Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: limtex who wrote (20353)	5/29/2001 9:09:52 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

L, I've seen color negatives scanned, with pretty good print results, but I've never seen slides. Seems to me, one would want the maximum resolution and density specs to permit a scanned slide to be projected on a large screen. Resolution is the key, IMHO. Art

To: limtex who wrote (20353)	5/29/2001 9:35:02 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

limtex, Have you or nayone else on the thread used the Nikon scanners? What kind of results do you get? Really waht I am trying to get an idea is does a Leica transparency look like a Leica transparency after it has been scanned or does it lose quality and translucense etc? I'm serious enough as a travel photographer that there are about 30 people who regularly attend my slide shows. I use the Polariod scanner Art mentioned and love it. However, I've used it only to create files so I can make prints. I've never projected slides using a digital projector, which I think is what you're asking about. If you're asking about how closely the scanned images on a computer monitor replicate the images of the original slide, it's important to remember that they will never look exactly the same. This isn't to say that they might not look better, especially in certain cases. The monitor uses light coming from "behind" the face of the monitor, as opposed to a projected slide which uses light reflected from the screen. The color itself is derived from the RGB configuration of the monitor as opposed to the emulsion of the slide. (I've never studied the technology of digital projectors to understand if the RGB configuration also applies to them.) For the really discriminating viewer, there will always be a difference and its up to that person to decide which format is most pleasing. The reason I will delay switching to digital as long as I can for my serious work is because of the slides I already own. I'll always want to view those slides and won't ever commit the time to scan them. An additional reason is that I'll always want to project slides, and digital projectors are still inordinately expensive. If you've never scanned a slide or a negative, you'll want to know that it takes time to adjust the scan so that the image looks like the slide (or better.) For portraits, getting the skin tones right is critical and sometimes time-consuming. For me, an image with an abundant amount of red tones is nearly impossible to replicate, most likely because I haven't taken the time to master that particular situation. Aside from hue, there are also the issues of contrast and saturation that require the scanner's attention to replicate or improve upon a slide. In the end, all things eventually change. We've already lost Kodachrome 25. Three weeks ago at a presentation by a National Geographic photographer, he explained that he had learned that day that the decision has been made to disctoninue Kodacrhome 64, possibly the most important film in the history of color film used by the discriminating photographer. --Mike Buckley