Ektachrome is coming back and Kodachrome might be coming back as well: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-i...odachrome/
Would need to make up my mind whether or not to shoot slides again. Also interesting to learn about the details (e.g. which one they are bringing back) and how processing is offered again (big issue of Kodachrome).
enjoy
Hope that happens in 120 format for both films. Even though it's still viable for most purposes, I don't think 35mm offers enough advantages over digital, especially as far as color film goes since you can't control most variables at home (such as development and darkroom printing). Medium format though, offers a huge jump in quality which makes those downsides at least worth bearing.
I just guess, my Kodachorme slides will be still visible after the last harddrive will have crashed :wacko:
At least they don't need electricity and a couple of other stuff to become visible, and then there's still the surprise effect ^_^
You can always upgrade to a better scanner or let some pro grade lab scan them for better results any time. Imagine having your 6 MP jpegs from 10 years ago turning into 50 MP files overnight  .
01-13-2017, 09:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2017, 09:18 PM by wim.)
Quote:You can always upgrade to a better scanner or let some pro grade lab scan them for better results any time. Imagine having your 6 MP jpegs from 10 years ago turning into 50 MP files overnight .
Real MP is about 24 to 32 MP, at best .... You're overscanning this way  .
Kidn regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Quote:
Real MP is about 24 to 32 MP, at best .... You're overscanning this way .
Kidn regards, Wim
not in Obican case, he uses medium format
Quote:
Real MP is about 24 to 32 MP, at best .... You're overscanning this way .
Kidn regards, Wim
I'd think even 32MP from any sorf of 35mm film (negative, black and white, slide etc) is being overly optimistic.
Quote:Hope that happens in 120 format for both films. Even though it's still viable for most purposes, I don't think 35mm offers enough advantages over digital, especially as far as color film goes since you can't control most variables at home (such as development and darkroom printing). Medium format though, offers a huge jump in quality which makes those downsides at least worth bearing.
Kodachrome was not available in 120 for many decades.
enjoy
Quote:not in Obican case, he uses medium format
That is exactly how I calculated it.
You're lucky to get 30 to 40 lp/mm from a B&W negative in 135 film, let alone from a slide.
That's about 6 MP. Multiplied by 4 you get the resolution of a 6X6 MF negative.
it actually is a fallacy that you can get more out of a negative or positive, just because you can use a higher resolution scanner. All you do is oversampling.
Professionally processed B&W may be able to get a little more, but then, MF lenses have lower resolution than FF and APS-C etc lenses have, generally speaking, amongst others because of the way they are used, their apertures, and lens construction.
Kind regards, Wim
Quote:I'd think even 32MP from any sorf of 35mm film (negative, black and white, slide etc) is being overly optimistic.
Yes, I was being optimistic here, I am fully aware of that .
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
If I could, I would love to pick up shooting with Kodachrome or other slide film again. No to replace digital photography, but just beside it. I have still a medium format Noblex panorama camera, which Kodachrome would be great for. I only need someone to carry the camer and tripod of me. But that is just a small detail .
Kind regards,
Reinier
|
