----- Original Message ----- From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Then I will submit that the best quality "print" you can get with film > is actually a slide. > > cheers, > caveman > Very well then, if you want to make a comparison that calls for film to be viewed as a projected slide, make the best slide from a digital image file that it's possible to make, and view it via the very same projector that the film original is using. My point about using prints as the means of comparison is that it requires neither capture medium to be converted to the other as part of the process, and very fine prints can be made from either by their own native workflow methods. You certainly could digitise the film if you believe that digital printing is better, but you wouldn't need to, and you could print the digital image as a C-type print if you wanted, and that would be nice, too. You made a nice lampoon of the classic film v digital comparisons that use digital's own native display methods but require film to be converted to digital format by questionable means (a Flextight scanner might be damned good but that doesn't make it the best possible means of digitising film). That in itself should be the point of your exercise, not any retrospective claim that the test was serious. You clearly introduced the test as "Digital vs. film cave test", but it was actually damned good slide projector vs. so-so digital projector. regards, Anthony Farr
