Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/08/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Scanning Tri-X
From: richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard)
Date: Sat Aug 18 12:31:14 2007
References: <200708181146.l7IBkIR4058154@server1.waverley.reid.org> <DCF8EF99-5820-4F65-887F-6E12BD1D6B21@optonline.net>

As Steve Unsworth said, there is one chap on Leica Forum a couple 
years ago making same unsubstantial claims. He has been banned in 
most forums for being claiming EXTREMELY knowledgeable about certain 
darkroom practices but with an abusive and abrasive personality that 
makes the Luggers look like a bunch of cats napping.

Any case, ignore the nonsense. I use Tri-X and 4000 DPI a lot and it 
works fine. Both on the infamous "not suppose to work well" Nikon 
scanner and also on the Minolta Elite. The only problem is as Tina 
said, that if one accidentally turns on ICE, then all is lost.

At 07:50 AM 8/18/2007, Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:
>On another list someone complained about the "posterization" and
>aliasing encountered in scanning Tri-X film. Here is the quote:
>
>"both my 2880ppi and 4000ppi
>film scanners posterize my Tri-X negatives... which
>makes sense.  there is also nothing you can do to
>remove sampling errors after you scan.  My early
>analysis of Tri-X grain showed that it has strong
>frequency content around 4000ppi so when my scanners
>sample at around half the Nyquist frequency the
>aliasing is just a fact of life.  With finer grained
>films, the grain is still aliased, BUT since the
>signal to noise ratio is so much higher the actual
>useful *image* data is not lost and *luckily* the new
>aliased *grain*, while not an accurate representation
>of the original, is still aesthetically pleasing."
>

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, 
please use richard at imagecraft.com) 


In reply to: Message from lrzeitlin at optonline.net (Lawrence Zeitlin) ([Leica] Re: Scanning Tri-X)