Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
I thought I'd share this.
http://6mpixel.org/en/
It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
had 1 MP cameras.
So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
r
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> r
>
> I dunno.
>
> Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the old
> 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures from it
> much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much better as well as
> the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I also like the anti blur and
> the movie/sound capabilities. I put a 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as
> opposed to the 64MB max card I have in the Ricoh. It takes two AA
> batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh and doesn't appear to eat them at
> anywhere near the rate the Ricoh does. It's also much faster on powerup
> and between shots.
>
> Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99 made
> Santa feel good.
Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras together
but both being new would have any effect on the results. A CCD with 8 years
of wear may not perform as good as one that is brand new.
This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the new one
has over the old one. ;~)
"David's Newsgroups" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
[snip]
>
> But I could never find 120 roll film in Kodachrome; it was always
> Ectachrome. another slightly bluer/greener transparency film.
>
Ah yes. Good old Yuktachrome. Higher speed and much grainier than
Kodachrome but still better than Fuji. I only used it in low light, no flash
situations. IIRC you could process this yourself, unlike Kodachrome, but
we never bothered.
Somewhere around here I still have some of the old processing mailers for
Kodachrome. I wonder if they are still accepted by Kodak?
Art
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David's Newsgroups wrote:
> > "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> How did K25 lie to you?
> >> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough
> >> grain
> >> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly
> >> strong in the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the
> >> Sonoran
> >> desert. Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green &
> >> blue and just looked terrible to me.
> >> Art
> >
> > . . . nailed it.
>
> And underexpose the sky and you got that wonderful blue--didn't _need_
> no steenkeeng _polarizer_.
>
True, but a polarizer does increase the contrast of the open sky vs the summer
cumulous clouds very nicely.
Art
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>> r
>>>>> I dunno.
>>>>>
>>>>> Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the
>>>>> old
>>>>> 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures
>>>>> from it much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much
>>>>> better as well as the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I
>>>>> also like the anti blur and the movie/sound capabilities. I put a
>>>>> 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as opposed to the 64MB max card I have
>>>>> in
>>>>> the Ricoh. It takes two AA batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh
>>>>> and doesn't appear to eat them at anywhere near the rate the Ricoh
>>>>> does. It's also much faster on powerup and between shots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99
>>>>> made Santa feel good.
>>>> Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras
>>>> together but both being new would have any effect on the results.
>>>> A
>>>> CCD with 8 years of wear may not perform as good as one that is
>>>> brand new.
>>>> This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the
>>>> new one has over the old one. ;~)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe, but viewing some of the first pics I took with the Ricoh vs
>>> the
>>> Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old
>>> pics
>>> pixels are stored on are fading ;-)
>>
>> More likely the in-camera processing is different between the two. Or
>> the program defaults are different. Might be possible to adjust
>> the Ricoh to give results similar to the Canon, might not, depends
>> on how much adjustment it allows.
>>
>
> That could well be - they both have more options/settings than I can
> comprehend without the manual in hand, and by then, the picture
> opportunity is long gone :-( In the olden days, one reading of this
> stuff and it was imprinted, but now-a-daze I have to get the book out
> to set the alarm clock.
However, considering the photos are going to be viewed on a computer
screen, which is normally set to 96 dpi, even a 1 Mp camera will manage
that job well. Otherwise, with a hi-pixel count, you're going to have
to be throwing away pixels anyway to get the thing down to a viewable
size.
Now if you'r talking about printing pictures, especially enlarging
them, the the higher Mpixel ratings can be a help, but come on; what
good is a 3' x 4' photograph? I've only used high pixels once; when I
wanted to get some individual faces out of a photograph and wanted to
keep their detail.
In addition, 6 megapixels doesn't necessarily mean there will be 6
megapixels in the photo; for that info you have to research and dig into
the camera specs a little deeper. Multiple pixels can be defined/used
in different ways semantically and synctacticly.
HTH
Pop`
On Dec 27, 9:31=A0pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> How did K25 lie to you?
It wasn't linear.
> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. =A0Fine enough grain
> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
> the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
> Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
> just looked terrible to me.
> Art
>
You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a
nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
I also got great 16x20 in Cibachromes from those slides. Then I went
to C prints and CPS 135.
On Dec 29, 10:40=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > The attention to detail in a recording studio is such a waste of time
> > these days.
>
> Hehe ... Hell, just wait until the singer/songwriter's boyfriend shows up
> ... he'll feel compelled to add his 2000 cents, even though he's never bee=
n
> in a studio before, and can't even spell "mix".
>
LOL...I have seen that before. You can always tell a pro by how much
he/she recognizes other pros and leaves them to do their jobs.
On Dec 31, 6:45 pm, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b4a078d7-67c7-4119-bba4-f0a443414d66@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ask me how much I miss film.
>
> Oh how we envied the pros with the trackside photo passes, the bulk film
> loaders, and motordrives. Anyone can come up with a handful of
> magazine-worthy photos with that combination (so we thought). I actually
> fanagled a photographer's pass for the '74 Canadian GP at Mosport through a
> local short track rag here in Houston. I was still stuck with my SRT-101
> (match needle!). The future article never developed and it went nowhere but
> for just once in my life . . . ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h. Somewhere in my attic
> I might still have those Tri-X proof sheets.
>
> --
> NuWave Dave in Houston
>
> BTW, how much do you miss film? Or, put another way; do you think
> you'll ever shoot film again?"
> Just kidding.
You don't need the contacts. You do need the negs. Have some fun and
scan them in and fool with them in PSP or another lower cost program.
I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11, but
it does handle the K10D raw files without an itnermediary program. It
also locks up about every other time it is used.
I might shoot film again, if someone loans me a camera and loads it
for me, and there's someplace to get it all processed, and put on CD
or DVD. I sold all my film gear, including darkroom equipment, years
ago.
On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> > modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> > I thought I'd share this.
>
> >http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> > It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> > had 1 MP cameras.
>
> > So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> > advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> > r
>
> I disagree.
>
> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
> able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
> with adequate pixel density.
>
> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high resolution
> 8X10 picture made.
Largely depends on sensor size. Point and shoot cameras have tiny
sensors. APS-C sensors are considerably larger, while what is classed
as full-frame sensors are the same size as a 35mm frame, or very close
to that. Up to a point, sensor density increases are great, but beyond
about 5 MP, sensor density increases create more noise (equivalent to
grain in film) than they do useful resolution. I started digital
photography with a 2 MP camera that did well, even up to half of its
frame in 1/3 page magazine articles, but it had other limits that led
me past a couple other cameras to where I am now, with a 6 MP *istD
Pentax DSLR, and a 10 MP K10D Pentax DSLR. Rumor has a 14 MP model
coming out next year, but I'll have to see the improvements to believe
them.
Anything over 5 MP, IMO, in a P&S is a waste of money. For DSLRs, 6 MP
is a sweet spot--I've got a whole bunch of shots from my 6 MP Pentaxes
(I have sold one since I bought the K10D) blown up to 20x30 with
fantastic results, plus a number of full page, maybe 3/4 frame crops,
in magazines, and a couple of what is called double trucks, photos
that spread across more than one page (for a current example, check my
article in the January '08 issue of Cars & parts, shot with my first
Pentax *istD a couple years ago). From that point, you get into
reproduction of ever-finer detail, something of very little use to the
average snapshot photographer who puts a photo up on-screen or has a
4x6 print made. Up to 8x10, a 2 MP P&S does fine, in good light, with
a relatively slow moving or stationary subject. For faster moving
subjects, the shutter lag in the P&S cameras is a real problem: I have
some speed shots on my web site--www.charlieselfonline.com--for those
who want to see what a DSLR with almost no shutter lag can do.
Have a great New Year.
On Dec 27, 11:30 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Only if you have a telephoto zoom lense. Last time I checked, the good
> > ones are pretty expensive and you can only use them on digital SLR's (like
> > the one I own).
>
> > Good luck doing that with a non-SLR type digital camera.
>
> And that was pretty much the point of the article. Most 10 and larger
> megapixel cameras sold today are not a 35 mm digital SLR. Most hace tiny
> CCD's and limp lenses regardless of brand when compared to a 35 mm digital.
True enough, but...the people who use those cameras are seldom going
to ask for anything larger than 4x6 or a 19" screen size.
"Robatoy" wrote
> You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
Yabbut, the cowbell always comes before the big crash cymbal hit, or right
after/before the 'rain tree' fades, and it takes two hours of studio time
and an iChing consultation to make that decision.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear those in a mix ... in the rare
event that you even notice.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 30, 9:49=A0pm, Hoosierpopi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...=
>
> "crop out everything except your door knob"
>
> WOuld it not be simpler to set the 1MP camera to "close-up" and shoot
> the knobs?
There are a few knobs I would like to shoot around here...LOL
"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>
>> r
>
> I disagree.
>
> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
> able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
> with adequate pixel density.
Yup, it was no different with film, it was always best to use the
finest-grain film lighting conditions permitted so cropping and enlarging
didn't result in a grainy print. Having more data in your image than you
need is easy to live with, not enough is a different matter.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which fills
> the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon has
> a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with
> that lens.
That's an interesting camera, I've been reading up on it lately, very
tempting especially at half the price of the German-branded version.
However given the choice between the 7 and 10 Meg models, I'd still go with
the latter.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ae3fba35-60a1-4551-a8b2-417ede79f1b0@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 12:13 am, Andrew Erickson <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
> >It's also worth observing that the linear resolution of an
> >image increases with with the square of the number of pixels, so the
> >width or height increase when going from, say, 6 megapixels to 10
>> megapixels is only a factor of about 1.3.
...
>I got a 3 HP tablesaw and I'm a frickin' idiot, howcome I can't build
>a decent footstool?
You obviously need a 1/2 megapixal camera then so you cannot see the flaws
in the footstool. ;~)
I like my 6.3 megapixal Fuji S7000.... that PS CS, and taking lots pictures
in the quest for some good ones works for me!
John
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:oW_cj.1249$6%[email protected]...
>
> The important missed fact here is that the standard film camera to take
> the better croppable/enlargeable pictures was 35 mm and larger. Imagine
> trying to start with 110 and get the same results as a 35 mm. That is
> what the problem with more mega pixels on a CCD that is 20 times smaller
> than a 35mm digital is up against along with a cheaper quality slow lens.
> Exposure time has to be much longer and shake really comes in to play.
Yes, that makes sense, a bigger sensor seems to be part of a successful
equation. A pal of mine just got a Nikon digital SLR with the same size
sensor as they put in their pro models at several times the price, looks
like a smart way to go. However, given two models with the same sensor I'd
go with the one with more pixels.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been
> discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera.
> Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic" brand.
> There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP,
> which goes both longer and wider.
Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn there was a
10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the one that's
effectively the same as the V-LUX?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn there
>> was a 10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the
>> one
>> that's effectively the same as the V-LUX?
>
> Hmm. I never even knew that the FZ50 was being sold under the Leica
> name. Both it and the FZ30 are very nice hardware for the price.
That's my impression. All my 35mm gear has sat in the safe for years, I'm
not about to lug around a bag of bodies and lenses and so on these days, but
a one-piece design with a lense with that kind of range would be a different
matter.
"David's Newsgroups" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > I like my 6.3 megapixal Fuji S7000.... that PS CS, and taking lots
| > pictures
| > in the quest for some good ones works for me!
|
| Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro Photo
| (X2). I used to have a pirated copy of PS 6 or 7 that my kid came up
with;
| too much learning curve for my surgically-altered brain and I still don't
| use a fraction of the features in PSP (just like my brain!). Still, it
| makes for a noticeable improvement in the vast majority of my shots.
I hear you on Photoshop... I started out with Photoshop Elements but was
quickly frustrated by the limitations. I keep trying new things with
Photoshop CS and am usually pleased with the results. For example, I took
photos of reenactors portraying the British burning my home town. With PS I
removed 21st century people, cars, telephone poles, aluminum windows in an
old commercial building, street signs, fire hydrants, pavement markings,
etc., to give it more of an 18th century look and feel. My days working at
Colonial Williamsburg have influenced my tastes and PS lets me make things
fit my tastes. ;~) PS also lets me fix a lot of problems... exposure,
framing, out of focus due to wobble, etc.
Every photo I have had printed in the past couple years has been touched by
PS... even if it's only cropping before going to the print lab on CD. I
simply cannot justify printing them at home as the consumables cost more
than the commercial lab charges (currently $.15 per 4"x6" print for
quantities over 100) and the lab is using the latest Fuji mini-lab
equipment. Speed is also an issue... for me to print at home the 194 photos
I had printed Friday would have been a tremendously laborious experience.
Add in the fact that there is a lab 1 mile from my house and that I can
typically have the lab printed photos back in a hour or two and it's a
no-brainer. How many could I print, glued to the computer, in an hour or
two? Surely not 194! There is a professional lab practically across the
street from the consumer lab but since I PS the photos myself I haven't
found any advantage to using them--at a significantly greater cost--over the
consumer lab.
A constant challenge is photographing the wooden items that I make. I know
it's a lighting problem... how to show off the details and wood
characteristics consistently has escaped my command thus far! The right way
to do it would be to have a photography "studio" set up where I can place
the objects for photographing... that isn't going to happen due to space
issues. I need some kind of portable, easily stored "studio." That is one of
my "when I have time" projects... with a long list of "I really need to get
it done" projects. ;~)
John
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:31 pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How did K25 lie to you?
>> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough grain
>> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
>> the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
>> Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
>> just looked terrible to me.
>> Art
>>
>> "Mekon" wrote in message ...
>>
>> > > But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
>
> All films lie. So do sensors.
and censors...
On Dec 27, 4:59=A0pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> > modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> > I thought I'd share this.
>
> >http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> > It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> > had 1 MP cameras.
>
> > So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> > advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> > r
>
> I disagree.
>
> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. =A0 =A0You=
are
> able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
> with adequate pixel density.
It goes way beyond having more pixels. There are noise issues as well.
Plus the fact that each pixel has dynamic range issues.
If you have a 6 MP camera and each pixel can discern 256 levels of
light, then the result of that is far better than a 20 MP camera where
each pixel can discern only 4 levels of light. The ideal would be 20
MP with 256 levels each, but good luck processing all that info off a
AA battery.
>
> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high resoluti=
on
> 8X10 picture made.
That is what optical zoom is for.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andrew Erickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I definitely agree that more megapixels on tiny sensors don't generally
> improve actual image quality, though. It's quickly getting to the point
> where diffraction effects are the limiting factor on image resolution
> even at fairly wide apertures, so having more and more pixels can't even
> capture more detail (but does result in more noise and larger files to
> deal with). It's also worth observing that the linear resolution of an
> image increases with with the square of the number of pixels, so the
> width or height increase when going from, say, 6 megapixels to 10
> megapixels is only a factor of about 1.3.
Here's a good primer on megapixels, and why in isolation it's a useless
measurement in most cases.
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm>
--
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/
On Dec 29, 9:51=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > I hope you'll find the time to read this article which opened =A0my
> > eyes...with quite a bit of sadness.
>
> Read it, but didn't need to ... lived it. Engineered a big commercial a fe=
w
> years back using a Ricky Martin production as the backing track ... I was
> instructed to rip the song off a CD his producer sent along for the purpos=
e.
> If you've ever seen "music" (I use the term in the most loose sense)
> waveforms represented on computer software, you will appreciate the fact
> that, on the screen, and starting at zero to the end of the song, the
> waveform from this track looked precisely like a red tubafour extending fr=
om
> left to right ... now, that's compression!
I know of what you speak. An earbud trying to come up with the same
amount of air-movement of a bass drum-skin getting the shit kicked out
of it...suuuuure.
>
> It was pretty standard practice to compress mixes pretty hard for radio pl=
ay
> when I first started engineering back in the dinosaur "vinyl" days. (those=
> 57 Chevy dashboard speakers were so bad that we routinely, and "accidently=
",
> drove off with speakers from the local drive-in move theater as "upgrades"=
)
At Eastern Sound in Toronto, they still have a single 6 x 9 paper cone
with a whizzer, in mono, sitting on top of their million dollar board.
> =A0... and if you don't learn to compress for TV, you'll go broke quickly.=
They're messing with that a lot too though...I'm sure you noticed that
commercials 'appear' to be louder than the programming in between?
>
> BUT, we had a sensibility to the music in those days that is arguably
> nonexistent today (just another example of the world going to shit, Joe B.=
> ... with all the cRap on the airwaves) and were considerate enough to do t=
wo
> masters, one for airplay, one for retail/the people ... that's much too
> complicated for today's ProTools mouse jockey's world of "let the pigs hav=
e
> the same swill".
I listened to The Arctic Monkeys (The article mentions the same thing,
IIRC) a while back and noticed they never took a breath, just one long
flow of singing. (yup, I used the word, sorry)
Then on another CD (The Muse) every time the singer (yup, used the
word again) breathed in, they had enhanced the gulp of air every-
fricking-time. Boy did THAT get tiresome quickly.... but on my kid's
ear-buds, that gulp isn't so repulsive, simply because it can't
deliver it with the same grossness.
>
> You start with shit, no matter how much sugar you use, you still got shit.=
So true... shit is shit. "Shoot!" is shit with two o's (Carlin)
>
> .... can you say "iPOD ear buds"?
I can't stand them. I have some pretty decent Sennheiser 'over-the
ear' type of headphones, I just don't like they way they throw the
image inside my head.
>
On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"crop out everything except your door knob"
WOuld it not be simpler to set the 1MP camera to "close-up" and shoot
the knobs?
On Dec 27, 10:54 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Garagewoodworks,
>
> >> Zooming in on a region and then shrink it down?? Cropping involved
> >> zooming in on a region of the picture and having the newly
> >> framed/cropped portion become the 'new' photo.
>
> > While I agree that more pixels is better when cropping, you
> > are slightly wrong about cropping. Cropping is the selection of
> > a range of pixels based either on pixels, inches or picas, and
> > removing everything else outside of that crop.
>
> > So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
> > will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
> > a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
> > smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
> > remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
> > pixels when you crop. You can enlarge, (blow up) a 4x6 cropped
> > image to a 8x10 but you will have a choice - either keep
> > the same density and lose some definition snd/or incur noise or
> > reduce the number of pixels per inch, which MIGHT make
> > your image worse. However, if you start with a highly
> > dense image (pixels per inch), you probably won't see
> > a big difference when you enlarge. That' why I agre
> > with you on the idea - more pixels better!
>
> > Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> > to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> > they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> > that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon is
> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> > And for everyone else, the standard density of JPG images
> > on the web is 72 pixels per inch. You will probably never
> > see anything higher. It's hard to see a big difference in
> > an image that is 72ppi vs one that is 150ppi on the web.
>
> > MJ Wallace
>
> --
I think the Nikon is the D3.
On Dec 27, 11:26 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> >>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> >>> r
>
> >> I disagree.
>
> >> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You
> >> are able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an
> >> image with adequate pixel density.
>
> > Yup, it was no different with film, it was always best to use the
> > finest-grain film lighting conditions permitted so cropping and enlarging
> > didn't result in a grainy print. Having more data in your image than you
> > need is easy to live with, not enough is a different matter.
>
> The important missed fact here is that the standard film camera to take the
> better croppable/enlargeable pictures was 35 mm and larger. Imagine trying
> to start with 110 and get the same results as a 35 mm. That is what the
> problem with more mega pixels on a CCD that is 20 times smaller than a 35mm
> digital is up against along with a cheaper quality slow lens. Exposure time
> has to be much longer and shake really comes in to play.
Actually, not. Shake is NOT the big problem, nor are longer times.
Shutter lag is and noise.
On Jan 2, 9:52 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:10 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> > > On Jan 1, 8:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Charlie Self wrote:
> > >>> On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> Charlie Self wrote:
> > >>>>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> > >>>>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> > >>>>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> > >>>>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> > >>>>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
> > >>>>>>>> Canon
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> > >>>>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>
> > >>>>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> --John
> > >>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> > >>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> > >>>>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>
> > >>>> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
> > >>>> interested.
> > >>>> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>
> > >>> Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact
> > >>> remains,
> > >>> the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is
> > >>> a
> > >>> limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other
> > >>> kinds
> > >>> by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since
> > >>> its
> > >>> inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood
> > >>> the
> > >>> passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
> > >>> lightweight.
>
> > >> Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
> > >> journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely
> > >> to
> > >> miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some
> > >> of
> > >> them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's
> > >> really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
>
> > >> Really ought to see about selling my M3. I hardly ever use it
> > >> anymore.
>
> > >>> Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
> > >>> that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though
> > >>> it
> > >>> wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast
> > >>> action
> > >>> photos.
>
> > >> I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action
> > >> photography. That's one of the places where in the hands of an
> > >> expert Leica user it shined.
>
> > > Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm or
> > > 200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races,
> > > motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any
> > > photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems.
>
> > Parallax problems are only an issue for close ups, not with teles.
>
> > > It might
> > > work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're
> > > close
> > > to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles,
> > > uh,
> > > uh.
>
> > > Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with
> > > motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting at
> > > 28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was
> > > preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it
> > > handled.
>
> > By that time the Japanese era was well advanced.
>
> > > A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out
> > > great
> > > photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40 years
> > > ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to
> > > $7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it offers
> > > too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
>
> > That was a strike against all the German optical manufacturers.
> > Anything Nikon could do, Zeiss could do better, but Nikon was good
> > enough for a lot less money. And then Nikon and Canon got big enough
> > that they could do more R&D than Zeiss.
>
> Which is why I was all over the Japanese bodies with Zeiss (genuine,
> at first) lenses sold as Contax.
>
> > > My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of
> > > WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when a
> > > bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't
> > > predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
>
> > I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem? Leicas are parallax
> > corrected to point of focus--if the images are coincident and the
> > subject is in the frame then that's what's going on the film. In any
> > case the actual parallax is less than the width of your hand, so I
> > can't see how it would be an issue photographing a moving car or
> > motorcycle that fills the frame.
>
> That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was
> for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens.
> That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy.
> Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should
> have NEVER sold.
> Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well.
> Memories.
Memories, yes, and oddly enough, about the only film cameras that
anyone is interested in today. MF and LF. I find myself tempted by 4x5
at times, but the start-up cost for even light duty studio stuff (and
it's really suited for car beauty photos, too: jeez, those 4x5
transparencies!) is rough. A friend sent me a Rollei twin lens to use
for a bit something like 25 years ago. Wonderful camera. I used it
twice and sent it back. I bought a more affordable (and MUCH more
fragile) Yashicamat 124 a couple, three times. Winders break like
crazy, but the camera turns out good photos: in fact, the shot of me
on the OSSA on my web site was taken with a Yashicamat 124G in July
1972 (the rainsuit was killing me with the heat, but it wasn't as bad
as the leathers I had to wear for a later, long gone, photo).
On Jan 1, 3:21 am, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I think the FZ50 is what is called a bridge camera, not a true P&S,
> > yet not a DSLR.
>
> FWIW, "digicam" is the label I see most often for those. Perhaps,
> hybrid might be a better term. I looked long and hard at the FZs and still
> would have one if I had need of a backup or grab-it-and-go. As it is I
> still ride around with the PowerShot G2 under the passenger seat of my
> truck. At 4 megapixels it still does a respectable job and is handy when I
> need to have pics of a prospective job.
>
Four MP is usually plenty. I bought my daughter a Canon A460 for
Christmas, a 5 MP camera that is quite low in cost, but solidly made.
It takes excellent shots...I tried it before passing it along. My wife
likes it enough that she'll get one for her birthday or our
anniversary (two weeks earlier). IIRC, I paid $110 delivered, and
tossed in a 1 GB SD card I had here, plus a 256 MB card a friend gave
me. The shutter lag seems awful after you use a DSLR for a few years,
but...
On Jan 2, 9:10=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 8:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> >>>>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> >>>>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> >>>>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> >>>>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
> >>>>>>>> Canon
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> >>>>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>
> >>>>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> --John
> >>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> >>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> >>>>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>
> >>>> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
> >>>> interested.
> >>>> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>
> >>> Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact
> >>> remains,
> >>> the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is
> >>> a
> >>> limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other
> >>> kinds
> >>> by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since
> >>> its
> >>> inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood
> >>> the
> >>> passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
> >>> lightweight.
>
> >> Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
> >> journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely
> >> to
> >> miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some
> >> of
> >> them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's
> >> really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
>
> >> Really ought to see about selling my M3. =A0I hardly ever use it
> >> anymore.
>
> >>> Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
> >>> that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though
> >>> it
> >>> wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast
> >>> action
> >>> photos.
>
> >> I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action
> >> photography. =A0That's one of the places where in the hands of an
> >> expert Leica user it shined.
>
> > Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm or
> > 200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races,
> > motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any
> > photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems.
>
> Parallax problems are only an issue for close ups, not with teles.
>
> > It might
> > work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're
> > close
> > to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles,
> > uh,
> > uh.
>
> > Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with
> > motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting at
> > 28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was
> > preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it
> > handled.
>
> By that time the Japanese era was well advanced.
>
> > A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out
> > great
> > photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40 years
> > ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to
> > $7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it offers
> > too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
>
> That was a strike against all the German optical manufacturers.
> Anything Nikon could do, Zeiss could do better, but Nikon was good
> enough for a lot less money. =A0And then Nikon and Canon got big enough
> that they could do more R&D than Zeiss.
Which is why I was all over the Japanese bodies with Zeiss (genuine,
at first) lenses sold as Contax.
>
> > My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of
> > WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when a
> > bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't
> > predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
>
> I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem? =A0Leicas are parallax
> corrected to point of focus--if the images are coincident and the
> subject is in the frame then that's what's going on the film. =A0In any
> case the actual parallax is less than the width of your hand, so I
> can't see how it would be an issue photographing a moving car or
> motorcycle that fills the frame.
>
That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was
for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens.
That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy.
Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should
have NEVER sold.
Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well.
Memories.
On Dec 31, 2:58 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been
> >>> discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera.
> >>> Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic"
> >>> brand.
> >>> There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP,
> >>> which goes both longer and wider.
>
> >> Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn
> >> there
> >> was a 10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the
> >> one that's effectively the same as the V-LUX?
>
> > Wait a month. There will be a new version of any P&S, AFAICT.
>
> Dunno, it's been over a year since there was a new version of the FZ50
> family. Panasonic started shipping their SLRs and they may have seen
> the FZ50 as competing.
>
John,
I think the FZ50 is what is called a bridge camera, not a true P&S,
yet not a DSLR. The bridge camera is a dying breed because there is
more money in DSLRs, even with low end prices skidding as they have.
It's now possible to get a very good entry level DSLR and lens for
under $500...that is a 6 MP camera, with an 18-55mm lens. By this time
next year, low end DSLRs may be as much as $200 under that, and almost
certainly will be at least $100 under that $500 mark. If a bridge
camera with a tiny P&S sensor costs $550 and an entry level DSLR with
an APS-C sensor costs $425, which would you buy, even given the fact
that the bridge camera may offer the equivalent of a 35mm-200mm lens,
while the DSLR offers 27-75mm or so?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> I thought I'd share this.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> r
I disagree.
The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
with adequate pixel density.
If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high resolution
8X10 picture made.
> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>
This door knob scenario was used as an example. You might not always frame
your subject correctly or you might take a scenic shot and just want the
lower right portion.
More pixels = more flexibility during picture cropping.
> There was something on TV (I can't remember what channel now) that
> showed what the "sweet spot" of todays camera was. I thought it was
> around 4 Megapixels. Gave you pretty good range of flexibility for
> regular home use.
See above.
>
> While I agree that an 11 Megapixel camera gives you good crisp detail
> if you zoom in on specific areas, if you shrink the picture down to a
> normal print size it doesn't look any better.
Zooming in on a region and then shrink it down?? Cropping involved zooming
in on a region of the picture and having the newly framed/cropped portion
become the 'new' photo.
Again: More pixels = more flexibility during picture cropping. (I'm sure
there are more advantages to increased pixel density than just image
cropping...)
>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
>> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high
>> resolution
>> 8X10 picture made.
> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
Also, I should add that you might not be able to get close enough to your
subject. More pixel density enables you to 'zoom in' (crop) on your
subject without an expensive telephoto zoom lense. If you have enough
pixel density (MegaPixels), you can get away with zooming/cropping without
losing image sharpness.
>So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
>will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
>a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
>smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
>remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
>pixels when you crop.
Yes, I am referring to cropping and enlarging. More pixel density the
better (less of a loss of image sharpness.) In my door knob example above
in thread I mentioned taking a picture of a house and zooming/cropping in on
the door knob and making a 8X10 photo.
>Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
I hope this wasn't the only reason they stopped production. There are
advantages to digital format other than resolution. (I don't need a dark
room or a 1hr photo lab near by.)
>And for everyone else, the standard density of JPG images
>on the web is 72 pixels per inch. You will probably never
>see anything higher. It's hard to see a big difference in
>an image that is 72ppi vs one that is 150ppi on the web.
MJ Wallace
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:20:09 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Know what the musician, buried up to his nose in sand with only the top of
>his head sticking out, asks the soundman?
>
>"Can I have some more sand, please"
>
>Right, Barry?
As long as it's HIS sand. <G>
>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
>> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high
>> resolution
>> 8X10 picture made.
>That is what optical zoom is for.
Only if you have a telephoto zoom lense. Last time I checked, the good ones
are pretty expensive and you can only use them on digital SLR's (like the
one I own).
Good luck doing that with a non-SLR type digital camera.
It is interesting to note that the (by far) highest resolution "digital"
photography system - http://www.gigapxl.org/ - uses film as the optical
sensor. The negative (sensor) size is 9" x 18" - maybe an electronic
sensor will eventually reproduce this level of visual information
content, but it will still be awhile...
The negative is then scanned, producing the digital image. The overall
system resolution has increased since the project's inception - I think
the latest files are 4 Gpix. They got Adobe to include enhancements to
Photoshop to handle these multi-gigabyte image files.
The print displays are truly amazing.
--
JeffB
remove no.spam. to email
Mekon wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> I remember once in a moment of sheer stupidity, I told a group of my
> students that digital 'film' had no future. How could a photo receptor
> which has to have some sort of wiring and other macro components match
> film which works on an atomic level? I was of course blithely unaware of
> advances in IC chip technology and conveniently ignored the fact that
> the grain in film is clusters of those atomic particles and it is the
> clusters that digital competes with.
>
> Mekon
>
>
Robatoy schreef:
> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> I thought I'd share this.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> r
http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> I thought I'd share this.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> r
Check out: http://www.gigapxl.org/
On Dec 27, 8:49 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> > modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> > I thought I'd share this.
>
> >http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> > It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> > had 1 MP cameras.
>
> > So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> > advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> I was looking at some framed wildflower prints in the "guest room" the other
> day, ones that I took a few years back with one of the first Sony Mavica's
> with an optical zoom lens. This camera had to be less than 1 MP, but the
> prints were framed for a good reason ... they are excellent "photographs"
> ... I keep thinking of the old saying in the recording biz: "I'd rather
> listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad
> song".
>
> ... that's the whole story, and all you really need to know. :)
I used a Mavica to shoot photos for a bunch of manuals a few years
ago. Nasty little camera in some ways (and the assholes who owned
clanced throught the manual and tossed it, back when it was not so
easy to get online and download 90% of the world's manuals). It tooke
me some time, but I got it working sort of right and got some usable
shots. I used to be able to save about 10-12 so-called high rez black
and whites to a floppy disc. Now, I used 8 GB SDHC cards in one
camera, 4 GB CF cards in the other. Of course, I get upwards of 185
shots on the smaller card, upwards of 485 on the larger (newer camera,
better algorithims so files are smaller though it is the same maker,
same file type). Shooting a car race you need that. On one recent long
race weekend, I shot about 1,300 frames. Think of that with film!
Thefilm and processing costs would make your eyes water and your knees
buckle...about 36 rolls, with slides needed for magazines.
On Dec 27, 11:39=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > GarageWoodworks <.@.> wrote:
>
> > : The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. =A0 =
=A0You
> > are
> > : able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an
> > image
> > : with adequate pixel density.
>
> > The problem discussed in the article (and in more detail elsewhere) is
> > that the pixels get smaller in typical cameras, i.e. the pixel density
> > incrwases, and the size of the image snsor doesn't. =A0This creates
> > a great deal more noise in the image, so even slight cropping can give
> > you a lousy picture.
>
> > Sure, more pixels AND a largr sensor are great, but those are profession=
al
> > cameras.
>
> > -- Andy Barss
>
> Ahh! you too read the article. =A0LOL. =A0I never realized how tiny those =
CCD's
> were on those small cameras.
It's the "More=3DBetter" mindset that keeps screwing us over.
It's when my little 4 banger used to chew the arse out of the 'big
metal' in this neighbourhood, people would at first get all pissed
off, then they wanted to learn.
"Where's the nitrous?"
NO frickin nitrous.....
Hell, even in the late 60's my 1275 CooperS would make many people sit
up and take notice. Sure they'd catch me at the top end, but I tell
you, that little grey (and 5 other body colours) thing was talked
about a LOT. It became a local joke trying to beat Rob through the
park... nobody ever did.
At a local Show 'N Shine, I attended as a visitor and parked nearby.
When I had walked around to look at all the beauties I returned to
where I had parked, and there were people all over that thing.
On Dec 27, 8:32=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > Soon enough, we'll be able to buy a gizmo which will reintroduce the
> > scratches and pops while listening to a perfect digital
> > recording..<eg>
>
> http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VinylDreams/
>
I have only one thing to say:
"Holy fuck!"
=2E..and then I break out into a diabolical chuckle....
I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, huh?
On Dec 29, 11:58 am, FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale took a can of maroon spray paint on December 29, 2007 11:54 am and
> wrote the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David's Newsgroups" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:dHudj.35159
> >> Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro Photo
> >> (X2).
>
> > As do I, but I like Fireworks instead. About four months ago, I bought
> > myself a Nikon D40X camera with a 70-300 mm lens. I take all pictures at
> > the highest resolution and then crop them or resize them to what I want.
> > With a fast 2 gig class 6 secure digital card, I can take as many pictures
> > as I want, keep what I want and discard the rest. I think this is the best
> > part of digital cameras, the fact that it doesn't cost a cent after the
> > initial camera purchase to take as many images as I desire.
>
> > Unlike many printers where the companies make their profits on the
> > consumables, digital cameras don't really have any consumables to speak
> > of.
>
> Except for batteries, they eat those for lunch.
> --
> Lits Slut #9
> Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
Rechargeables.
"Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Somewhere around here I still have some of the old processing mailers for
> Kodachrome. I wonder if they are still accepted by Kodak?
Somewhere around here I've got a couple of rolls of exposed film I've
never had processed and have long, long ago forgotten what's on them.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
>>
>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon is
> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
D3. Supposedly fantastic
Mike
"David's Newsgroups" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:dHudj.35159
> Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro Photo
> (X2).
As do I, but I like Fireworks instead. About four months ago, I bought
myself a Nikon D40X camera with a 70-300 mm lens. I take all pictures at the
highest resolution and then crop them or resize them to what I want. With a
fast 2 gig class 6 secure digital card, I can take as many pictures as I
want, keep what I want and discard the rest. I think this is the best part
of digital cameras, the fact that it doesn't cost a cent after the initial
camera purchase to take as many images as I desire.
Unlike many printers where the companies make their profits on the
consumables, digital cameras don't really have any consumables to speak of.
On Dec 31 2007, 8:54 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote
>
>
>
> > I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11,
> <snip>
> > It also locks up about every other time it is used.
>
> Another nail in the coffin of value and substance when Corel took over JASC
> ... I'm using PSP 6 until no OS will run it.
>
If I shot JPEG heavily, I'd still be there with you. Unfortunately,
shooting raw requires a convertor in the computer, sincne I'm not
using the one in the camera. I may change from raw to raw+JPEG, though
that means my 8 GB card will hold only about 385 photos.
On Dec 27, 7:59=A0pm, Mekon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy was thinking very hard :
>
> (snip)
>
> > PS, I always like to run into people who truly understand the Zeiss
> > story.... then I tell them about an acquaintance of mine who bought a
> > Zeiss microscope at an auction for $ 200.00 only to discover that the
> > package also included a Zeiss-built 35 mm camera and an additional $
> > 20K worth of optics and lighting gear... including ring flash and all
> > kinds of really nifty stuff. I took some pictures of phonograph styli
> > and grooves and wondered how-the-hell that ever worked as well as it
> > did.
>
> Gulp.
> The first T* I saw was a 180 portrait lens and I got a pal to take a
> shot of me with it and the resolution it yielded was stunning. I still
> have some of those shots and occaisionally dig out a magnifying glass
> to wonder at the technology over again.
> I remember once in a moment of sheer stupidity, I told a group of my
> students that digital 'film' had no future. How could a photo receptor
> which has to have some sort of wiring and other macro components match
> film which works on an atomic level? I was of course blithely unaware
> of advances in IC chip technology and conveniently ignored the fact
> that the grain in film is clusters of those atomic particles and it is
> the clusters that digital competes with.
>
> Mekon
The part that I like, is that there are many filters in Photoshop and
other image processing software, trying to simulate the grain we used
to fight to eliminate! (noise, blur)
Soon enough, we'll be able to buy a gizmo which will reintroduce the
scratches and pops while listening to a perfect digital
recording..<eg>
I showed some slides to a neighbour of mine that I had shot in the
Arctic. He wanted to know what process I had used to make the image so
stark and cold. I told him I used the Kodachrome and Zeiss process. he
said "Oh".."will that work on Corel?"
On Dec 27, 4:12 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
the MegaPixel race
Yep, and worse, those fools sending seven mp images via e-mail are
wasting time and bandwidth as anything beyond the Max Res of the
recipient's monitor is a waste.
On Dec 27, 6:43=A0pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> >So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out =A0a 4x6 image, I
> >will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
> >a 8x10. =A0Cropping makes the physical size of the image
> >smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
> >remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
> >pixels when you crop.
>
> Yes, I am referring to cropping and enlarging. =A0 More pixel density the
> better (less of a loss of image sharpness.) =A0 In my door knob example ab=
ove
> in thread I mentioned taking a picture of a house and zooming/cropping in =
on
> the door knob and making a 8X10 photo.
>
> >Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> >to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> >they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> >that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> I hope this wasn't the only reason they stopped production. =A0 There are
> advantages to digital format other than resolution. =A0(I don't need a dar=
k
> room or a 1hr photo lab near by.)
>
And a whole lot less wash water going into the environment.... water
that had all kinda of nifty bromides and crap in it.
Also, the making of film is hardly a green process.
But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote
> I also forgot...
>
> "In my monitor, I'd like everything louder than everything else."
:) Yep ... that was a studio "joke" also.
The producer sits down and sez: "OK, when we get everything louder than
everything else, we can go home!"
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:22:24 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:20:09 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Know what the musician, buried up to his nose in sand with only the top of
>>his head sticking out, asks the soundman?
>>
>>"Can I have some more sand, please"
>>
>>Right, Barry?
>
>
>As long as it's HIS sand. <G>
I also forgot...
"In my monitor, I'd like everything louder than everything else."
On Dec 27, 4:24 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> > While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
> > with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>
> This door knob scenario was used as an example. You might not always frame
> your subject correctly or you might take a scenic shot and just want the
> lower right portion.
>
> More pixels = more flexibility during picture cropping.
>
> > There was something on TV (I can't remember what channel now) that
> > showed what the "sweet spot" of todays camera was. I thought it was
> > around 4 Megapixels. Gave you pretty good range of flexibility for
> > regular home use.
>
> See above.
>
>
>
> > While I agree that an 11 Megapixel camera gives you good crisp detail
> > if you zoom in on specific areas, if you shrink the picture down to a
> > normal print size it doesn't look any better.
>
> Zooming in on a region and then shrink it down?? Cropping involved zooming
> in on a region of the picture and having the newly framed/cropped portion
> become the 'new' photo.
Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly. I ment if you take a picture,
then make it a normal "Print" or web sized picture. No zooming
involved.
On Dec 27, 6:27=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
> >>> your house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a
> >>> high resolution
> >>> 8X10 picture made.
> >> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
> >> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>
> > Also, I should add that you might not be able to get close enough to
> > your subject. =A0 More pixel density enables you to 'zoom in' (crop)
> > on
> > your subject without an expensive telephoto zoom lense. =A0 If you
> > have
> > enough pixel density (MegaPixels), you can get away with
> > zooming/cropping without losing image sharpness.
>
> However the smaller the pixel the higher the noise. =A0This is why an
> APS-C camera can get usable images in much less light than a compact
> with the same pixel count.
>
Exactly right.
"Hank Finkel" wrote
> I shoot a lot of pictures at bicycle races. All of the old folks (30+)
,and
> kids, want color and most of the 18 - 25 year olds like B&W.
Clearly grounds for a government funded study on whether this un-American
black and white preference is PTSD caused by the Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles.
... lookout taxpayers, here come more SS disability payments!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
> >>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> >>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> >>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> >>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> >>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon
> >>>> is
> >>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> >>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>
> >> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> > How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>
> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica interested.
> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>
Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact remains,
the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is a
limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other kinds
by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since its
inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood the
passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
lightweight. Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though it
wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast action
photos.
On Dec 27, 5:45 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> >> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> >> r
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
> > able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
> > with adequate pixel density.
>
> Yup, it was no different with film, it was always best to use the
> finest-grain film lighting conditions permitted so cropping and enlarging
> didn't result in a grainy print. Having more data in your image than you
> need is easy to live with, not enough is a different matter.
One major difference with digital is that creating too fine a grain
for sensor size creates grain (noise). It is simply impossible to
state that more and more pixels is always better. A 10 MP point &
shoot camera is a waste of money. A 10 MP DSLR is not, but it has a
sensor that is much larger, thus can accept more density and give
better results.
Upscale took a can of maroon spray paint on December 29, 2007 11:54 am and
wrote the following:
>
> "David's Newsgroups" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:dHudj.35159
>> Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro Photo
>> (X2).
>
> As do I, but I like Fireworks instead. About four months ago, I bought
> myself a Nikon D40X camera with a 70-300 mm lens. I take all pictures at
> the highest resolution and then crop them or resize them to what I want.
> With a fast 2 gig class 6 secure digital card, I can take as many pictures
> as I want, keep what I want and discard the rest. I think this is the best
> part of digital cameras, the fact that it doesn't cost a cent after the
> initial camera purchase to take as many images as I desire.
>
> Unlike many printers where the companies make their profits on the
> consumables, digital cameras don't really have any consumables to speak
> of.
Except for batteries, they eat those for lunch.
--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
On Dec 30, 10:37=A0pm, Tanus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 9:49 pm, Hoosierpopi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>
> >>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> "crop out everything except your door knob"
>
> >> WOuld it not be simpler to set the 1MP camera to "close-up" and shoot
> >> the knobs?
>
> > There are a few knobs I would like to shoot around here...LOL
>
> You've been havin' a busy day Rob.
>
> Breathe, man. Breathe.
>
*tears*, for real, man... thanks for the good laugh...
"David's Newsgroups" wrote
> I need MORE COWBELL!
Yep ... the old sad, but all too true, live soundman's favorite joke:
Know what the musician, buried up to his nose in sand with only the top of
his head sticking out, asks the soundman?
"Can I have some more sand, please"
Right, Barry?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Robatoy" wrote
> You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a
> nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
>
> You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
LOL ... replace color with frequency and we've got an audio (control room
monitor) discussion going.
"The mix/scene sounded/looked great in the studio/lens, but ...."
;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think the FZ50 is what is called a bridge camera, not a true P&S,
> yet not a DSLR.
FWIW, "digicam" is the label I see most often for those. Perhaps,
hybrid might be a better term. I looked long and hard at the FZs and still
would have one if I had need of a backup or grab-it-and-go. As it is I
still ride around with the PowerShot G2 under the passenger seat of my
truck. At 4 megapixels it still does a respectable job and is handy when I
need to have pics of a prospective job.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charlie Self" wrote
>
>> Almost no black and white. No editor wants much of it these days...
>
> It's funny, the difference in generations ... be it noted that the
> pendulum may be swinging the other way:
>
> I think of text messaging as a PITA, while my 22 year old daughter prefers
> it over all other means of communication, including voice ... IOW, these
> kids twist technology to suit their tastes, and set trends in doing so.
>
> Bought her a Canon Power Shot (don't recall the model) for her birthday
> last summer and noticed the other day that she ONLY shoots in black and
> white. Had to insist, as the designated photographer for family Christmas
> this year, that she shoot in color. Her roommate, the staff photographer
> for the college rag, does the same, as do the other kids who hang around
> here during vacation time.
>
> Apparently black and white is far from dead, and seems to be preferable,
> as far as these youngsters are concerned.
>
> (and if you can't beat'em ... I texted all my "Happy New Years" Last
> night!)
>
> --
I shoot a lot of pictures at bicycle races. All of the old folks (30+) ,and
kids, want color and most of the 18 - 25 year olds like B&W.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b4a078d7-67c7-4119-bba4-f0a443414d66@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> Ask me how much I miss film.
Oh how we envied the pros with the trackside photo passes, the bulk film
loaders, and motordrives. Anyone can come up with a handful of
magazine-worthy photos with that combination (so we thought). I actually
fanagled a photographer's pass for the '74 Canadian GP at Mosport through a
local short track rag here in Houston. I was still stuck with my SRT-101
(match needle!). The future article never developed and it went nowhere but
for just once in my life . . . ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h. Somewhere in my attic
I might still have those Tri-X proof sheets.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
BTW, how much do you miss film? Or, put another way; do you think
you'll ever shoot film again?"
Just kidding.
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>
>>> I thought I'd share this.
>>
>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>
>>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
>>> had 1 MP cameras.
>>
>>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>
>>> r
>>
>> I disagree.
While everything you say is true, you're talking about the extremes of
people using them and not the folks on the street. It still holds IMO
that the high Megapixels of today's often pretty expensive cameras are
wasted on the majority of the population. As each price range begins to
drop, higher and better pixel cameras come out for yet more premium
pricing, and that is that marketing and advertising freaks are making
neophytes want to buy them rather than admitting they're really more for
the photo experienced enthusiast or professional photographer; not
something most people are after. The lower pixel cameras are good deals
right now and work well for the majority of people, especially when they
have bothered to do any homework at all to see what pixel numbers
actually mean.
Pixel numbers are not only misstated and misleading a lot of times
but sometimes are so overstated as to be meaningless.
The average bear with a photo album, onscreen albums and amateur works
are now low priced enough to be avialable to almost anyone and in many
ways beat out the SLRs et al hands down.
Some pixel info:
pixel defined
One addressable point of color. Pixels can vary in size - see
resolution.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0203/02030602foveonx3notation.asp
When is a pixel not a pixel? When it's three.
Each pixel can only be one color at a time. However, since they are so
small, pixels often blend together to form various shades and blends of
colors. The number of colors each pixel can be is determined by the
number of bits used to represent it. For example, 8-bit color allows for
2 to the 8th, or 256 colors to be displayed. At this color depth, you
may be able to see "graininess," or spotted colors when one color blends
to another. However, at 16, 24, and 32-bit color depths, the color
blending is smooth and, unless you have some kind of extra-sensory
vision capability, you should not see any graininess
The bottom line: know the final destination of your images. Following
is a guide to the amount of megapixels required in the camera:
Destination Minimum Megapixels
Web site images 1 MP
Computer screen 2 MP
3x5 and 4x6 prints 2 MP
8x10 print 4 MP
11x14 print 6 MP
16x20 print 12 MP
Record Modes in the
Olympus SP-560UZ Digital Camera
Mode Resolutions
Still Pictures (JPEG Record Modes)
SQ2 1600x1200, 1280x960, 1024x768, 640x480
SQ1 2560x1920, 2304x1728, 2048x1536
HQ 3264x2448, 3264x2176 (more compression)
SHQ 3264x2448, 3264x2176 (least compression)
Video/Movies (MPEG Record Modes)
SQ 160x120 15 fps
HQ 320x240 15 fps
SHQ 640x480 30 fps
...
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Dec 29, 6:04 pm, "Dead-Eye-Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Somewhere around here I still have some of the old processing mailers
> > for
> > Kodachrome. I wonder if they are still accepted by Kodak?
>
> Somewhere around here I've got a couple of rolls of exposed film I've
> never had processed and have long, long ago forgotten what's on them.
>
That kinda shit can get you arrested...LOL
THOSE are in the gun safe.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"yugami" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c9cdb604-f3c9-4980-9de6-9765e9c76095@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 3:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>
>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
>> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high
>> resolution
>> 8X10 picture made.
>
> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>
> There was something on TV (I can't remember what channel now) that
> showed what the "sweet spot" of todays camera was. I thought it was
> around 4 Megapixels. Gave you pretty good range of flexibility for
> regular home use.
>
> While I agree that an 11 Megapixel camera gives you good crisp detail
> if you zoom in on specific areas, if you shrink the picture down to a
> normal print size it doesn't look any better.
It sure doesn't look any worse. This is definitely a case of "if a
little is good, a lot is better."
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
>
> My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which fills
> the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon has
> a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with
> that lens.
>
While I am sure you are happy with your results and yours having a good
brand lens, I would be willing to bet that the lens on your camera is much
slower, has a much higher number F-Stop on the low/wide open end than the
35mm camera lens your are compairing to. This will result in the need for
longer exposure times for proper exposure and can distort the recording.
My digital goes to something like 325 mm as a comparison and will focus to
.4 inches but is still no comparison to any of my Canon 35mm film cameras
and their cheaper lenses. The 35 mm camera telephoto lenses simply let in
tons more light.
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
J. Clarke wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> r
>>>> I dunno.
>>>>
>>>> Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the
>>>> old
>>>> 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures
>>>> from it much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much
>>>> better as well as the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I
>>>> also like the anti blur and the movie/sound capabilities. I put a
>>>> 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as opposed to the 64MB max card I have
>>>> in
>>>> the Ricoh. It takes two AA batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh
>>>> and doesn't appear to eat them at anywhere near the rate the Ricoh
>>>> does. It's also much faster on powerup and between shots.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99
>>>> made Santa feel good.
>>> Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras
>>> together but both being new would have any effect on the results.
>>> A
>>> CCD with 8 years of wear may not perform as good as one that is
>>> brand new.
>>> This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the
>>> new one has over the old one. ;~)
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe, but viewing some of the first pics I took with the Ricoh vs
>> the
>> Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old
>> pics
>> pixels are stored on are fading ;-)
>
> More likely the in-camera processing is different between the two. Or
> the program defaults are different. Might be possible to adjust the
> Ricoh to give results similar to the Canon, might not, depends on how
> much adjustment it allows.
>
That could well be - they both have more options/settings than I can
comprehend without the manual in hand, and by then, the picture
opportunity is long gone :-( In the olden days, one reading of this
stuff and it was imprinted, but now-a-daze I have to get the book out to
set the alarm clock.
"Robatoy" wrote
> I hope you'll find the time to read this article which opened my
> eyes...with quite a bit of sadness.
Read it, but didn't need to ... lived it. Engineered a big commercial a few
years back using a Ricky Martin production as the backing track ... I was
instructed to rip the song off a CD his producer sent along for the purpose.
If you've ever seen "music" (I use the term in the most loose sense)
waveforms represented on computer software, you will appreciate the fact
that, on the screen, and starting at zero to the end of the song, the
waveform from this track looked precisely like a red tubafour extending from
left to right ... now, that's compression!
It was pretty standard practice to compress mixes pretty hard for radio play
when I first started engineering back in the dinosaur "vinyl" days. (those
57 Chevy dashboard speakers were so bad that we routinely, and "accidently",
drove off with speakers from the local drive-in move theater as "upgrades")
... and if you don't learn to compress for TV, you'll go broke quickly.
BUT, we had a sensibility to the music in those days that is arguably
nonexistent today (just another example of the world going to shit, Joe B.
... with all the cRap on the airwaves) and were considerate enough to do two
masters, one for airplay, one for retail/the people ... that's much too
complicated for today's ProTools mouse jockey's world of "let the pigs have
the same swill".
You start with shit, no matter how much sugar you use, you still got shit.
.... can you say "iPOD ear buds"?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Charlie Self" wrote
> I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11,
<snip>
> It also locks up about every other time it is used.
Another nail in the coffin of value and substance when Corel took over JASC
... I'm using PSP 6 until no OS will run it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Dec 28, 8:36 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a
> > nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
>
> > You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
>
> LOL ... replace color with frequency and we've got an audio (control room
> monitor) discussion going.
>
> "The mix/scene sounded/looked great in the studio/lens, but ...."
>
> ;)
>
You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
I need MORE COWBELL!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:GNuej.10376$ZI4.2742@trnddc08...
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>>>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>>
>>>> I thought I'd share this.
>>>
>>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>>
>>>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
>>>> had 1 MP cameras.
>>>
>>>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>>>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>>
>>>> r
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>
> While everything you say is true, you're talking about the extremes of
> people using them and not the folks on the street. It still holds IMO
> that the high Megapixels of today's often pretty expensive cameras are
> wasted on the majority of the population.
You guys are just a bunch of cheap bastards bitching about a few mexapixels.
If you had any interest in taking a decent picture, you'd just get the CF39
on the H2 kit and be done with it.
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Hasselblad-39-series.htm
Prices are here
http://www.dcviews.com/press/pdffiles/Hasselblad-39-series-prices.pdf
http://www.pictureline.com/cat/219/Hasselblad_Digital_Backs/?mid=32
or the H3D
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000Z0JZ74?smid=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&tag=dealtime-ce-feed-20&linkCode=asn
I'm ordering mine as soon as I can get a coupon for free shipping or
something.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:02e9d1bd-616c-4971-9803-e2452801208b@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 9:31 pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> How did K25 lie to you?
It wasn't linear.
> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough grain
> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
> the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
> Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
> just looked terrible to me.
> Art
>
You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a
nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
I also got great 16x20 in Cibachromes from those slides. Then I went
to C prints and CPS 135.
But I could never find 120 roll film in Kodachrome; it was always
Ectachrome. another slightly bluer/greener transparency film.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 12:21 pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> radiates
> his brilliance:
> .
>>
>> In other words, higher pixel rates not needed, even if they were
>> available at the time of design of the rovers, dummy.
>
> I had a 3 MP camera 2 years before the launch of the Mars Rovers. But
> I kept that a secret, with Nikon's help, from the idiots at NASA.
> They chose the 1 MP CCD (each pixel has 12 bit depth) because it
> performed exceptionally well at much lower noise than anything else...
> but then again, you know all that.
>
>>
>>> What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?
>>
>> A strong aversion to mis-information.
>
> I see. Misinformation includes facts you disagree with or don't
> understand?
>
> I stand by the facts: A properly designed 1 MP camera blows the doors
> off a poorly designed 12 MP. There's more to gathering information via
> CCD than what the shills at Madeson Ave. want you to buy into.
That in essence is what I've been saying; where have you been? My
exception would be that I referred to today and yesterday's lot of 1 Mp
vs high Mp rated cameras.
>
> Now go gather up some flies and take pictures of their asses...who
> woulda thunk it...somebody's into fly porn.
Well, that shows your true colors and the oversized aspect of your ego,
doesn't it now? When you're afraid you're "losing", switch to childish
name calling and start to come on like the closet-troll you must be.
That's a trait of someone who feels powerless and hopes to get the upper
hand by starting a name calling contest.
You quite clearly have a problem with reading comprehension and the
reality of pixel sizes vs application of pixel sizes. So until you come
up with something sensible to say and that exhibits some actual
knowledge of reality, this thread is finished for me. I have nothing
more to say to your or read from you.
Cheers,
Pop`
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GarageWoodworks <.@.> wrote:
>
> : The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You
> are
> : able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an
> image
> : with adequate pixel density.
>
>
>
> The problem discussed in the article (and in more detail elsewhere) is
> that the pixels get smaller in typical cameras, i.e. the pixel density
> incrwases, and the size of the image snsor doesn't. This creates
> a great deal more noise in the image, so even slight cropping can give
> you a lousy picture.
>
> Sure, more pixels AND a largr sensor are great, but those are professional
> cameras.
>
> -- Andy Barss
>
Ahh! you too read the article. LOL. I never realized how tiny those CCD's
were on those small cameras.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's the "More=Better" mindset that keeps screwing us over.
It's when my little 4 banger used to chew the arse out of the 'big
metal' in this neighbourhood, people would at first get all pissed
off, then they wanted to learn.
"Where's the nitrous?"
NO frickin nitrous.....
Or the 18 volt drill over the 9.6 or 12 volt. Typically the biggest
difference you notice is in the weight.
"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Only if you have a telephoto zoom lense. Last time I checked, the good
> ones are pretty expensive and you can only use them on digital SLR's (like
> the one I own).
>
> Good luck doing that with a non-SLR type digital camera.
And that was pretty much the point of the article. Most 10 and larger
megapixel cameras sold today are not a 35 mm digital SLR. Most hace tiny
CCD's and limp lenses regardless of brand when compared to a 35 mm digital.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I was looking at some framed wildflower prints in the "guest room" the
> other day, ones that I took a few years back with one of the first Sony
> Mavica's with an optical zoom lens. This camera had to be less than 1 MP,
> but the prints were framed for a good reason ... they are excellent
> "photographs" ... I keep thinking of the old saying in the recording biz:
> "I'd rather listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good
> recording of a bad song".
>
> ... that's the whole story, and all you really need to know. :)
As with anything these days and the introduction of more technology, the old
cameras and their lenses were higher quality and I highly suspect that with
older technology the CCD's were larger also. Really and truly, the more
megapixels are good if you want huge blow ups or to blow up small parts of
an image. Past that you would never tell the difference unless the lens was
crappy, which I suspect also is the case today vs. 5 years ago.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:K4%cj.1251$6%[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
>
>>
>> My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which fills
>> the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon has
>> a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with
>> that lens.
>>
>
> While I am sure you are happy with your results and yours having a good
> brand lens, I would be willing to bet that the lens on your camera is much
> slower, has a much higher number F-Stop on the low/wide open end than the
> 35mm camera lens your are compairing to. This will result in the need for
> longer exposure times for proper exposure and can distort the recording.
>
> My digital goes to something like 325 mm as a comparison and will focus to
> .4 inches but is still no comparison to any of my Canon 35mm film cameras
> and their cheaper lenses. The 35 mm camera telephoto lenses simply let in
> tons more light.
You sure have to pay for those "fast" lenses. I've been shopping for a
2.8 telephoto in the 100-300mm zoom range: OUCH! SONY wants $2300 for a
70-210 f2.8! I ended up with Tamron's 18-250 f3.5-6.3 as compromise and
have been happy to date. And the image stabilization does give me another
couple of f-stops. It was also less than a fourth of the price of that
SONY. If only this Alpha would take the old Minolta Rokkor lenses I have.
To the quality issue SONY's 18-70 kit lens for their Alpha line compare
favorably [in image quality] to their new Zeiss 16-80 selling for several
times more if you believe the written reviews.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
>> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>>
>
> This door knob scenario was used as an example. You might not always
> frame your subject correctly or you might take a scenic shot and just want
> the lower right portion.
>
> More pixels = more flexibility during picture cropping.
Again, all good on paper but if the recorded image sucks because of a lens
that is not up to the task you can never get a good image.
On Dec 30, 5:37=A0pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
Somehere in the back of cobwebbed mind you may think that your
response was clever.... enjoy the illusion.
Other than that
F A I L
and <plonk>
God, I hate idiots....
On Jan 2, 12:11=A0pm, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> =A0 =A0 Make me an offer, Rob! =A0I gots a Rolleicord twins-lens though, a=
las, it
> has the Schneider-Kreuznach 3.5/75 glass.
> I probably have not fiddled with it in 20 years; FIL used to drag it aroun=
d
> with him through So. Texas when he was a claims agent for the railroad, ga=
ve
> to me at some point long after 35mm becme the standard issue. =A0If I look=
> around I may even find some Ectachrome slides I took though mostly I got
> film prints and mostly from backpacking jaunts (Big Bend, maybe the
> Smokies). =A0Never could make myself pull the trigger on a projector that
> would handle the slides though.
> --
WAY tempting, but I also know that I would have to set up a darkroom
again. I just don't have the time with all that's going on around
here.
When I retire (for real, next time) I will take a hard look at that
hobby again.
BUT.. I think I'm in love:
http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html
Is that too sweet, or what?
On Dec 29, 6:04=A0pm, "Dead-Eye-Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Somewhere around here I still have some of the old processing mailers fo=
r
> > Kodachrome. =A0I wonder if they are still accepted by Kodak?
>
> =A0 =A0 Somewhere around here I've got a couple of rolls of exposed film I=
've
> never had processed and have long, long ago forgotten what's on them.
>
That kinda shit can get you arrested...LOL
On Dec 27, 9:31 pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> How did K25 lie to you?
> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough grain
> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
> the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
> Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
> just looked terrible to me.
> Art
>
> "Mekon" wrote in message ...
>
> > > But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
All films lie. So do sensors.
On Dec 28, 12:13=A0am, Andrew Erickson <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
> =A0It's also worth observing that the linear resolution of an
> image increases with with the square of the number of pixels, so the
> width or height increase when going from, say, 6 megapixels to 10
> megapixels is only a factor of about 1.3.
Again, hits the nail on the head. The 'big' number increase, is in
fact grossly overblown in its significance.
The numbers game is a crock of shit.
"Oh my... he was shot between the eyes with a .458 magnum, he'd be a
lot less dead if he was shot with a .357!!!"
"I got 455 horses under the hood, now howcome that rascal with only
200 is whooping my ass?"
I got a 3 HP tablesaw and I'm a frickin' idiot, howcome I can't build
a decent footstool?
Don't get me started....
"Robatoy" wrote
> The attention to detail in a recording studio is such a waste of time
> these days.
Hehe ... Hell, just wait until the singer/songwriter's boyfriend shows up
... he'll feel compelled to add his 2000 cents, even though he's never been
in a studio before, and can't even spell "mix".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 31, 4:44 pm, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I used a Mavica to shoot photos for a bunch of manuals a few years
> > ago. Nasty little camera in some ways (and the assholes who owned
> > clanced throught the manual and tossed it, back when it was not so
> > easy to get online and download 90% of the world's manuals). It tooke
> > me some time, but I got it working sort of right and got some usable
> > shots. I used to be able to save about 10-12 so-called high rez black
> > and whites to a floppy disc. Now, I used 8 GB SDHC cards in one
> > camera, 4 GB CF cards in the other. Of course, I get upwards of 185
> > shots on the smaller card, upwards of 485 on the larger (newer camera,
> > better algorithims so files are smaller though it is the same maker,
> > same file type). Shooting a car race you need that. On one recent long
> > race weekend, I shot about 1,300 frames. Think of that with film!
> > Thefilm and processing costs would make your eyes water and your knees
> > buckle...about 36 rolls, with slides needed for magazines.
>
> And I used to think shooting a case (12 rolls) of 36 exposure ectachrome
> at the Canadian or USGP was a shitload of film! One year I even bought
> three or four additional rolls! Now my 4gif CF in the A100 get me 971
> images at 10 mpxls each.
Yeah. I used to trot around motocross courses with a Canon F1, motor
drive and bulk back (held, IIRC, 50', usually TriX) and feel like I
was shooting the world. Now, I carry three 8 GB cards, one 4 GB for
one camera, and about 16 GBs in cards for the other, plus a 30 gig
SmartDisk to take any extras, so a four day weekend won't leave me
high and dry. I haven't come close to filling them all yet, but...
With the TriX, I used to develop, print contacts, then make my own
prints, in an apartment darkroom. That cut the cost, before prints, to
about a penny a frame, I seem to recall, with prints running maybe 20
cents each (not counting electricity for the gloss dryer, polish for
the plates, my time and a host of other things). By the next Thursday,
the articles were written, with one off to a U.S. magazine and from
one to three to British mags. Gross for the 'weekend' (five to six
days) was around $450, max. Of course, we're kicking around '68, '69,
'70, '71 there, so a net of maybe $225-$275 was a lot more than it is
now.
Now, I take a quick gander at the shots, selecting the ones I want to
go further with, and then spend about one to five minutes each on 100
shots for later possible resale. A total of probably three hours. No
chemical stink, no worries about light leaks with paper and film,
no...the list goes on and on. Cost per frame goes down with every
frame shot, instead of rising.
Ask me how much I miss film.
On Dec 27, 5:50=A0pm, Mekon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy laid this down on his screen :
>
> > Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> > modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> > I thought I'd share this.
>
> >http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> > It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> > had 1 MP cameras.
>
> They had the best available at launch -the Apollo missions had
> Hassleblads (the best roll film cameras in the world)
Only because it had the best lenses (Zeiss) and a switchable back.
>
> At any rate there are three cameras on the rover, one is a low res
> colour imager but the other two have about 160Mp each!
>
That is incorrect. The largest CCD was 1024 x 2056, but only half was
used for imaging.
r
On Dec 31 2007, 11:05 pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> BTW, how much do you miss film? Or, put another way; do you think
> :> you'll ever shoot film again?"
> :> Just kidding.
>
> : You don't need the contacts. You do need the negs. Have some fun and
> : scan them in and fool with them in PSP or another lower cost program.
> : I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11, but
> : it does handle the K10D raw files without an itnermediary program. It
> : also locks up about every other time it is used.
>
> : I might shoot film again, if someone loans me a camera and loads it
> : for me, and there's someplace to get it all processed, and put on CD
> : or DVD. I sold all my film gear, including darkroom equipment, years
> : ago.
>
> Do you do much B&W with digital? What equipment (both camera and printer)
> do yuo recommend?
>
Almost no black and white. No editor wants much of it these days...my
next book will be all color, something that never used to happen...and
they can convert if needed. Like most people, I'd recommend what I
use, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really is the best for you.
I use a Pentax K10D, and an Epson R1800 (buy a refurb from Epson and
you can save a remarkable amount, with a one year replacement warranty
if it quits working). Given the budget, I'd have opted for the R3800,
but that, I hope, is this year's second big purchase. The first will
be a K20D (or whatever the model number is), when that comes out.
I can tell you that if you're interested in black and white, you do
NOT want the R1800. The R2400 is fine, as is the R3800, but every
blinking B&W I've printed, without going to sepia in the computer, has
a bluish cast. With a couple of recent deaths in my wife's family (her
parents), I've been scanning and printing numerous old photos. I'm
going to start sending them to WalMart on a CD instead, I think.
Cheaper, for one thing. Better B&W, for another.
The K10D has a filter feature, processing done in camera, that allows
you to reproduce JPEGs in B&W, sepia, and a variety of colors, in
addiiton to a straight shot. It also has a couple of junk "filters,"
a slimming filter, and one for softening photos (presumably for
shooting faces like mine with plenty of lines: I worked for these
damned lines, pits and scars, and I want to see them).
On Dec 31, 6:23 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:49 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > With the TriX, I used to develop, print contacts, then make my own
> > prints, in an apartment darkroom.
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> That's a blast from the past. Except, I used a Contax. I pushed the
> Tri-X to 650 and gave it a bit more time in the old Microdol or D-76.
> I had a Leitz enlarger with a Nikon EL Nikkor lens ( all the rage back
> then)
> Then I printed onto a variety of Ilford papers. I have many of those
> shots and each and every one means something to this day. Considering
> many are close to 40 years old, the archival quality is simply
> amazing.
>
> As a hobby, carving with light was very satisfying and could be
> intense with the dodging and burning and getting the contrast/mood
> 'just right'...
>
>
>
> > Ask me how much I miss film.
>
> I miss it sometimes. The ritual. The mixing of the chemicals, the
> smells..feeling a bit like The Wizard Of Id.
The part I really don't miss. I felt more like a mad scientist.
>
> These days, my HP 9800 13" x 19" borderless with a photo-grey
> cartridge on watercolour paper, gives me some that back. Costs about $
> 5.00 per print. Nice paper is expensive.
Epson R1800. Lousy black and white, but gorgeous color. Next time
around, the R3800 (hoping my wife isn't looking, because IIRC, it runs
about $1,300..refurb probably $900).
> It reminds me of the machine gunner vs the sniper analogy. Squeezing
> off 100 shots without consequences isn't the same as that one shot
> opportunity. Mind you, I have taken group shots and moved heads around
> between frames to get optimum results..LOL
The old Canon would give me about a four shot blast, maybe five, while
a particular scene was in focus--manual focus, remember? Actually,
through about '99, I found manual focus far more effective than
autofocus, but Pentax's current version is decent, though it tends to
hunt in low light with some lenses. The buffer fills at about nine raw
shots, which is twice what the manual Canon would do--nearly 40 years
ago.
But there's another point in favor of the DSLR: weight. The camera
itself is a tad heavier than the old F1, I think, but overall, whenyou
add the motor drive and bulk back, the Canon outweighed the K10D by
about four to one. That doesn't count the need for a changing bag and
another sealed tin with another 50' of film ready to load. And zooms
back then were one step up from useless, at least for publishing, so
to be fully equipped, you needed a 28mm, a 50mm, a 100 or 135mm, a
180mm or 200mm, and, if your back would take it, a 300mm.
I am now WAY too old for that. Half the time now, I leave the second
camera at home, and keep my fingers crossed. Not really: I leave it on
the golf cart, where I can usually reach it in 10 minutes at most. It
might get stolen, but so far, not.
On Dec 31, 3:21=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 9:31 pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> How did K25 lie to you?
> >> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. =A0Fine enough grain=
> >> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong i=
n
> >> the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
> >> Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
> >> just looked terrible to me.
> >> Art
>
> >> "Mekon" =A0wrote in message ...
>
> >> =A0> > But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
>
> > All films lie. So do sensors.
>
> and censors...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/WeSeeWhat.jpg
On Dec 31, 5:49=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> With the TriX, I used to develop, print contacts, then make my own
> prints, in an apartment darkroom.
[snipped for brevity]
That's a blast from the past. Except, I used a Contax. I pushed the
Tri-X to 650 and gave it a bit more time in the old Microdol or D-76.
I had a Leitz enlarger with a Nikon EL Nikkor lens ( all the rage back
then)
Then I printed onto a variety of Ilford papers. I have many of those
shots and each and every one means something to this day. Considering
many are close to 40 years old, the archival quality is simply
amazing.
As a hobby, carving with light was very satisfying and could be
intense with the dodging and burning and getting the contrast/mood
'just right'...
>
> Ask me how much I miss film.
I miss it sometimes. The ritual. The mixing of the chemicals, the
smells..feeling a bit like The Wizard Of Id.
These days, my HP 9800 13" x 19" borderless with a photo-grey
cartridge on watercolour paper, gives me some that back. Costs about $
5.00 per print. Nice paper is expensive.
It reminds me of the machine gunner vs the sniper analogy. Squeezing
off 100 shots without consequences isn't the same as that one shot
opportunity. Mind you, I have taken group shots and moved heads around
between frames to get optimum results..LOL
On Dec 27, 3:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high resolution
> 8X10 picture made.
While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
There was something on TV (I can't remember what channel now) that
showed what the "sweet spot" of todays camera was. I thought it was
around 4 Megapixels. Gave you pretty good range of flexibility for
regular home use.
While I agree that an 11 Megapixel camera gives you good crisp detail
if you zoom in on specific areas, if you shrink the picture down to a
normal print size it doesn't look any better.
On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
> >>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> >>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> >>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> >>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> >> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon is
> >> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> > D3. Supposedly fantastic
>
> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
On Dec 28, 3:29 pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> >> Doug Winterburn wrote:
> >>> Leon wrote:
> >>>> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>>>> r
> >>>>> I dunno.
>
> >>>>> Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the
> >>>>> old
> >>>>> 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures
> >>>>> from it much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much
> >>>>> better as well as the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I
> >>>>> also like the anti blur and the movie/sound capabilities. I put a
> >>>>> 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as opposed to the 64MB max card I have
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> the Ricoh. It takes two AA batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh
> >>>>> and doesn't appear to eat them at anywhere near the rate the Ricoh
> >>>>> does. It's also much faster on powerup and between shots.
>
> >>>>> Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99
> >>>>> made Santa feel good.
> >>>> Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras
> >>>> together but both being new would have any effect on the results.
> >>>> A
> >>>> CCD with 8 years of wear may not perform as good as one that is
> >>>> brand new.
> >>>> This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the
> >>>> new one has over the old one. ;~)
>
> >>> Maybe, but viewing some of the first pics I took with the Ricoh vs
> >>> the
> >>> Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old
> >>> pics
> >>> pixels are stored on are fading ;-)
>
> >> More likely the in-camera processing is different between the two. Or
> >> the program defaults are different. Might be possible to adjust
> >> the Ricoh to give results similar to the Canon, might not, depends
> >> on how much adjustment it allows.
>
> > That could well be - they both have more options/settings than I can
> > comprehend without the manual in hand, and by then, the picture
> > opportunity is long gone :-( In the olden days, one reading of this
> > stuff and it was imprinted, but now-a-daze I have to get the book out
> > to set the alarm clock.
>
> However, considering the photos are going to be viewed on a computer
> screen, which is normally set to 96 dpi, even a 1 Mp camera will manage
> that job well. Otherwise, with a hi-pixel count, you're going to have
> to be throwing away pixels anyway to get the thing down to a viewable
> size.
> Now if you'r talking about printing pictures, especially enlarging
> them, the the higher Mpixel ratings can be a help, but come on; what
> good is a 3' x 4' photograph? I've only used high pixels once; when I
> wanted to get some individual faces out of a photograph and wanted to
> keep their detail.
mantically and synctacticly.
>
I've got two of them up on my walls right now. Actually, only 2' x 3',
but what the hell...I'd have the larger if I could afford the prints.
On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been
> > discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera.
> > Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic" brand.
> > There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP,
> > which goes both longer and wider.
>
> Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn there was a
> 10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the one that's
> effectively the same as the V-LUX?
Wait a month. There will be a new version of any P&S, AFAICT.
On Dec 28, 4:30=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
>
> Yabbut, the cowbell always comes before the big crash cymbal hit, or right=
> after/before the 'rain tree' fades, and it takes two hours of studio time
> and an iChing consultation to make that decision.
>
> Keep that in mind the next time you hear those in a mix ... in the rare
> event that you even notice.
>
Oh, frigg... the 'RainTree'... <as I pick up my Zanfir flute>
I made a 'bass' version of a rain tree once out of a 6" SonoTube and
big marbles...my kids and I had a huge laugh...
The attention to detail in a recording studio is such a waste of time
these days.
By the time they squeeze the shit out of the dynamic range by trying
to get some 'level' out of an MP3, detail, as we once knew it, is long
gone.
I hope you'll find the time to read this article which opened my
eyes...with quite a bit of sadness.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity
It is a worth-while read. (Try to get past RS's political shit, but
when it comes to music, they do have some validity.)
r
On Dec 27, 6:35=A0pm, Mekon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy pretended :
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 5:50=A0pm, Mekon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy laid this down on his screen :
>
> >>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> >>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
> >>> I thought I'd share this.
>
> >>>http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> >>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> >>> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> >> They had the best available at launch -the Apollo missions had
> >> Hassleblads (the best roll film cameras in the world)
>
> > Only because it had the best lenses (Zeiss) and a switchable back.
>
> Other cameras had the switchable backs (eg Mamyia 645) The T* lenses on
> the blads were (and I guess still are) magnificent, but the bodies and
> viewfinders and other 'blad technology was the best available at that
> time. Just beautiful equipment.
>
I couldn't agree more. The whirr of the diaphragm shutters on long
exposure was a bit musical.
I have been a long time Contax user and Zeiss....what can I say? I
just sold an 85 (f2.8) mm portrait lens (Made in West Germany) for
more money than I paid for my entire Contax collection. I shuddered at
the thought of parting with it, but I could not turn down the offer.
NASA's decision had also to do with their dislike for focal plane
shutters. They wanted the 120 (220?) size film, but didn't like focal
plane shutters that were that big and their inherit distortion on
moving objects.
These days people don't buy 'blads anymore... they lease them. Now
there's high MP count CCD I could live with.
It is hard to imagine to be able to put a few select pieces of
Hasselblad into a case and walk off with knowing it can be as much as
$ 100,000.00
>
>
>> The largest CCD was 1024 x 2056, but only half was
> > used for imaging.
>
One of the reasons they kept the pixel count to a minimum, was to
minimise the physical size of the CCD, having less mass and better
chance of surviving a hard impact. That is also why the lenses were
restricted to a max of 3 elements and no adhesive was allowed to be
used. Some really interesting design parameters.
r
PS, I always like to run into people who truly understand the Zeiss
story.... then I tell them about an acquaintance of mine who bought a
Zeiss microscope at an auction for $ 200.00 only to discover that the
package also included a Zeiss-built 35 mm camera and an additional $
20K worth of optics and lighting gear... including ring flash and all
kinds of really nifty stuff. I took some pictures of phonograph styli
and grooves and wondered how-the-hell that ever worked as well as it
did.
On Dec 29, 9:32=A0pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> kees <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Robatoy schreef:
> >> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> >> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> >> I thought I'd share this.
>
> >>http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> >> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> >> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> >> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> >> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> >> r
>
> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>
> That's nonsense. =A0What pixel rates you want is based on, besides being
> pushed by the phony hype of marketeers, what you want to do with the
> pictures. =A0Need to get an accurate image of a fly's ass on top of a
> telephone pole? =A0Get high pixels. =A0
Get a zoom lens or climb the pole. Personally, I would be more
interested in other subjects.
> Gonna print the pics for albums &
> occasional =A08 x 10 enlargements? =A0Mid-pixel range. =A0Just one to one =
35
> mm pics and only shown on a PC screen? =A0Get low pixels.
>
> Nothing's ever as simple as it seems these days, but ignorance and
> making statements like the above are simply sour grapes and/or ignorance
> or both. =A0Do some research.
>
What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?
Did you miss these links, Pops?
http://6mpixel.org/en/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
Get back to me when you've done your homework.
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I like my 6.3 megapixal Fuji S7000.... that PS CS, and taking lots
> pictures
> in the quest for some good ones works for me!
Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro Photo
(X2). I used to have a pirated copy of PS 6 or 7 that my kid came up with;
too much learning curve for my surgically-altered brain and I still don't
use a fraction of the features in PSP (just like my brain!). Still, it
makes for a noticeable improvement in the vast majority of my shots.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
On Dec 30, 5:44=A0pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
Ahhhh.. doing to good cop bad cop thing, eh?
F A I L
"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Unlike many printers where the companies make their profits on the
> > consumables, digital cameras don't really have any consumables to speak
> > of.
>
> Except for batteries, they eat those for lunch.
Not with the Nikon. It's got a Lithium Ion battery good for upwards of 250
pictures before a recharge is needed. And if I know I'm going to be
somewhere that I'll be taking many pictures, it's a simple matter to use the
power adapter, assuming a wall outlet is available, while the battery
recharges.
On Jan 1, 5:49 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote
>
> > Almost no black and white. No editor wants much of it these days...
>
> It's funny, the difference in generations ... be it noted that the pendulum
> may be swinging the other way:
>
> I think of text messaging as a PITA, while my 22 year old daughter prefers
> it over all other means of communication, including voice ... IOW, these
> kids twist technology to suit their tastes, and set trends in doing so.
>
> Bought her a Canon Power Shot (don't recall the model) for her birthday last
> summer and noticed the other day that she ONLY shoots in black and white.
> Had to insist, as the designated photographer for family Christmas this
> year, that she shoot in color. Her roommate, the staff photographer for the
> college rag, does the same, as do the other kids who hang around here during
> vacation time.
>
> Apparently black and white is far from dead, and seems to be preferable, as
> far as these youngsters are concerned.
>
> (and if you can't beat'em ... I texted all my "Happy New Years" Last night!)
>
Nothing dies. Check out flare pants, which came back a few years ago,
though in a much goofier form. Extreme seems to be what today's trend
setters are all about. Maybe that's what they always were, but we
didn't notice, because the trends didn't seem extreme at the time.
Today, hot music from the '50s, say Bill Haley and the Comets playing
"Skokian", would never make it. There was a recognizable beat and
theme and no cussing.
On Dec 30, 12:21=A0pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> radiates
his brilliance:
=2E
>
> In other words, higher pixel rates not needed, even if they were
> available at the time of design of the rovers, dummy.
I had a 3 MP camera 2 years before the launch of the Mars Rovers. But
I kept that a secret, with Nikon's help, from the idiots at NASA.
They chose the 1 MP CCD (each pixel has 12 bit depth) because it
performed exceptionally well at much lower noise than anything else...
but then again, you know all that.
>
> > What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?
>
> A strong aversion to mis-information.
I see. Misinformation includes facts you disagree with or don't
understand?
I stand by the facts: A properly designed 1 MP camera blows the doors
off a poorly designed 12 MP. There's more to gathering information via
CCD than what the shills at Madeson Ave. want you to buy into.
Now go gather up some flies and take pictures of their asses...who
woulda thunk it...somebody's into fly porn.
On Jan 2, 10:07=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:52 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 9:10 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Charlie Self wrote:
> > > > On Jan 1, 8:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> Charlie Self wrote:
> > > >>> On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> Charlie Self wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> > > >>>>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> > > >>>>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> > > >>>>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> > > >>>>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
> > > >>>>>>>> Canon
> > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> > > >>>>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>
> > > >>>>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> --John
> > > >>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> > > >>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> > > >>>>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>
> > > >>>> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
> > > >>>> interested.
> > > >>>> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>
> > > >>> Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact
> > > >>> remains,
> > > >>> the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is=
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other
> > > >>> kinds
> > > >>> by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since=
> > > >>> its
> > > >>> inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
> > > >>> lightweight.
>
> > > >> Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
> > > >> journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely
> > > >> to
> > > >> miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some
> > > >> of
> > > >> them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's
> > > >> really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
>
> > > >> Really ought to see about selling my M3. =A0I hardly ever use it
> > > >> anymore.
>
> > > >>> Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
> > > >>> that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though
> > > >>> it
> > > >>> wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast
> > > >>> action
> > > >>> photos.
>
> > > >> I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action
> > > >> photography. =A0That's one of the places where in the hands of an
> > > >> expert Leica user it shined.
>
> > > > Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm or
> > > > 200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races,
> > > > motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any
> > > > photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems.
>
> > > Parallax problems are only an issue for close ups, not with teles.
>
> > > > It might
> > > > work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're
> > > > close
> > > > to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles,
> > > > uh,
> > > > uh.
>
> > > > Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with
> > > > motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting at=
> > > > 28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was
> > > > preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it
> > > > handled.
>
> > > By that time the Japanese era was well advanced.
>
> > > > A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out
> > > > great
> > > > photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40 years
> > > > ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to
> > > > $7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it offers=
> > > > too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
>
> > > That was a strike against all the German optical manufacturers.
> > > Anything Nikon could do, Zeiss could do better, but Nikon was good
> > > enough for a lot less money. =A0And then Nikon and Canon got big enoug=
h
> > > that they could do more R&D than Zeiss.
>
> > Which is why I was all over the Japanese bodies with Zeiss (genuine,
> > at first) lenses sold as Contax.
>
> > > > My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of
> > > > WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when a
> > > > bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't
> > > > predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
>
> > > I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem? =A0Leicas are paralla=
x
> > > corrected to point of focus--if the images are coincident and the
> > > subject is in the frame then that's what's going on the film. =A0In an=
y
> > > case the actual parallax is less than the width of your hand, so I
> > > can't see how it would be an issue photographing a moving car or
> > > motorcycle that fills the frame.
>
> > That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was
> > for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens.
> > That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy.
> > Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should
> > have NEVER sold.
> > Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well.
> > Memories.
>
> Memories, yes, and oddly enough, about the only film cameras that
> anyone is interested in today. MF and LF. I find myself tempted by 4x5
> at times, but the start-up cost for even light duty studio stuff (and
> it's really suited for car beauty photos, too: jeez, those 4x5
> transparencies!) is rough.
I still have a few packs of 4 x 5 film holders and at least 4 rubber
processing tanks with hangers.
Yes, transparancies are great, but the darkroom is DARK when
processing.
I long ago sold my Paquin 4 x 5 enlarger. That think leaked so much
light that every time I turned it on the darkroom looked like a
Spielberg set.
I even attempted Cibachrome with it, but it was just a waste of time.
That worked fine in 35 mm though.
But what a great and satisfying hobby that was.
If I ever was able to free up the time, I would build a 8 x 10 camera.
Nice piece of woodwork. Brass thingies, fold your own bellows...
On Jan 1, 8:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> >>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> >>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> >>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> >>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
> >>>>>> Canon
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>
> >>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>
> >>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> --
> >>>> --John
> >>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> >>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> >>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>
> >> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
> >> interested.
> >> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>
> > Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact remains,
> > the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is a
> > limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other kinds
> > by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since
> > its
> > inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood the
> > passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
> > lightweight.
>
> Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
> journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely to
> miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some of
> them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's
> really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
>
> Really ought to see about selling my M3. I hardly ever use it
> anymore.
>
> > Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
> > that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though it
> > wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast action
> > photos.
>
> I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action
> photography. That's one of the places where in the hands of an expert
> Leica user it shined.
>
Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm or
200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races,
motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any
photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems. It might
work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're close
to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles, uh,
uh.
Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with
motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting at
28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was
preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it handled.
A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out great
photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40 years
ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to
$7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it offers
too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of
WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when a
bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't
predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
"Robatoy" wrote
> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> I thought I'd share this.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
I was looking at some framed wildflower prints in the "guest room" the other
day, ones that I took a few years back with one of the first Sony Mavica's
with an optical zoom lens. This camera had to be less than 1 MP, but the
prints were framed for a good reason ... they are excellent "photographs"
... I keep thinking of the old saying in the recording biz: "I'd rather
listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad
song".
... that's the whole story, and all you really need to know. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 28, 8:36=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a
> > nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
>
> > You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
>
> LOL ... replace color with frequency and we've got an audio (control room
> monitor) discussion going.
>
> "The mix/scene sounded/looked great in the studio/lens, but ...."
>
> ;)
>
You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
How did K25 lie to you?
That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough grain
for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
just looked terrible to me.
Art
"Mekon" wrote in message ...
> > But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
Garagewoodworks,
> Zooming in on a region and then shrink it down?? =A0 Cropping involved zoo=
ming
> in on a region of the picture and having the newly framed/cropped portion
> become the 'new' photo.
While I agree that more pixels is better when cropping, you
are slightly wrong about cropping. Cropping is the selection of
a range of pixels based either on pixels, inches or picas, and
removing everything else outside of that crop.
So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
pixels when you crop. You can enlarge, (blow up) a 4x6 cropped
image to a 8x10 but you will have a choice - either keep
the same density and lose some definition snd/or incur noise or
reduce the number of pixels per inch, which MIGHT make
your image worse. However, if you start with a highly
dense image (pixels per inch), you probably won't see
a big difference when you enlarge. That' why I agre
with you on the idea - more pixels better!
Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
And for everyone else, the standard density of JPG images
on the web is 72 pixels per inch. You will probably never
see anything higher. It's hard to see a big difference in
an image that is 72ppi vs one that is 150ppi on the web.
MJ Wallace
GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
>>> your house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a
>>> high resolution
>>> 8X10 picture made.
>> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
>> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>
> Also, I should add that you might not be able to get close enough to
> your subject. More pixel density enables you to 'zoom in' (crop)
> on
> your subject without an expensive telephoto zoom lense. If you
> have
> enough pixel density (MegaPixels), you can get away with
> zooming/cropping without losing image sharpness.
However the smaller the pixel the higher the noise. This is why an
APS-C camera can get usable images in much less light than a compact
with the same pixel count.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
GarageWoodworks <.@.> wrote:
: The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
: able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
: with adequate pixel density.
The problem discussed in the article (and in more detail elsewhere) is
that the pixels get smaller in typical cameras, i.e. the pixel density
incrwases, and the size of the image snsor doesn't. This creates
a great deal more noise in the image, so even slight cropping can give
you a lousy picture.
Sure, more pixels AND a largr sensor are great, but those are professional cameras.
-- Andy Barss
GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
>>> your house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a
>>> high resolution
>>> 8X10 picture made.
>
>> That is what optical zoom is for.
>
> Only if you have a telephoto zoom lense. Last time I checked, the
> good ones are pretty expensive and you can only use them on digital
> SLR's (like the one I own).
>
> Good luck doing that with a non-SLR type digital camera.
My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which fills
the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon has
a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with
that lens.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> Garagewoodworks,
>
>> Zooming in on a region and then shrink it down?? Cropping involved
>> zooming in on a region of the picture and having the newly
>> framed/cropped portion become the 'new' photo.
>
> While I agree that more pixels is better when cropping, you
> are slightly wrong about cropping. Cropping is the selection of
> a range of pixels based either on pixels, inches or picas, and
> removing everything else outside of that crop.
>
> So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
> will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
> a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
> smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
> remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
> pixels when you crop. You can enlarge, (blow up) a 4x6 cropped
> image to a 8x10 but you will have a choice - either keep
> the same density and lose some definition snd/or incur noise or
> reduce the number of pixels per inch, which MIGHT make
> your image worse. However, if you start with a highly
> dense image (pixels per inch), you probably won't see
> a big difference when you enlarge. That' why I agre
> with you on the idea - more pixels better!
>
> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon is
the company with the full frame digitals.
> And for everyone else, the standard density of JPG images
> on the web is 72 pixels per inch. You will probably never
> see anything higher. It's hard to see a big difference in
> an image that is 72ppi vs one that is 150ppi on the web.
>
> MJ Wallace
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
DGDevin wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which
>> fills
>> the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon
>> has
>> a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with
>> that lens.
>
> That's an interesting camera, I've been reading up on it lately,
> very
> tempting especially at half the price of the German-branded version.
> However given the choice between the 7 and 10 Meg models, I'd still
> go with the latter.
Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been
discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera.
Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic" brand.
There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP,
which goes both longer and wider.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Andrew Erickson wrote:
> In article <K4%cj.1251$6%[email protected]>,
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>>>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture
>>>>>> of
>>
>>>
>>> My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which
>>> fills the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm.
>>> Canon has a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close
>>> focus with that lens.
>>>
>>
>> While I am sure you are happy with your results and yours having a
>> good brand lens, I would be willing to bet that the lens on your
>> camera is much slower, has a much higher number F-Stop on the
>> low/wide open end than the 35mm camera lens your are compairing to.
>> This will result in the need for longer exposure times for proper
>> exposure and can distort the recording.
>
> While J. Clarke didn't specify the exact camera model he has, most
> or
> all of the Panasonic big-zoom cameras have pretty fast lenses, some
> models being constant f2.8 across the zoom range and others ranging
> to
> f2.8 at the wide end to f3.8 or so at the telephoto end.
There's another little issue. A 400mm f/2.8 lens for an SLR costs
$6500 and weighs 12 pounds. Lot of factors go into deciding whether I
use the SLR, the Panasonic, or the Coolpix 990 for a given shot. All
have their uses and their limitations.
Slower on the other hand has two meanings in digital camera
comparisons. One is the aperture of the lens, while the other is what
in shooting firearms would be called the "lock time"--in that area the
Panasonic is indeed slower than the SLR--there are things you can do
to improve the situation but it's still there and for action
photography it means more missed shots. On the other hand most
woodworking pictures are more akin to studio photography so that's not
an issue. But that is another area in which the Panasonic has a
limitation--there's no way to connect an off-axis flash to it. Not a
big problem--it will trigger a peanut slave just fine (which the
Coolpix 990 won't for some reason)--but still less convenient than
being able to plug in a PC cable. For woodworking photography I'd
recommend the FZ50 over the FZ8 or 18 for that reason.
If I wasn't up to my ass in alligators right now I'd do some
comparison shots between the FZ7 and the 30D.
> Many similar camera models other brands aren't quite so fast, but
> still at least as fast as low-end 35mm lenses with equivalent fields
> of view.
>
> I definitely agree that more megapixels on tiny sensors don't
> generally improve actual image quality, though. It's quickly
> getting
> to the point where diffraction effects are the limiting factor on
> image resolution even at fairly wide apertures, so having more and
> more pixels can't even capture more detail (but does result in more
> noise and larger files to deal with). It's also worth observing
> that
> the linear resolution of an image increases with with the square of
> the number of pixels, so the width or height increase when going
> from, say, 6 megapixels to 10 megapixels is only a factor of about
> 1.3.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 27, 11:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>> GarageWoodworks <.@.> wrote:
>>
>>>> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping.
>>>> You
>>> are
>>>> able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with
>>>> an image with adequate pixel density.
>>
>>> The problem discussed in the article (and in more detail
>>> elsewhere)
>>> is that the pixels get smaller in typical cameras, i.e. the pixel
>>> density incrwases, and the size of the image snsor doesn't. This
>>> creates
>>> a great deal more noise in the image, so even slight cropping can
>>> give you a lousy picture.
>>
>>> Sure, more pixels AND a largr sensor are great, but those are
>>> professional cameras.
>>
>>> -- Andy Barss
>>
>> Ahh! you too read the article. LOL. I never realized how tiny those
>> CCD's were on those small cameras.
>
> It's the "More=Better" mindset that keeps screwing us over.
> It's when my little 4 banger used to chew the arse out of the 'big
> metal' in this neighbourhood, people would at first get all pissed
> off, then they wanted to learn.
> "Where's the nitrous?"
> NO frickin nitrous.....
Gal I used to date always drove Honda Civics (the sporty version, not
the basic econobox--I forget the suffix). Her teenager used to sneer
at them. One day one of his buddies with an overpowered Mustang
pissed her off and she chased him down to "discuss" the matter. Her
kid quit sneering after that.
> Hell, even in the late 60's my 1275 CooperS would make many people
> sit
> up and take notice. Sure they'd catch me at the top end, but I tell
> you, that little grey (and 5 other body colours) thing was talked
> about a LOT. It became a local joke trying to beat Rob through the
> park... nobody ever did.
> At a local Show 'N Shine, I attended as a visitor and parked nearby.
> When I had walked around to look at all the beauties I returned to
> where I had parked, and there were people all over that thing.
You speak as if you aren't aware that the Mini Cooper is considered to
be one of the great sports cars.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> r
>>> I dunno.
>>>
>>> Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the
>>> old
>>> 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures
>>> from it much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much
>>> better as well as the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I
>>> also like the anti blur and the movie/sound capabilities. I put a
>>> 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as opposed to the 64MB max card I have
>>> in
>>> the Ricoh. It takes two AA batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh
>>> and doesn't appear to eat them at anywhere near the rate the Ricoh
>>> does. It's also much faster on powerup and between shots.
>>>
>>> Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99
>>> made Santa feel good.
>>
>> Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras
>> together but both being new would have any effect on the results.
>> A
>> CCD with 8 years of wear may not perform as good as one that is
>> brand new.
>> This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the
>> new one has over the old one. ;~)
>>
>>
> Maybe, but viewing some of the first pics I took with the Ricoh vs
> the
> Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old
> pics
> pixels are stored on are fading ;-)
More likely the in-camera processing is different between the two. Or
the program defaults are different. Might be possible to adjust the
Ricoh to give results similar to the Canon, might not, depends on how
much adjustment it allows.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Michael Dombrowski wrote:
>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>>
>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon is
>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>>
>
>
> D3. Supposedly fantastic
It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
DGDevin wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been
>> discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera.
>> Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic"
>> brand.
>> There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP,
>> which goes both longer and wider.
>
> Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn there
> was a 10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the
> one
> that's effectively the same as the V-LUX?
Hmm. I never even knew that the FZ50 was being sold under the Leica
name. Both it and the FZ30 are very nice hardware for the price.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
David's Newsgroups wrote:
> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> How did K25 lie to you?
>> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough
>> grain
>> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly
>> strong in the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the
>> Sonoran
>> desert. Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green &
>> blue and just looked terrible to me.
>> Art
>
> . . . nailed it.
And underexpose the sky and you got that wonderful blue--didn't _need_
no steenkeeng _polarizer_.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
FrozenNorth wrote:
> Upscale took a can of maroon spray paint on December 29, 2007 11:54
> am and wrote the following:
>
>>
>> "David's Newsgroups" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:dHudj.35159
>>> Half the fun for me is tweaking my images with Paint Shop Pro
>>> Photo (X2).
>>
>> As do I, but I like Fireworks instead. About four months ago, I
>> bought myself a Nikon D40X camera with a 70-300 mm lens. I take all
>> pictures at the highest resolution and then crop them or resize
>> them
>> to what I want. With a fast 2 gig class 6 secure digital card, I
>> can
>> take as many pictures as I want, keep what I want and discard the
>> rest. I think this is the best part of digital cameras, the fact
>> that it doesn't cost a cent after the initial camera purchase to
>> take as many images as I desire.
>>
>> Unlike many printers where the companies make their profits on the
>> consumables, digital cameras don't really have any consumables to
>> speak of.
>
> Except for batteries, they eat those for lunch.
Depends on the camera and how you use it.
On a trip over the summer I shot 16 GB of photos and charged the
battery once. But that was using a DSLR with the LCD turned off.
The Panasonic has a lithium ion battery that's good for several
hundred shots. The Coolpix 990 does go through batteries with some
rapidity but it's a lot happier with NiMH rechargables than with
alkalines (if your digital camera takes AAs, use NiMH--you'll not only
save money on the batteries in the long run but you'll get more shots
out of a set of freshly charged NiMH than from fresh alkalines--the
discharge curve on the NiMH is more suited to digital camera use than
that of alkalines even though they don't store as much energy
overall).
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Twayne wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 9:32 pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> kees <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Robatoy schreef:
>>>>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>>>>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>>
>>>>> I thought I'd share this.
>>>
>>>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>>
>>>>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers
>>>>> only had 1 MP cameras.
>>>
>>>>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>>>>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>>
>>>>> r
>>>
>>>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>>>
>>> That's nonsense. What pixel rates you want is based on, besides
>>> being pushed by the phony hype of marketeers, what you want to do
>>> with the pictures. Need to get an accurate image of a fly's ass on
>>> top of a telephone pole? Get high pixels.
>>
>> Get a zoom lens or climb the pole. Personally, I would be more
>> interested in other subjects.
>
> In other words, higher pixel rates not needed, even if they were
> available at the time of design of the rovers, dummy.
When you get right down to it Mars Rovers aren't _needed_. Nobody's
going to die if we don't have them. Space hardware is always a
compromise--they might have wanted more resolution but not been able
to support it due to power consumption or data transmission rates or
durability or any number of other reasons. The fact that a particular
resolution was used in a particular application does not mean that it
is any kind of universal ideal. Dummy.
>>> Gonna print the pics for albums &
>>> occasional 8 x 10 enlargements? Mid-pixel range. Just one to one
>>> 35
>>> mm pics and only shown on a PC screen? Get low pixels.
>>>
>>> Nothing's ever as simple as it seems these days, but ignorance and
>>> making statements like the above are simply sour grapes and/or
>>> ignorance or both. Do some research.
>>>
>>
>> What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?
>
> A strong aversion to mis-information.
Then you should stop spreading it.
>> Did you miss these links, Pops?
>
> Nope; but you missed my comment on them.
>
>>
>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>>
>> Get back to me when you've done your homework.
>
> What was that about sour grapes?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:49 pm, Hoosierpopi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 4:59 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>>
>>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:fbd33f73-8545-474b-84ac-152a2c9b308a@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> "crop out everything except your door knob"
>>
>> WOuld it not be simpler to set the 1MP camera to "close-up" and shoot
>> the knobs?
>
> There are a few knobs I would like to shoot around here...LOL
You've been havin' a busy day Rob.
Breathe, man. Breathe.
HNY
--
Tanus
This is not really a sig.
http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been
>>> discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera.
>>> Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic"
>>> brand.
>>> There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP,
>>> which goes both longer and wider.
>>
>> Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn
>> there
>> was a 10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the
>> one that's effectively the same as the V-LUX?
>
> Wait a month. There will be a new version of any P&S, AFAICT.
Dunno, it's been over a year since there was a new version of the FZ50
family. Panasonic started shipping their SLRs and they may have seen
the FZ50 as competing.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>>
>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera. Canon
>>>> is
>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>>
>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>>
>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica interested.
Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2:58 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2:15 pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has
>>>>> been
>>>>> discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel
>>>>> camera.
>>>>> Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic"
>>>>> brand.
>>>>> There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8
>>>>> MP,
>>>>> which goes both longer and wider.
>>
>>>> Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn
>>>> there
>>>> was a 10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the
>>>> one that's effectively the same as the V-LUX?
>>
>>> Wait a month. There will be a new version of any P&S, AFAICT.
>>
>> Dunno, it's been over a year since there was a new version of the
>> FZ50 family. Panasonic started shipping their SLRs and they may
>> have seen the FZ50 as competing.
>>
>
> John,
> I think the FZ50 is what is called a bridge camera, not a true P&S,
> yet not a DSLR. The bridge camera is a dying breed because there is
> more money in DSLRs, even with low end prices skidding as they have.
> It's now possible to get a very good entry level DSLR and lens for
> under $500...that is a 6 MP camera, with an 18-55mm lens. By this
> time
> next year, low end DSLRs may be as much as $200 under that, and
> almost
> certainly will be at least $100 under that $500 mark. If a bridge
> camera with a tiny P&S sensor costs $550 and an entry level DSLR
> with
> an APS-C sensor costs $425, which would you buy, even given the fact
> that the bridge camera may offer the equivalent of a 35mm-200mm
> lens,
> while the DSLR offers 27-75mm or so?
That particular camera offers 35-420 with optical stabilization and
macro at both ends. If my budget was 550 bucks then it would be a
hard choice--to match the capability would mean spending quite a lot
more on the SLR. The FZ18 is actually more capable for $350 but the
manual controls are less convenient, there is no hot shoe or PC
connector, and using filters requires a screw-in mount extender.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> BTW, how much do you miss film? Or, put another way; do you think
:> you'll ever shoot film again?"
:> Just kidding.
: You don't need the contacts. You do need the negs. Have some fun and
: scan them in and fool with them in PSP or another lower cost program.
: I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11, but
: it does handle the K10D raw files without an itnermediary program. It
: also locks up about every other time it is used.
: I might shoot film again, if someone loans me a camera and loads it
: for me, and there's someplace to get it all processed, and put on CD
: or DVD. I sold all my film gear, including darkroom equipment, years
: ago.
Do you do much B&W with digital? What equipment (both camera and printer)
do yuo recommend?
-- Andy Barss
Dave in Houston wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I think the FZ50 is what is called a bridge camera, not a true P&S,
>> yet not a DSLR.
>
> FWIW, "digicam" is the label I see most often for those.
> Perhaps,
> hybrid might be a better term. I looked long and hard at the FZs
> and
> still would have one if I had need of a backup or grab-it-and-go.
> As
> it is I still ride around with the PowerShot G2 under the passenger
> seat of my truck. At 4 megapixels it still does a respectable job
> and is handy when I need to have pics of a prospective job.
FWIW, B&H lists the FZ50 as "Advanced Digital Camera". Others in the
category are the PowerShot G9 and S5, an infrared capable Fuji that
Fuji seems to be making a concerted effort to not sell (among other
things they want you to fill out an "authorization form" and show
several forms of ID), the Leica M8, the Leica V-Lux (which is a
rebadged FZ50 with some firmware tweaks), and the Coolpix 5100.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
>>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>>
>>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
>>>>>> Canon
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>>
>>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>>
>>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> --John
>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>>
>> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
>> interested.
>> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>>
>
> Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact remains,
> the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is a
> limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other kinds
> by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since
> its
> inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood the
> passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
> lightweight.
Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely to
miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some of
them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's
really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
Really ought to see about selling my M3. I hardly ever use it
anymore.
> Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
> that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though it
> wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast action
> photos.
I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action
photography. That's one of the places where in the hands of an expert
Leica user it shined.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
: or the H3D
: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000Z0JZ74?smid=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&tag=dealtime-ce-feed-20&linkCode=asn
: I'm ordering mine as soon as I can get a coupon for free shipping or
: something.
I have free shipping at Amazon, so how about I order two, you pay for
them, and I'll have one shipped to you?
-- Andy Barss
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jan 1, 8:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>> On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>>>>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>>>>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>>>>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>>
>>>>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
>>>>>>>> Canon
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>>
>>>>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>>
>>>>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --John
>>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>>>>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>>
>>>> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
>>>> interested.
>>>> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>>
>>> Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact
>>> remains,
>>> the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is
>>> a
>>> limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other
>>> kinds
>>> by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since
>>> its
>>> inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood
>>> the
>>> passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
>>> lightweight.
>>
>> Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
>> journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely
>> to
>> miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some
>> of
>> them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's
>> really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
>>
>> Really ought to see about selling my M3. I hardly ever use it
>> anymore.
>>
>>> Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
>>> that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though
>>> it
>>> wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast
>>> action
>>> photos.
>>
>> I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action
>> photography. That's one of the places where in the hands of an
>> expert Leica user it shined.
>>
>
> Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm or
> 200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races,
> motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any
> photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems.
Parallax problems are only an issue for close ups, not with teles.
> It might
> work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're
> close
> to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles,
> uh,
> uh.
>
> Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with
> motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting at
> 28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was
> preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it
> handled.
By that time the Japanese era was well advanced.
> A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out
> great
> photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40 years
> ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to
> $7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it offers
> too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
That was a strike against all the German optical manufacturers.
Anything Nikon could do, Zeiss could do better, but Nikon was good
enough for a lot less money. And then Nikon and Canon got big enough
that they could do more R&D than Zeiss.
> My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of
> WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when a
> bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't
> predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem? Leicas are parallax
corrected to point of focus--if the images are coincident and the
subject is in the frame then that's what's going on the film. In any
case the actual parallax is less than the width of your hand, so I
can't see how it would be an issue photographing a moving car or
motorcycle that fills the frame.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Jan 2, 9:52 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 9:10 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>> On Jan 1, 8:50 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 31 2007, 2:56 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Michael Dombrowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>>>>>>>>>>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>>>>>>>>>>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>>>>>>>>>>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nikon has yet to demonstrate a full frame digital camera.
>>>>>>>>>>> Canon
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> the company with the full frame digitals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> D3. Supposedly fantastic
>>
>>>>>>>>> It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.
>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> --John
>>>>>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>>>>>>>> How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
>>
>>>>>>> Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica
>>>>>>> interested.
>>>>>>> Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
>>
>>>>>> Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact
>>>>>> remains,
>>>>>> the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other
>>>>>> kinds
>>>>>> by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera
>>>>>> since its
>>>>>> inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never
>>>>>> understood
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's
>>>>>> lightweight.
>>
>>>>> Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for
>>>>> journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less
>>>>> likely
>>>>> to
>>>>> miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder),
>>>>> some
>>>>> of
>>>>> them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that
>>>>> that's
>>>>> really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
>>
>>>>> Really ought to see about selling my M3. I hardly ever use it
>>>>> anymore.
>>
>>>>>> Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder
>>>>>> that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted,
>>>>>> though
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> photos.
>>
>>>>> I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for
>>>>> action
>>>>> photography. That's one of the places where in the hands of an
>>>>> expert Leica user it shined.
>>
>>>> Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm
>>>> or
>>>> 200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races,
>>>> motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any
>>>> photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems.
>>
>>> Parallax problems are only an issue for close ups, not with teles.
>>
>>>> It might
>>>> work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're
>>>> close
>>>> to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles,
>>>> uh,
>>>> uh.
>>
>>>> Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with
>>>> motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting
>>>> at 28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was
>>>> preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it
>>>> handled.
>>
>>> By that time the Japanese era was well advanced.
>>
>>>> A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out
>>>> great
>>>> photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40
>>>> years
>>>> ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to
>>>> $7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it
>>>> offers too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
>>
>>> That was a strike against all the German optical manufacturers.
>>> Anything Nikon could do, Zeiss could do better, but Nikon was good
>>> enough for a lot less money. And then Nikon and Canon got big
>>> enough that they could do more R&D than Zeiss.
>>
>> Which is why I was all over the Japanese bodies with Zeiss
>> (genuine,
>> at first) lenses sold as Contax.
>>
>>>> My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of
>>>> WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when
>>>> a
>>>> bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't
>>>> predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem? Leicas are
>>> parallax corrected to point of focus--if the images are coincident
>>> and the subject is in the frame then that's what's going on the
>>> film. In any case the actual parallax is less than the width of
>>> your hand, so I can't see how it would be an issue photographing a
>>> moving car or motorcycle that fills the frame.
>>
>> That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was
>> for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens.
>> That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy.
>> Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should
>> have NEVER sold.
>> Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well.
>> Memories.
>
> Memories, yes, and oddly enough, about the only film cameras that
> anyone is interested in today. MF and LF. I find myself tempted by
> 4x5
> at times, but the start-up cost for even light duty studio stuff
> (and
> it's really suited for car beauty photos, too: jeez, those 4x5
> transparencies!) is rough.
If you have to have the latest and greatest, but 4x5 isn't consumer
electronics--what worked 30 years ago still works (give or take a
leaky bellows or a sticky shutter, both of which can be repaired), and
can often be found on ebay or in local auctions for not too terrible
prices.
> A friend sent me a Rollei twin lens to use
> for a bit something like 25 years ago. Wonderful camera. I used it
> twice and sent it back. I bought a more affordable (and MUCH more
> fragile) Yashicamat 124 a couple, three times. Winders break like
> crazy, but the camera turns out good photos: in fact, the shot of me
> on the OSSA on my web site was taken with a Yashicamat 124G in July
> 1972 (the rainsuit was killing me with the heat, but it wasn't as
> bad
> as the leathers I had to wear for a later, long gone, photo).
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <K4%cj.1251$6%[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
>
> >
> > My Panasonic non-SLR type digital camera has a Leitz lens which fills
> > the sensor with the same field that a 400 would on a 35mm. Canon has
> > a similar model. Further, it is capable of quite close focus with
> > that lens.
> >
>
> While I am sure you are happy with your results and yours having a good
> brand lens, I would be willing to bet that the lens on your camera is much
> slower, has a much higher number F-Stop on the low/wide open end than the
> 35mm camera lens your are compairing to. This will result in the need for
> longer exposure times for proper exposure and can distort the recording.
While J. Clarke didn't specify the exact camera model he has, most or
all of the Panasonic big-zoom cameras have pretty fast lenses, some
models being constant f2.8 across the zoom range and others ranging to
f2.8 at the wide end to f3.8 or so at the telephoto end.
Many similar camera models other brands aren't quite so fast, but still
at least as fast as low-end 35mm lenses with equivalent fields of view.
I definitely agree that more megapixels on tiny sensors don't generally
improve actual image quality, though. It's quickly getting to the point
where diffraction effects are the limiting factor on image resolution
even at fairly wide apertures, so having more and more pixels can't even
capture more detail (but does result in more noise and larger files to
deal with). It's also worth observing that the linear resolution of an
image increases with with the square of the number of pixels, so the
width or height increase when going from, say, 6 megapixels to 10
megapixels is only a factor of about 1.3.
--
Andrew Erickson
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
"Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How did K25 lie to you?
> That was my film of choice when I lived in Tucson. Fine enough grain
> for 16 x 20 Cibachrome prints; and the color balance, slightly strong in
> the red and yellow, was my preferred match for the Sonoran desert.
> Others, especially Fuji, were way to strong in the green & blue and
> just looked terrible to me.
> Art
. . . nailed it.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:428c05d7-b187-4207-ba56-358d5a4d19d4@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was
for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens.
That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy.
Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should
have NEVER sold.
Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well.
Memories.
Make me an offer, Rob! I gots a Rolleicord twins-lens though, alas, it
has the Schneider-Kreuznach 3.5/75 glass.
I probably have not fiddled with it in 20 years; FIL used to drag it around
with him through So. Texas when he was a claims agent for the railroad, gave
to me at some point long after 35mm becme the standard issue. If I look
around I may even find some Ectachrome slides I took though mostly I got
film prints and mostly from backpacking jaunts (Big Bend, maybe the
Smokies). Never could make myself pull the trigger on a projector that
would handle the slides though.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> r
>
> I disagree.
>
> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You are
> able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an image
> with adequate pixel density.
>
> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of your
> house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a high
> resolution 8X10 picture made.
>
>
So did I, until I read the article. Now I agree. Unfortunately the example
you give is great on paper but in reality most digital cameras, until you
get into 35mm SLR's have a tiny CCD by comparison, 20 times smaller. The
lenses on those smaller cameras are simply not fast enough to let in enough
light to properly expose those itty bitty pixels.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 9:32 pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> kees <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Robatoy schreef:
>>>>>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>>>>>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>>>
>>>>>> I thought I'd share this.
>>>>
>>>>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>>>
>>>>>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers
>>>>>> only had 1 MP cameras.
>>>>
>>>>>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>>>>>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>>>
>>>>>> r
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> That's nonsense. What pixel rates you want is based on, besides
>>>> being pushed by the phony hype of marketeers, what you want to do
>>>> with the pictures. Need to get an accurate image of a fly's ass on
>>>> top of a telephone pole? Get high pixels.
>>>
>>> Get a zoom lens or climb the pole. Personally, I would be more
>>> interested in other subjects.
>>
>> In other words, higher pixel rates not needed, even if they were
>> available at the time of design of the rovers, dummy.
>
> When you get right down to it Mars Rovers aren't _needed_. Nobody's
> going to die if we don't have them. Space hardware is always a
> compromise--they might have wanted more resolution but not been able
> to support it due to power consumption or data transmission rates or
> durability or any number of other reasons. The fact that a particular
> resolution was used in a particular application does not mean that it
> is any kind of universal ideal. Dummy.
Actually, that's likely right on target. I would imagine it was a
trade-off between data size transmitted vs power available as top of
list items at least. I'm not sure why you're crying "dummy" because I
never stated anything about it being any kind f "universal ideal". Long
space flights pretty much make that an impossibility anyway when one
considers the rate of technological advances.
>
>>>> Gonna print the pics for albums &
>>>> occasional 8 x 10 enlargements? Mid-pixel range. Just one to one
>>>> 35
>>>> mm pics and only shown on a PC screen? Get low pixels.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing's ever as simple as it seems these days, but ignorance and
>>>> making statements like the above are simply sour grapes and/or
>>>> ignorance or both. Do some research.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?
>>
>> A strong aversion to mis-information.
>
> Then you should stop spreading it.
Sorry; what misinformation have I spread? If I've done so, and you
point it out, I will correct same and give you credit for catching it.
I don't see how a few generalities relates to misinformation unless I
mis-spoke badly.
Assuming you mean what you said, it's worth pursuing to me, if it is to
you. But if you're just sour-graping it then I have nothing more to
add.
Regards,
Pop`
>
>>> Did you miss these links, Pops?
>>
>> Nope; but you missed my comment on them.
>>
>>>
>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>>>
>>> Get back to me when you've done your homework.
>>
>> What was that about sour grapes?
>
> --
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:68daf073-2bef-48c3-9202-ce6c547c735c@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 6:43 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> >So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
> >will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
> >a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
> >smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
> >remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
> >pixels when you crop.
>
> Yes, I am referring to cropping and enlarging. More pixel density the
> better (less of a loss of image sharpness.) In my door knob example above
> in thread I mentioned taking a picture of a house and zooming/cropping in
> on
> the door knob and making a 8X10 photo.
>
> >Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
> >to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
> >they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
> >that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>
> I hope this wasn't the only reason they stopped production. There are
> advantages to digital format other than resolution. (I don't need a dark
> room or a 1hr photo lab near by.)
>
And a whole lot less wash water going into the environment.... water
that had all kinda of nifty bromides and crap in it.
Also, the making of film is hardly a green process.
But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
. . . you give me such nice, bright colors
I love to take photographs
So, Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I used a Mavica to shoot photos for a bunch of manuals a few years
> ago. Nasty little camera in some ways (and the assholes who owned
> clanced throught the manual and tossed it, back when it was not so
> easy to get online and download 90% of the world's manuals). It tooke
> me some time, but I got it working sort of right and got some usable
> shots. I used to be able to save about 10-12 so-called high rez black
> and whites to a floppy disc. Now, I used 8 GB SDHC cards in one
> camera, 4 GB CF cards in the other. Of course, I get upwards of 185
> shots on the smaller card, upwards of 485 on the larger (newer camera,
> better algorithims so files are smaller though it is the same maker,
> same file type). Shooting a car race you need that. On one recent long
> race weekend, I shot about 1,300 frames. Think of that with film!
> Thefilm and processing costs would make your eyes water and your knees
> buckle...about 36 rolls, with slides needed for magazines.
And I used to think shooting a case (12 rolls) of 36 exposure ectachrome
at the Canadian or USGP was a shitload of film! One year I even bought
three or four additional rolls! Now my 4gif CF in the A100 get me 971
images at 10 mpxls each.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
> Mekon wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> I remember once in a moment of sheer stupidity, I told a group of my
>> students that digital 'film' had no future. How could a photo receptor
>> which has to have some sort of wiring and other macro components match
>> film which works on an atomic level?
Don't stop there. Printers will never equal the quality you get from a well
made photo print or even a machine print at the 1 hour lab. We were right
weren't we? At leas a few years ago.
My OM-2 sits mostly in the bag along with the lenses while my digital is in
my shirt pocket and I've put together a few albums from my Canon printer. .
.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:753ae937-b2c0-4676-a5b5-97be95c09579@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 6:27 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> If you had enough MegaPixels you could take a full shot picture of
> >>> your house, crop out everything except your door knob, and have a
> >>> high resolution
> >>> 8X10 picture made.
> >> While This is true you could also take a close up of your door knob
> >> with a lower grade camera and have the same quality.
>
> > Also, I should add that you might not be able to get close enough to
> > your subject. More pixel density enables you to 'zoom in' (crop)
> > on
> > your subject without an expensive telephoto zoom lense. If you
> > have
> > enough pixel density (MegaPixels), you can get away with
> > zooming/cropping without losing image sharpness.
>
> However the smaller the pixel the higher the noise. This is why an
> APS-C camera can get usable images in much less light than a compact
> with the same pixel count.
>
Exactly right.
Exactly, and I thought it was silly thinking that fewer pixels would be a
lesser quality. Now I don't. I usta develope my own film and enlarge my
own prints.
Robatoy laid this down on his screen :
> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> I thought I'd share this.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> had 1 MP cameras.
They had the best available at launch -the Apollo missions had
Hassleblads (the best roll film cameras in the world) and 11's computer
was less powerful than an XT - it had only 4K of RAM. Would you like to
try to run your software on that?
At any rate there are three cameras on the rover, one is a low res
colour imager but the other two have about 160Mp each!
>
> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
It may well be, but that does not negate the usefulness of resolutions
beyond 1 Mp.
Unlike with computers, where the best maxim is to get the best you can
afford, cameras do have a utility ceiling. I'd suggest something larger
than 4Mp in a compact camera should do well enough for woodworking
pics. I have a Sony Cybershot with 7.2 Mps but woodworking is not the
only thing I use it for.
The basic rule is the better your original shot/resolution/focus/lens
etcetera etcetera the more you can do with it when you put the file on
your PC.
Oh and moving your camera closer to the subject is not equivalent to
upping the resolution. The closer you get to a subject the more obvious
is any inherent distortion of the lens. For most large piece woodorking
shots I'd reccomend moving away from the subject and using the optical
zoom (there is no point in using the digital zoom as you may as well
just crop it on the PC) til the subject fills the frame.
Mekon (who used to make his living doing this stuff)
On Dec 27, 9:44=A0pm, Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote:
> Blah blah blah, blah blah. =A0BLAH blah blah!
>
> Blah, blah blah, um.... blah blah.
>
> Blah blah blah blah blah.
>
> -Zz
>
Go back to alt.food.barbque, asshole!
Blah blah blah, blah blah. BLAH blah blah!
Blah, blah blah, um.... blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
-Zz
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:39:28 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 8:32 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" wrote
>>
>> > Soon enough, we'll be able to buy a gizmo which will reintroduce the
>> > scratches and pops while listening to a perfect digital
>> > recording..<eg>
>>
>> http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VinylDreams/
>>
>
>I have only one thing to say:
>
>"Holy fuck!"
>
>
>...and then I break out into a diabolical chuckle....
>
>I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, huh?
Robatoy pretended :
> On Dec 27, 5:50 pm, Mekon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy laid this down on his screen :
>>
>>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>> I thought I'd share this.
>>
>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>
>>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
>>> had 1 MP cameras.
>>
>> They had the best available at launch -the Apollo missions had
>> Hassleblads (the best roll film cameras in the world)
>
> Only because it had the best lenses (Zeiss) and a switchable back.
Other cameras had the switchable backs (eg Mamyia 645) The T* lenses on
the blads were (and I guess still are) magnificent, but the bodies and
viewfinders and other 'blad technology was the best available at that
time. Just beautiful equipment.
>
>>
>> At any rate there are three cameras on the rover, one is a low res
>> colour imager but the other two have about 160Mp each!
>>
> That is incorrect. The largest CCD was 1024 x 2056, but only half was
> used for imaging.
>
> r
Yes, I was wrong, I was reading the specs for the orbiter, not the
rover.
Mekon
Robatoy formulated the question :
> On Dec 27, 6:43 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
>>> So I start with a 8x10 image. If I crop out a 4x6 image, I
>>> will get ONLY a 4x6 image, not a 4x6 image blown up to
>>> a 8x10. Cropping makes the physical size of the image
>>> smaller. The density of the image (how many pixels per inch)
>>> remains the same when I crop, that's why you want a LOT of
>>> pixels when you crop.
>>
>> Yes, I am referring to cropping and enlarging. More pixel density the
>> better (less of a loss of image sharpness.) In my door knob example above
>> in thread I mentioned taking a picture of a house and zooming/cropping in on
>> the door knob and making a 8X10 photo.
>>
>>> Nikon has stopped all work on new 35mm film cameras
>>> to solely work on digital cameras. They did this because
>>> they were coming out with cameras with large sensors
>>> that came close to the 35mm format with out enlarging.
>>
>> I hope this wasn't the only reason they stopped production. There are
>> advantages to digital format other than resolution. (I don't need a dark
>> room or a 1hr photo lab near by.)
>>
> And a whole lot less wash water going into the environment.... water
> that had all kinda of nifty bromides and crap in it.
> Also, the making of film is hardly a green process.
> But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
I remember listening to a Kodak rep at a seminar wanting us to get into
silver reclaimation saying that over the last hundred years we have
lined the sewers of the world with silver halides.
Mekon
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:40:08 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robatoy" wrote
>
>> The attention to detail in a recording studio is such a waste of time
>> these days.
>
>Hehe ... Hell, just wait until the singer/songwriter's boyfriend shows up
>... he'll feel compelled to add his 2000 cents, even though he's never been
>in a studio before, and can't even spell "mix".
A friend of mine suggests that he go out into the big room, and listen
loudly on the big playback monitors. It usually works well.
Robatoy was thinking very hard :
(snip)
> PS, I always like to run into people who truly understand the Zeiss
> story.... then I tell them about an acquaintance of mine who bought a
> Zeiss microscope at an auction for $ 200.00 only to discover that the
> package also included a Zeiss-built 35 mm camera and an additional $
> 20K worth of optics and lighting gear... including ring flash and all
> kinds of really nifty stuff. I took some pictures of phonograph styli
> and grooves and wondered how-the-hell that ever worked as well as it
> did.
Gulp.
The first T* I saw was a 180 portrait lens and I got a pal to take a
shot of me with it and the resolution it yielded was stunning. I still
have some of those shots and occaisionally dig out a magnifying glass
to wonder at the technology over again.
I remember once in a moment of sheer stupidity, I told a group of my
students that digital 'film' had no future. How could a photo receptor
which has to have some sort of wiring and other macro components match
film which works on an atomic level? I was of course blithely unaware
of advances in IC chip technology and conveniently ignored the fact
that the grain in film is clusters of those atomic particles and it is
the clusters that digital competes with.
Mekon
Robatoy wrote on 28/12/2007 :
(snip)
>
> I showed some slides to a neighbour of mine that I had shot in the
> Arctic. He wanted to know what process I had used to make the image so
> stark and cold. I told him I used the Kodachrome and Zeiss process. he
> said "Oh".."will that work on Corel?"
ROFL..
Back in my darkroom days I was once a sports photographer. I covered
this 3rd grade Rugby Union match and a few were published. A woman
turned up at the office the next week with a copy of one of the prints.
She wanted one of her husband. I asked which one he was so I could
optimise the print for him and she said "Oh, he's not any of these he
was standing behind you when you took the picture"
"How can I give you a print of him if he was behind me?" I naiveley
ask.
She looks at me as if I am the stupidest person she has ever met and
says..."You turn the negative upside down!"
I took her into the darkroom an showed her what that did.
Mekon
"Charlie Self" wrote
> Almost no black and white. No editor wants much of it these days...
It's funny, the difference in generations ... be it noted that the pendulum
may be swinging the other way:
I think of text messaging as a PITA, while my 22 year old daughter prefers
it over all other means of communication, including voice ... IOW, these
kids twist technology to suit their tastes, and set trends in doing so.
Bought her a Canon Power Shot (don't recall the model) for her birthday last
summer and noticed the other day that she ONLY shoots in black and white.
Had to insist, as the designated photographer for family Christmas this
year, that she shoot in color. Her roommate, the staff photographer for the
college rag, does the same, as do the other kids who hang around here during
vacation time.
Apparently black and white is far from dead, and seems to be preferable, as
far as these youngsters are concerned.
(and if you can't beat'em ... I texted all my "Happy New Years" Last night!)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>>
>>> r
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> The more pixels, the more freedom you have with image cropping. You
>> are able to zoom in on a region of the picture and still end up with an
>> image with adequate pixel density.
>
> Yup, it was no different with film, it was always best to use the
> finest-grain film lighting conditions permitted so cropping and enlarging
> didn't result in a grainy print. Having more data in your image than you
> need is easy to live with, not enough is a different matter.
The important missed fact here is that the standard film camera to take the
better croppable/enlargeable pictures was 35 mm and larger. Imagine trying
to start with 110 and get the same results as a 35 mm. That is what the
problem with more mega pixels on a CCD that is 20 times smaller than a 35mm
digital is up against along with a cheaper quality slow lens. Exposure time
has to be much longer and shake really comes in to play.
"Andrew Erickson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> While J. Clarke didn't specify the exact camera model he has, most or
> all of the Panasonic big-zoom cameras have pretty fast lenses, some
> models being constant f2.8 across the zoom range and others ranging to
> f2.8 at the wide end to f3.8 or so at the telephoto end.
That is truely pretty fast for a telephoto on a digital that is not 35mm.
> Many similar camera models other brands aren't quite so fast, but still
> at least as fast as low-end 35mm lenses with equivalent fields of view.
Most that I have taken a glance at are in the 4.5 and higher range
expecially when the length of the telephoto goes up. I am sure the better
higher dollar cameras have the faster lenses.
Leon wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> r
>> I dunno.
>>
>> Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the old
>> 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures from it
>> much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much better as well as
>> the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I also like the anti blur and
>> the movie/sound capabilities. I put a 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as
>> opposed to the 64MB max card I have in the Ricoh. It takes two AA
>> batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh and doesn't appear to eat them at
>> anywhere near the rate the Ricoh does. It's also much faster on powerup
>> and between shots.
>>
>> Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99 made
>> Santa feel good.
>
> Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras together
> but both being new would have any effect on the results. A CCD with 8 years
> of wear may not perform as good as one that is brand new.
> This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the new one
> has over the old one. ;~)
>
>
Maybe, but viewing some of the first pics I took with the Ricoh vs the
Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old pics
pixels are stored on are fading ;-)
Robatoy wrote:
> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>
> I thought I'd share this.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>
> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
> had 1 MP cameras.
>
> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>
> r
I dunno.
Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the old
2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures from
it much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much better as
well as the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I also like the
anti blur and the movie/sound capabilities. I put a 4GB card in it (max
32GB) as opposed to the 64MB max card I have in the Ricoh. It takes two
AA batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh and doesn't appear to eat them
at anywhere near the rate the Ricoh does. It's also much faster on
powerup and between shots.
Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99 made
Santa feel good.
kees <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy schreef:
>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>
>> I thought I'd share this.
>>
>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>
>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
>> had 1 MP cameras.
>>
>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>
>> r
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
That's nonsense. What pixel rates you want is based on, besides being
pushed by the phony hype of marketeers, what you want to do with the
pictures. Need to get an accurate image of a fly's ass on top of a
telephone pole? Get high pixels. Gonna print the pics for albums &
occasional 8 x 10 enlargements? Mid-pixel range. Just one to one 35
mm pics and only shown on a PC screen? Get low pixels.
Nothing's ever as simple as it seems these days, but ignorance and
making statements like the above are simply sour grapes and/or ignorance
or both. Do some research.
Pop`
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:32 pm, "Twayne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> kees <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy schreef:
>>>> Where there are woodworking buffs, there are camera/computer/
>>>> modeltrain/audio/toy/plane/cooking buffs.
>>
>>>> I thought I'd share this.
>>
>>>> http://6mpixel.org/en/
>>
>>>> It is particularly interesting to realise that the Mars Rovers only
>>>> had 1 MP cameras.
>>
>>>> So, again, the MegaPixel race is driven by the marketing and
>>>> advertising freaks and not indicative of a better camera.
>>
>>>> r
>>
>>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>>
>> That's nonsense. What pixel rates you want is based on, besides being
>> pushed by the phony hype of marketeers, what you want to do with the
>> pictures. Need to get an accurate image of a fly's ass on top of a
>> telephone pole? Get high pixels.
>
> Get a zoom lens or climb the pole. Personally, I would be more
> interested in other subjects.
In other words, higher pixel rates not needed, even if they were
available at the time of design of the rovers, dummy.
>
>> Gonna print the pics for albums &
>> occasional 8 x 10 enlargements? Mid-pixel range. Just one to one 35
>> mm pics and only shown on a PC screen? Get low pixels.
>>
>> Nothing's ever as simple as it seems these days, but ignorance and
>> making statements like the above are simply sour grapes and/or
>> ignorance or both. Do some research.
>>
>
> What's with the 'sour grapes' bullshit, Pops?
A strong aversion to mis-information.
>
> Did you miss these links, Pops?
Nope; but you missed my comment on them.
>
> http://6mpixel.org/en/
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
>
> Get back to me when you've done your homework.
What was that about sour grapes?