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:
....
When I scan C41 -as positives- the analog gains look something like this:
Master: +1.0
Red: -0.3
Green: +0.7
Blue: +1.7
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:
...Another argument to make a dedicated
scan color film.
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
16⅔ 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:
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).
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:
--- In coolscan8000-9000(a)yahoogroups.com, Ernst
Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
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).
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
skeptical.
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
--