▲ | gwbas1c 17 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive? It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels. As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | sublinear 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
If it's to be archived it's going to end up encoded as pixels. I think the question was more about the capture of fine detail. A scanner will digitize much more image detail than any capture of the projector output. Although, reading the article it seems an emphasis was placed on color accuracy. I'm not sure if a scanner is necessarily as good at that. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | DidYaWipe 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
He asked why a projector is relevant for archiving, not viewing. The only answer I can imagine is for viewing newly-discovered film to determine its content and condition, in order to decide whether it's worth scanning. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | charcircuit 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
>the picture flickers and shakes This can be emulated with a post processing effect. >Film grain is substantially different than pixels. The grain can be recorded at a high enough resolution that the human eye will be unable to tell the difference when it's being projected. |