[ECI-EN] scanoptimized maskless colornegative film ?

subject: [ECI-EN] scanoptimized maskless colornegative film ? Dear listmembers, in my filmscannerlist http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/ actually there is an interesting discussion on the possibility of designing a scan-optimized colornegative film without orange mask or the use of aerial maskless colornegative material for this purpose. What are the opinions of the specuialists in this list on this? Have look at a quote of the discussion. Thanks for a reply in advance. Very best, Ogando www.ogando.com --------------- edited quote, beginning with Ernst Dinkla (Netherlands): My idea is a color film that has no other task than being the first step in a analogue/digital workflow. With that more limited goal and the perfect digital control in the rest of the process it must be possible to incorporate many qualities of different film types in one film. It could be too late for that but even confectioned only in 120/220 roll film, 4x5 and up sheets there must be more than a niche market for it. http://www.photo.net/learn/orange-negative-mask Ernst .... Much of what we see in film scan problems is the dual task the color films have to perform, as a print film or as a projection film. .... full quote of the discussion: by Ernst Dinkla: The reason why I think the ideal scanner color film shouldn't be more compressed than the scanner's dynamic range needs. ....... Tonwertabrisse is often mentioned in connection with bad profiling as well. It wouldn't surprise me if the negative "profiles" and the mask compensation as used in Vuescan for example would cause that problem. Vuescan uses the green sensor at 2.5x exposure and the blue sensor at 3.5x exposure both to the red sensor, just to get rid of the mask. And adds a kind of "profile" for the different emulsions. Not really a nice solution to stretch the two channels that much. And we all know that that still doesn't take care of exposure + developing deviations. Another argument to make a dedicated scan color film. Much of what we see in film scan problems is the dual task the color films have to perform, as a print film or as a projection film. Even the analogue photographer with the drum scanner in his workflow would benefit from a slide film that had more latitude in the camera + compression in the film. At least the ones that have better than 8 bit A/D converters in their drum scanner, often not mentioned when they boast about the cheap secondhand drum scanner they got. Ernst -- ....... Raphael Bustin wrote: .... Rafe, That would be something like RGB 7:17:27 not far from 1:2.5:3.5 as used by Vuescan. BTW, I see that Agfa's Aviphot X100 PE1 is an aerial color film without mask. There is a faster version too. 70 mm perforated as the smallest size. C41 processing. They claim the better S/N ratio etc but with some loss in color fidelity (in direct printing I guess). http://www.agfa.com/docs/sp/aerial/aviphot_x400_2004-07-14_en.pdf Especially S/N in highlights while scanning is mentioned. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00A0Jq Ernst , Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote: Which Kodak have done: HD Color Scan Film 7299. Unfortunately it is only available in 16 mm at the moment. EK did produce a nother scan-only film a few years ago: Primetime 5620 640T. It was unprintable, unless you wanted a weird, muddy mess. It was intended for direct transfer to video. The colour could be taken care of during transfer. For the time it was a high speed film with comparatively low graininess. Unfortunately the radical nature of the film caused problems for colourists (the guys who transfer film to video) and it never really stood a chance. I was involved in the field tests in a small way, and made a short with it - entirely at f/1 and 16&#8532; fps (that's 50/3: three fields per film frame at 25 fps PAL, slightly jerky). EK made sure that the transfer was a good one and I was happy with the result. Even by modern standards it was not grainy. Best, Helen -------------- filmdesigner69 wrote: -- In coolscan8000-9000(a)yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote: The orange mask is the result of adding two or three colored masking couplers to the film formulation. These are designed to provide color correction (give truer colors) and are particularly useful in underexposure areas. At normal exposure and beyond, other chemicals that are not colored can provide a similar benefit. In either case, improvement in color reproduction will cause a reduction in S/N but can improve sharpness. In other words, better color is traded for worse granularity. Every film application requires a decision about how to make this trade. Hypothetically, a film could be designed with excellent S/N but poor color correction (no mask) with the intent of fixing the color at the photoediting stage. Whether the color can actually be improved while retaining the desirable S/N is open to question. I'm skeptic. --------- by Ernst Dinkla: filmdesigner69 wrote: The purpose of the mask is to help control contrast and correct for deficiencies in green and red-sensitive layers when the negatives are printed. I'm not skeptical. I trust more selective CMY dyes in the film + RGB filters in the scanner and software solutions like good profiling much more than the addition of an extra filter to compensate the flaws of the CMY dyes. That extra filter is meant to be used for printing to color paper. The printing conditions are not based on the same light source as used in scanners either. It is a chemical/optical solution as couldn't be done otherwise in the strictly chemical/optical workflow it used to be. Based on the information of maskless films so far I see no evidence that the S/N ratio is worse or the grain coarser. Pushing the analogue gain of the GB channels 2.5 - 3.5 x in the scanners to compensate the mask goes along with noise increase so were is the gain? What is a sound solution in the analogue color printing workflow doesn't have to be the right one for a hybrid analogue-digital workflow. I do not think Agfa or Kodak R&D would go the route of maskless color film for scanning if they didn't expect advantages in that process. Where there might be a disadvantage is in the compression c.q. exposure latitude of the color film. There's however more contrast possible in the film with the dynamic range of latest scanners, flatbeds included. As long as it isn't approaching the contrast of slide film. If there's more of a shift in color fidelity in the underexposed parts this still could be solved by the right profiling. I'm not against an extra emulsion layer either like Fuji has done before. As long as it doesn't shift the overall balance too much. I have some books here on color separation techniques of slides to get the color right in printing with CMYK offset inks. Lots of film masks etc. That's the other way around at the end of process. Something we hardly think off now as that's all replaced by software/profiling that does a better job everywhere on inkjet printers than the best Swiss lithography shops could do 30 years ago. I'm not even fixed on color negative. My idea is a color film that has no other task than being the first step in a analogue/digital workflow. With that more limited goal and the perfect digital control in the rest of the process it must be possible to incorporate many qualities of different film types in one film. It could be too late for that but even confectioned only in 120/220 roll film, 4x5 and up sheets there must be more than a niche market for it. http://www.photo.net/learn/orange-negative-mask Ernst --