Please watch your language!

[David Horn <dh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please watch your language! The following paraphrase, by the addition
of a single word "so", implies a causal relationship that I did not see
in the original Kodak spec sheet:

>I have just read the Kodak spec sheet at
>http://www.kodak.com/aboutKodak/bu/ppi/technicalPubs/tiDocs/ti2323.shtml
>and one interesting point is that E-6 processing gives increased contrast
>and saturation and so is not recommended for scientific purposes.  The
                   ****
>'true' process for this film is EA-5.

I also read the Kodak spec sheet. The sentence in question was

"KODAK EKTACHROME Professional Infrared EIR Film can be processed in
Process 
AR-5 using KODAK EA-5 Chemicals or Process E-6 using KODAK EKTACHROME 
Chemicals. However, images run through Process E-6 will be higher in 
contrast, appear more saturated in color, and will not produce
meaningful 
results for scientific or technical infrared applications"

The Kodak version uses the word "and", not "so". Maybe the E-6 process
produces a color crossover that makes it difficult to analyse? But that
is
just a hypothesis. In any case, you cannot infer a "so".
Kodak also provides spectral sensitivity, spectral dye density, and
exposure/density curves for the the new film, but all these curves are
for the AR-5 process. To make any analysis of an E-6 processed film,
you would need the corresponding curves for the E-6 process.
-- 
David Horn,  Bell Labs Multimedia Communications Research Laboratory
Room 2A-308, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974, USA
phone +1 908 582 5533,   Fax +1 908 582 6344, e-mail dh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

------------------------------