Re: [photo-3d] Camera Coupling - Digital

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Miner wrote:

> Now, I've never seen
> digital images transferred to transparency so I can't comment.

My film recorder is an older one bought used on ebay (as is my film 
scanner) but results are "adequate".  But not nearly as good as 
originals (thus far... it's new to me and I've more testing to do).

> As for current consumer resolutions. I have a great Epson printer and
> pairs printed at card size are on a par with chemical prints of the same
> size. 

I can't complain about 3" square prints.  My Alps dye-sub printer does those
well (once color points-of-view have been calibrated/matched) too, but
to me a print doesn't have the impact that transparencies do.  Doesn't
have the dynamic range of a well lit slide.

In terms of pollution generation, how much is produced by C-41 (or E6)
processing of a single roll as compared to the processing of 36 (or 72) 
4"x6" or bigger prints made from the roll?  Or are prints pollution free
nowadays?  Or polution generated in producing the glossy-paper they're
made with?


> My hope is that people in the stereo world pick up and use digital more.

Me too!  But I don't think it has to "beat" film to do so.  It's an alternative
that's fun to do for it's own sake.  I do mostly slide film now, but I also
do an occasional card, and do things digitally as well, either "pure digital"
or hybrid film/digital (going in either direction, or both).  All are
fun and all are worthwhile to do, even if one way is technically better
than another or spendier than another.  Just have fun!!!!

> I think it could be a real boon to stereo. Of course I'd love to see
> more competitions accept digital images in a digital format.

We do!  We do!  We do!!!! (at the CSC ... see: http://www.cascade3d.org ).

I couldn't resist the opportunity to promote our competitions!!  :-)


Mike K.

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/