Cor Breukel (cor@ruly46.medfac.leidenuniv.nl)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:54:13 +0100 (MET)
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
>
> Oh, but as I am typing this, I think I realize the reason. For film recorder
> output, one has to do the enlargement which some want to eliminate in the
> first place. The LVT recorder can give you the size you want, but it cost a
> lot more.
..probably thought to simple: wouldn't one have "best of both worlds" so
to speak. To be able to adapt/modify/whatever ones images on the computer
send it to a filmrecorder as a postive and make the desired large
negative in the darkroom... (assumption the "digital input & output" at a
"sufficient" level...guess this will be the bottle neck..I've access to a
slide recorder: but to "fil"l a 35mm negative at maximum one needs about
35mb of data..)
Cor Breukel
http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/cor.html
"The Infrared Gallery"
http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/ir-gallery.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41