Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]During a couple of slide competitions at the Ottawa Camera Club last year I had the opportunity to see 35mm and 2 1/4 slides projected to the same size (maybe 4'x6' vs 6'x6') on a glass-bead screen. Ektagraphic for the 35mm, Rollei for the MF. There was no discernable difference in image quality. The MF shots were all losers due to static compositions and boring subject matter. While I agree that in prints the quality differences can be readily apparent, I have yet to be convinced by projection. Paul Chefurka > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:mrabiner@concentric.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 7:31 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Another Leica vs medium format debate > > > "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote: > > > > It depends on how big you project them. If bigger than > 30x40 there are many > > who could tell the difference. > > > ><snip> I'd be surprised if folks on this list couldn't tell > > the difference between a 2 1/4 slide and a 35mm slide side by side > > on a screen if the emulsions are remotely comparable. > > > > --Gib > > I'm surprised to hear this because from what I often hear and not have > personally yet seen is that a projected medium format slide > is an astounding > sight! I always felt this to be true. > Mark Rabiner >