Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: why do idiots bother with film anymore?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: why do idiots bother with film anymore?

 
 
John Horner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2004


> Given the aspect ratio of centerfolds (very tall), how is that done
> exactly? A very anamorphic lens, or is it really more like a 3-4" X 10"
> exposed negative? Or three shots stiched together at the page barriers?


With an 8" x 10" film original it really is not a problem to crop as needed
to fit into a particular form factor. So what if you "only" end up using 6"
x 10" of the film area. I wonder how many gigapixels that translates to?

John


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:50:14 -0700,
"John Horner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Given the aspect ratio of centerfolds (very tall), how is that done
>> exactly? A very anamorphic lens, or is it really more like a 3-4" X 10"
>> exposed negative? Or three shots stiched together at the page barriers?

>
>With an 8" x 10" film original it really is not a problem to crop as needed
>to fit into a particular form factor. So what if you "only" end up using 6"
>x 10" of the film area. I wonder how many gigapixels that translates to?


Only about 300-600 megapixels.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Horner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2004

"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0wpec.5162$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I wonder how many gigapixels that translates to?
>
> Only about 300-600 megapixels.



Ok, call it half a gigapixel then ... still much higher than any digital
camera one can expect to see for under $10,000 in the next five years.

John



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-14-2004
[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:46:49 -0700,
"John Horner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:0wpec.5162$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I wonder how many gigapixels that translates to?
>>
>> Only about 300-600 megapixels.

>
>Ok, call it half a gigapixel then ... still much higher than any digital
>camera one can expect to see for under $10,000 in the next five years.


True, but then I'm not about to lug around an 8x10 view camera.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Zentena
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-14-2004
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:46:49 -0700,
> "John Horner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:0wpec.5162$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I wonder how many gigapixels that translates to?
>>>
>>> Only about 300-600 megapixels.

>>
>>Ok, call it half a gigapixel then ... still much higher than any digital
>>camera one can expect to see for under $10,000 in the next five years.

>
> True, but then I'm not about to lug around an 8x10 view camera.
>


Ya pocket cameras like that just aren't worth the effort. You need to go
at least 11x14 before it can be called a real camera.

Nick
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Xah Lee Python 16 03-12-2012 07:00 PM
New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Xah Lee Perl Misc 15 03-12-2012 07:00 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Why bother with character encoding? xyZed HTML 3 04-20-2004 02:14 AM



Advertisments