Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!think!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!hutch
From: hutch@fps.com (Jim Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Matrix PCR film printer -- query
Message-ID: <5898@celit.fps.com>
Date: 6 Jan 90 00:31:22 GMT
References: <138@qt.cs.utexas.edu> <724@ncs.dnd.ca>
Sender: daemon@fps.com
Reply-To: hutch@fps.com (Jim Hutchison)
Organization: FPS Computing
Lines: 23

In <724@ncs.dnd.ca> jstewart@ncs.dnd.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>In <138@qt.cs.utexas.edu> kelvin@cs.utexas.edu (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
>[...]
>>I just tried our Matrix PCR on some Kodak Gold 100 print film.
>>I've done slides in the past with pretty good results, but the
>>prints came out awful -- overexposed, with bad colors.
>>
>Probably, the negatives are exposed correctly, but on printing, the
>printer probably exposed the negative to get a good shade of grey.
>Not what you want.

Ahh, so nice.  If this turns out to be your problem, you can probably
get your printer to cooperate by running either of the PCR's test
images as the first exposure in your negatives.  Both include ramps
for your printer to calibrate with.

Past slides I have shot where on Kodak Ektachrome 100 ASA slide, and
the LUTs did make a difference in quality.  Sorry I have no LUTs to
give you.

--
/*    Jim Hutchison   		{dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!celerity!hutch  */
/*    Disclaimer:  I am not an official spokesman for FPS computing   */