Woody wrote:
IIRC correctly
it's like Personal PIN Numbers all over again!
On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s andI reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
played it in the disco.
And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.
Valve amps had more in reserve than early solid state amps, and could
exceed their RMS continuous power by a significant margin for long
enough to let a piano's peaks come through clean. Transistor power
supplies were too low voltage to do the same trick.
In message <kopupnFlji5U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s andI reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in >>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
Wall of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder
when I played it in the disco.
I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.
On 12/10/2023 17:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <kopupnFlji5U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's
Wall of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder
when I played it in the disco.
I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.
You are correct, but irrespective of the method used, the aim was to
appear to be louder than anyone else.
I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to[]
give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls of >slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same film
stock, machinery and processing.
In message <kq1vmeFuaf6U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
[]
I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to[]
give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls of >>slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same film >>stock, machinery and processing.
Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative, >penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides. (I >preferred slides to prints - still do really, but they're inconvenient
of course.) Involved a box of extra chemicals from Johnsons (one of the >powders was orange), and a re-exposure - so many inches from a
lightbulb! - part way through the process. I remember the film - or the >images on it - were a pretty blue colour at that point.
(Yes, my slides had a row of holes along one edge. But given they
included the full width of where a 35mm image would go, you just had to
bear that in mind when shooting. Could hide the holes if you used
ordinary 35mm mounts.)
Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
Would jpeg be the best format to use?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in >news:tjjnji9nn2imod29rip5ukqa0achmk21vd@4ax.com:
35mm mounts.)
Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
Would jpeg be the best format to use?
For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
Would jpeg be the best format to use?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/ B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qi d=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16 But this
For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
would mean scanning each one individually, which would take hours. I wondered if a professional processor could pass them through and
automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control, such
as colour balance and brightness).
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in >news:hpknji1nhqt61qt8dp1498in62qdomu9nb@4ax.com:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/
For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qi
d=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16 But this
would mean scanning each one individually, which would take hours. I
wondered if a professional processor could pass them through and
automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control, such
as colour balance and brightness).
30p each, if you have 1000 or more
https://www.filmscanuk.co.uk/SlideScanning.php
It took me 15 seconds to find on google, I have no idea how good or bad
they are, I simply did a search.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:03:26 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in >>news:tjjnji9nn2imod29rip5ukqa0achmk21vd@4ax.com:https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/B >08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qid= >1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16
35mm mounts.)
Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
Would jpeg be the best format to use?
For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
But this would mean scanning each one individually, which would take
hours. I wondered if a professional processor could pass them through
and automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control,
such as colour balance and brightness).
There are lots of such devices, from about 20 quid (probably less s/h)
up to ones that have things like infrared to detect scratches etcetera.
But, as you say, would take hours for all but a small number.
In message <kq1vmeFuaf6U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
[]
I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to[]
give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls
of slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same
film stock, machinery and processing.
Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative, penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides.
On 27/10/2023 15:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
[]Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative, >>penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it! >>("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides.
I've only once experimented with B&W slide film. I forget the precise >details, but I remember that it was *very* slow - either 16 or 32 ASA -
and I think it may have been made by Agfa.
When it comes to scanning negs and slides, I've found that slides are a
*lot* easier and require considerably less faffing around and tweaking
of settings in the scanner's control app. Slides usually "just work",
and the only adjustment necessary is exposure, whereas negs can look
muddy, over-saturated and "larger-than-life" - a look which you often
used to get in 1940s/50s books that included "colour plate"
illustrations. Also I got horrendous blooming around dark objects (eg >chimneys of a building) against a light background (eg sky) and very
coarse grain. That was the case both for a flat-bed scanner and a
dedicated Minolta film scanner. After a lot of faffing (with different >parameters for every single frame) I got some good results which showed >details in shadow and highlight which were bleached out or lost in
blackness of a print from the same neg.
paper which is illuminated by the same light. My experience is that
digital cameras tend to produce better results with discontinuous
spectrum lights such as fluorescent or LED - none of the sickly green
cast that fluorescents gave with Kodachrome ;-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 128:15:00 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,189 |