But a test whose parameters are in constant flux and whose parametres are also different from person to person isn't worthy to be called a test.
P�l ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:32 PM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 > P�l Jensen wrote: > > > > So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to > > the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you > > can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits > > your preconceived ideas on how things should be. > > If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300 > a frame, then I do not consider that "real world". > > FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is: > > a) 35 mm slide film, projected > b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink > jet > c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet > > So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me. Neither is chemical > processing of medium format film. YOUR reality may differ... > > Cheers, > Boz >
