Talk:Panoscan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

looks like advertisement ...

[edit] Only 5 EV of dynamic range?!

On the 5th, anonymous IP 69.234.35.136 added a source claiming that Kodak Gold 100 has an "exposure range" of 5 EV, comparing it to the Panoscan's 12 EV of dynamic range[1]. Reading the supplied PDF, I eventually found where he/she had found that information:

They also feature wide exposure latitude—from two stops underexposure to three stops overexposure.

Sorry, that is not the same as 5 EV of dynamic range. It's simply stating that this film, like all negative films, have a good "toe" and "shoulder" on its response curve.

For reference, notice that the Zone system has eleven "zones", equivalent to stops or EV's. It was originally developed to describe the possible densities on a black and white print. Ansel Adams, who created the zone system, said that (black and white) negative film can record detail through several more "zones". Colour negative film doesn't have quite as much dynamic range - maybe 7 or 8 EV. Colour slide film has even less. A high-contrast slide film like Velvia probably only has about 6 EV of dynamic range in it. Note that even this is still more that the 5 EV claimed of Kodak Gold 100.

I've removed 69.234.35.136's edits and replaced it with something a little more descriptive. It still needs a source though. --Imroy (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Today 69.234.45.132 (probably the same person as 69.234.35.136) changed my claim of "6 to over 10" EV's of dynamic range to "4 to 6".[2] I reverted and found a reference. Ben Kreunen has done some tests on the dynamic range of Fuji Reala 100 (colour negative) film as a part of his rather large site on immersive Panoramas taken around Melbourne. His results suggest a maximum of about 14-16 EV for this film, although this would include almost all of the "toe" and "shoulder" portions of the response curve. Taking a few EV's off to account for this still leaves at least 10 EV of usable dynamic range.

Unless someone can come up with another good source, I consider this case closed. Any anonymous editors in SBC's IP address range and giving no edit summary when changing the numbers will be treated as vandals. --Imroy (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)