Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <lorism@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
Epson3200 - Test results)


>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:58 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> > Epson3200 - Test results)
> >
> > But also less grainy than a 160 ASA colour neg ? I'm not
> > familiar with the 400 ASA chromogenic B&W films. It is either
>
> Never compared to a 160 color neg... But probably their
grainess are
> close (likely in favour of the chromogenic); color negative
films have
> 3-4 emulsion layers but chromogenics have only 1(?). Color negs
are
> denser than chromogenic films too.
>
> > 160 ASA colour neg film or Polaroid 665 B&W that I use. The
> > last is another category. You could be right as I'm too often
> > thinking of the Nikon 8000's results that I have of those
> > films. Still I can't put the term "noise" on it. This is from
> > the light parts of the film. What are the results in the
> > shadows when scanning a slide ? If it is a noisy scanner then
>
> Noisy... and then fuzzy - due to multipass scanning in order to
suppress
> noise ;)

Loris,

Or just plain grain aliasing like explained at

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

With just a hint of grain, clouds or whatever pattern in the
scanned data it can be made into something nasty.
Could be the multiple CCD arrangement of the Epson that plays a
role in that.

Ernst