for various
photographers, and not just those who accept a sacrifice in
quality.

If you want to reduce things to purely qualitative 'measures' and say
"well, it works for some people, and that's good enough for them"
then i'll agree with that 100%. My mother has a 3mp p&s canon camera,
one of those horrid little rectangles, and it works good enough for
her.

"not just those who accept a sacrifice in quality."

you're getting worse and worse...
if it's good enough for them, they're not sacrificing quality. They
probably don't really notice it anyway.

Didn't I post a URL or two so you could judge for yourself? You
probably didn't care to look and see whether these photographers seem
to care about quality. You would rather judge them by your assumptions.

snip

Unfortunately, I can't hang a theoretical equivalence on the wall, nor
can I project it on the screen. Mathematical tools can be useful, but
only as long as they are correlated to the desired result.

I think it's becoming clear now: you are interested in the numbers,
but not in what effect they have on the pictures.

Like I said, because that's what the original question was asking. You
wanna go start a different thread asking a different question, you go
right ahead. I won't be part of it because I don't engage in qualitative
mudslinging.

Right. Best laugh I've had all day, Jon.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

snip

Sorry, but what two numbers did you divide to get 10%? I've lost
track.

Then go back through the thread.

Too bad, it's too much trouble. I'll just ignore that number from now
on.

You've ignored it from the get-go. So really, there'll be no change. How
terribly scientific of you. Ignoring stuff that disagrees with what you
think. And for no reason.

How terribly scientific of you; refusing to give a reference for your
claim.

Oh, sorry, that was an insult, wasn't it? And scientists don't insult
people...

It seems like you're chosing to ignore
those pages. Why is that?

Because, as I recall, you were complaining about any reduction in
limiting spatial resolution as a serious loss of image detail. And
that's not clear at all.

You all seem to assume that the exact opposite is the case,

No, we just run the numbers

"run the numbers" ? you mean look at them?

No, I mean multiplying by all the MTF's between the scene and the
display, and then taking into account the spatial frequency content
of a typical image and the limits of human visual acuity.

and have serious doubts.

based on....
oh that's right. nothing.

No, based on the entire system, rather than one number.

You just keep
whining that there is some number that the digital cameras can't
match, and that means that film will give better images. And pick at
the details of any test that suggests otherwise. It would be easy to
shut us up by showing us results of a properly conducted test.

A much better test than roger's has already been posted to this thread.
It shows that unscanned film has much higher resolution than digital.
You've ignored it because it disagrees with what you say.

Again, no reference. The only comparisons I have seen showed, at best,
rough parity between film and digital. No matter what Marcus says.

and there's
no foundation to make that assumption whatsoever.
What we do know is there is a measurable loss of resolution,

Sigh.
and that is
-not- "noise," and it is -not- grain. Yet you choose to ignore it
anyway, because it goes against what you think.

Let's see. What I found

What YOU found? Where are YOUR tests then?

Well, if you missed them, why should I give you a pointer?

If these are 'scientific' findings of any sort, by all means, share with
us your methodology and your results. Don't just spout off numbers with
no support!

Look at the URL I posted early in the week:

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~wes...equencies.html

was at perhaps 2% modulation at 70
cycles/mm. Put that through a high-quality enlarging lens, and you get
perhaps 0.5%-1%. Seems reasonable to demand proof that that would
make a visible difference in a real image.

Yup, ignored that question again.

snip

Right. Any imperfection that *you* see in the technique invalidates
the results completely. Not that his results contradict any results
you have; it's only your opinion that conflicts.

that 10% wasn't what *I* saw, it was posted by someone else on someone
else's webpage after doing their own tests.

Huh? Wasn't your 10% based on some test by someone other than Roger?
So why do you attribute it to Roger? Or are you claiming that if one
person got slightly different numbers for limiting resolution (which
is a vague concept to begin with), that proves that all scanners
always destroy so much detail that any attempt to assess film
quantitatively by scanning an image is hopeless? That's quite a claim
to base on two numbers in a single table.

snip

No way. Ever tried to register a scanned image?

If it wasn't his image to begin with, he's got no right to put a 'c' on
it. It's that simple.

You keep harping on the plagiarism issue. If you don't believe that image
was plagiarized, don't bring it up.

And I guess you don't have experience with pixel-registering scanned
images. Take my word: his image wasn't scanned.

snip

Sorry, what do you mean by "screwed up"? The test is to look at the
image on your monitor and note whatever differences are visible
between the top half and the bottom. Either you can see the
difference, or you can't.

That's not testing anything with any degree of accuracy or precision.
It could be testing my monitor. It could be testing my resolution. It
could be testing my eyes. It could be testing the background EM
interference that might be jumbling up the image on my screen.
There are so many OTHER things that it could be 'testing' that it makes
the idea that it's testing only this ONE thing complete hogwash. That's
what I mean by "screwed up."

Ah, you looked at the image and couldn't see a difference, so you
attack the test. If there is so much wrong with your viewing
conditions that you can't see a 14% reduction in MTF, you need to fix
things, don't you? After all, 10% is unacceptable loss to you, and you
keep claiming that it would cause a visible difference in the image. I
don't believe that, because there is no evidence (e.g. images with and
without the loss to compare) to support it.

snip

Yes, I'm trying to change it to whether the imperfection you noted
would make any difference in the *result*.

If you don't stop trying to change the subject to suit your needs, you're
going to stop getting replies.

Not in this lifetime, Jon. You just live for the attention.

And the subject we were on was whether there was useful information on
Roger's site. Oh, and the whole digital vs. film silliness.

You really don't see the point, do you? If his technique was less than
perfect (and every real experiment or measurement is), we have to ask
the question, "How did this affect the results?"

snip

Actually, it's trying to test whether you can actually *see a
difference*. Which is a question that doesn't seem to matter to you.
What method do you use to evaluate image quality? Care to share some
frequency spectra for some of your best images?

*sigh*
if you can't see that it makes a huge difference whether I have a
1024x768 resolution on a 13 inch monitor vs a 640x480 resolution on a 22
inch monitor, you're really not even worth talking to anymore.

So what must I do to make the difference of 14% attenuation of the top
frequency visible in that image? I displayed it on my nice Sony
HDM-F500R monitor under good conditions and the degradation was
totally invisible.

As for "equivalent to 35mm", I suppose that no digital camera will
consistently give identical results to any 35mm still film camera.
But if we broaden that to "meeting the same requirement as 35mm",
it's clear that various digital cameras have done this for various
photographers, and not just those who accept a sacrifice in
quality.

If you want to reduce things to purely qualitative 'measures' and say
"well, it works for some people, and that's good enough for them"
then i'll agree with that 100%. My mother has a 3mp p&s canon camera,
one of those horrid little rectangles, and it works good enough for
her.

"not just those who accept a sacrifice in quality."

you're getting worse and worse...
if it's good enough for them, they're not sacrificing quality. They
probably don't really notice it anyway.

Didn't I post a URL or two so you could judge for yourself? You
probably didn't care to look and see whether these photographers seem
to care about quality. You would rather judge them by your assumptions.

snip

Unfortunately, I can't hang a theoretical equivalence on the wall, nor
can I project it on the screen. Mathematical tools can be useful, but
only as long as they are correlated to the desired result.

I think it's becoming clear now: you are interested in the numbers,
but not in what effect they have on the pictures.

Like I said, because that's what the original question was asking. You
wanna go start a different thread asking a different question, you go
right ahead. I won't be part of it because I don't engage in qualitative
mudslinging.

Right. Best laugh I've had all day, Jon.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

snip

Sorry, but what two numbers did you divide to get 10%? I've lost
track.

Then go back through the thread.

Too bad, it's too much trouble. I'll just ignore that number from now
on.

You've ignored it from the get-go. So really, there'll be no change. How
terribly scientific of you. Ignoring stuff that disagrees with what you
think. And for no reason.

How terribly scientific of you; refusing to give a reference for your
claim.

Oh, sorry, that was an insult, wasn't it? And scientists don't insult
people...

It seems like you're chosing to ignore
those pages. Why is that?

Because, as I recall, you were complaining about any reduction in
limiting spatial resolution as a serious loss of image detail. And
that's not clear at all.

You all seem to assume that the exact opposite is the case,

No, we just run the numbers

"run the numbers" ? you mean look at them?

No, I mean multiplying by all the MTF's between the scene and the
display, and then taking into account the spatial frequency content
of a typical image and the limits of human visual acuity.

and have serious doubts.

based on....
oh that's right. nothing.

No, based on the entire system, rather than one number.

You just keep
whining that there is some number that the digital cameras can't
match, and that means that film will give better images. And pick at
the details of any test that suggests otherwise. It would be easy to
shut us up by showing us results of a properly conducted test.

A much better test than roger's has already been posted to this thread.
It shows that unscanned film has much higher resolution than digital.
You've ignored it because it disagrees with what you say.

Again, no reference. The only comparisons I have seen showed, at best,
rough parity between film and digital. No matter what Marcus says.

and there's
no foundation to make that assumption whatsoever.
What we do know is there is a measurable loss of resolution,

Sigh.
and that is
-not- "noise," and it is -not- grain. Yet you choose to ignore it
anyway, because it goes against what you think.

Let's see. What I found

What YOU found? Where are YOUR tests then?

Well, if you missed them, why should I give you a pointer?

If these are 'scientific' findings of any sort, by all means, share with
us your methodology and your results. Don't just spout off numbers with
no support!

Look at the URL I posted early in the week:

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~wes...equencies.html

was at perhaps 2% modulation at 70
cycles/mm. Put that through a high-quality enlarging lens, and you get
perhaps 0.5%-1%. Seems reasonable to demand proof that that would
make a visible difference in a real image.

Yup, ignored that question again.

snip

Right. Any imperfection that *you* see in the technique invalidates
the results completely. Not that his results contradict any results
you have; it's only your opinion that conflicts.

that 10% wasn't what *I* saw, it was posted by someone else on someone
else's webpage after doing their own tests.

Huh? Wasn't your 10% based on some test by someone other than Roger?
So why do you attribute it to Roger? Or are you claiming that if one
person got slightly different numbers for limiting resolution (which
is a vague concept to begin with), that proves that all scanners
always destroy so much detail that any attempt to assess film
quantitatively by scanning an image is hopeless? That's quite a claim
to base on two numbers in a single table.

snip

No way. Ever tried to register a scanned image?

If it wasn't his image to begin with, he's got no right to put a 'c' on
it. It's that simple.

You keep harping on the plagiarism issue. If you don't believe that image
was plagiarized, don't bring it up.

And I guess you don't have experience with pixel-registering scanned
images. Take my word: his image wasn't scanned.

snip

Sorry, what do you mean by "screwed up"? The test is to look at the
image on your monitor and note whatever differences are visible
between the top half and the bottom. Either you can see the
difference, or you can't.

That's not testing anything with any degree of accuracy or precision.
It could be testing my monitor. It could be testing my resolution. It
could be testing my eyes. It could be testing the background EM
interference that might be jumbling up the image on my screen.
There are so many OTHER things that it could be 'testing' that it makes
the idea that it's testing only this ONE thing complete hogwash. That's
what I mean by "screwed up."

Ah, you looked at the image and couldn't see a difference, so you
attack the test. If there is so much wrong with your viewing
conditions that you can't see a 14% reduction in MTF, you need to fix
things, don't you? After all, 10% is unacceptable loss to you, and you
keep claiming that it would cause a visible difference in the image. I
don't believe that, because there is no evidence (e.g. images with and
without the loss to compare) to support it.

snip

Yes, I'm trying to change it to whether the imperfection you noted
would make any difference in the *result*.

If you don't stop trying to change the subject to suit your needs, you're
going to stop getting replies.

Not in this lifetime, Jon. You just live for the attention.

And the subject we were on was whether there was useful information on
Roger's site. Oh, and the whole digital vs. film silliness.

You really don't see the point, do you? If his technique was less than
perfect (and every real experiment or measurement is), we have to ask
the question, "How did this affect the results?"

snip

Actually, it's trying to test whether you can actually *see a
difference*. Which is a question that doesn't seem to matter to you.
What method do you use to evaluate image quality? Care to share some
frequency spectra for some of your best images?

*sigh*
if you can't see that it makes a huge difference whether I have a
1024x768 resolution on a 13 inch monitor vs a 640x480 resolution on a 22
inch monitor, you're really not even worth talking to anymore.

So what must I do to make the difference of 14% attenuation of the top
frequency visible in that image? I displayed it on my nice Sony
HDM-F500R monitor under good conditions and the degradation was
totally invisible.

As for "equivalent to 35mm", I suppose that no digital camera will
consistently give identical results to any 35mm still film camera.
But if we broaden that to "meeting the same requirement as 35mm",
it's clear that various digital cameras have done this for various
photographers, and not just those who accept a sacrifice in
quality.

If you want to reduce things to purely qualitative 'measures' and say
"well, it works for some people, and that's good enough for them"
then i'll agree with that 100%. My mother has a 3mp p&s canon camera,
one of those horrid little rectangles, and it works good enough for
her.

"not just those who accept a sacrifice in quality."

you're getting worse and worse...
if it's good enough for them, they're not sacrificing quality. They
probably don't really notice it anyway.

Didn't I post a URL or two so you could judge for yourself? You
probably didn't care to look and see whether these photographers seem
to care about quality. You would rather judge them by your assumptions.

snip

Unfortunately, I can't hang a theoretical equivalence on the wall, nor
can I project it on the screen. Mathematical tools can be useful, but
only as long as they are correlated to the desired result.

I think it's becoming clear now: you are interested in the numbers,
but not in what effect they have on the pictures.

Like I said, because that's what the original question was asking. You
wanna go start a different thread asking a different question, you go
right ahead. I won't be part of it because I don't engage in qualitative
mudslinging.

Right. Best laugh I've had all day, Jon.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st...sensitometric6.
jht ml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en,

that link isn't loading for me, so I can't speak on it.

I'm afraid your news reader broke the URL into two lines. Take the two
pieces, put them back together, and try again. Right between "jht" and
"ml". Got it?

Which part of "that link isn't loading for me" didn't you understand?
Why do you make dumb assumptions?

Because it was split in your reply, and gluing it back together worked
fine for me. Yup, just did it again. Perhaps you could give us the
exact error message, or contact Kodak for assistance.

Once more, that URL was

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/handbook/
sensitometric6.jhtml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en

(put the two lines back together without any intervening spaces or
such, so the middle looks like "...ents/handbook/sensitomet..."

And I really am trying to help you view the link. No malice intended.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st...sensitometric6.
jht ml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en,

that link isn't loading for me, so I can't speak on it.

I'm afraid your news reader broke the URL into two lines. Take the two
pieces, put them back together, and try again. Right between "jht" and
"ml". Got it?

Which part of "that link isn't loading for me" didn't you understand?
Why do you make dumb assumptions?

Because it was split in your reply, and gluing it back together worked
fine for me. Yup, just did it again. Perhaps you could give us the
exact error message, or contact Kodak for assistance.

Once more, that URL was

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/handbook/
sensitometric6.jhtml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en

(put the two lines back together without any intervening spaces or
such, so the middle looks like "...ents/handbook/sensitomet..."

And I really am trying to help you view the link. No malice intended.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

Jon Pike writes:

(Stephen H. Westin) wrote in
:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/st...sensitometric6.
jht ml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en,

that link isn't loading for me, so I can't speak on it.

I'm afraid your news reader broke the URL into two lines. Take the two
pieces, put them back together, and try again. Right between "jht" and
"ml". Got it?

Which part of "that link isn't loading for me" didn't you understand?
Why do you make dumb assumptions?

Because it was split in your reply, and gluing it back together worked
fine for me. Yup, just did it again. Perhaps you could give us the
exact error message, or contact Kodak for assistance.

Once more, that URL was

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/handbook/
sensitometric6.jhtml?id=0.1.4.9.6&lc=en

(put the two lines back together without any intervening spaces or
such, so the middle looks like "...ents/handbook/sensitomet..."

And I really am trying to help you view the link. No malice intended.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

(Dave Martindale) wrote in
:

snip

We are trying to discuss your insistence that a film scanner has to
capture film grain or it is somehow "missing" something. But I see
you won't actually discuss the issue - all you do is refer to
something else irrelevant to this subject. Either you know you're
wrong and won't admit it, or you have the attention span of an insect.

You're entirely missing the point. What all the digital supporters seem to
be saying is that, although they have no real basis for it, they -think-
that all the important information is being captured.

And what you're saying is that, although you have no real basis for
it, you -think- that important information is being lost. It really
would be easy to silence us all: just show us an image that displays
this detail that would be lost in scanning.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.