Just searched the net and found a much better explanination of the D-max. It
also mentioned Velvia has an absolute density of 4.0D, higher than other
slide films.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling"
>I belive there are some mix up between Dmax and D-range in no. of stops.
>
> As far as I understand, the latitude of slide film is around 5 stops, that
> is the liner range, including the head and shoulder that should be 7 stops
> or more.
>
> For the D-max of 4 that is 10000:1, it is more than the slide capability.
> Consider we need to divide each stop by 50 (actually much less is
> required)
> to provide a smooth graduation, 6400:1 is good for 7 stops.
>
> Regards,
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>
>>I think we're talking around each other. I have never once mentioned
>> the "scene range"... only that the film dynamic range is 5 and that the
>> final print will be even less than that. I was somewhat surprised to
>> see the apparent differences in scanner output on your link but scanning
>> is an art in itself and the results will depend as much upon the
>> software and the operator as the scanner itself. While there are
>> certainly differences in scanner quality (those listed range from low
>> cost flatbed scanners to high end drum scanners) even the highest
>> quality drum scanners only have a Dmax of about 4. So even the best
>> isn't capable of capturing even Velvia's limited dynamic range in a
>> single exposure pass.
>>
>> No doubt Peter Lik has the best scanners and processes available but I
>> still strongly suggest the effect is as much from the presentation as
>> the quality of the print.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> ws wrote:
>>> I think you miss the main point, that the film range and the scanner
>>> and the scene range and capture are different aspects. If the scene
>>> range fits within the film range, it is another matter to then get the
>>> film
>>> range into display, so the dynamic range of the output has nothing
>>> to do with the film capture range, but everything to do with the film
>>> D-range. So I thing your argument is fundamentally flawed
>>> when it comes to display relative to film capture range. The display
>>> range has to do with the film D-range, not the film scene capture range.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the site I pointed to:
>>> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
>>> and just see what the difference the scanner can make on the output.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|