«

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <>, says...
>
>>But if the print is hanging on the
>>wall that a viewer can walk up to, it is very impressive to
>>watch the viewer admire a great image from a distance
>>(e.g. like a 40x50 inch print), then walk up close expressing
>>"wow!" then at a few inches away, "WOW!" Only large
>>format film can do that.
>
>
> Or digital panoramas. You might find this link interesting:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVEN...076707253.html
>
Yes, I agree. But digital panoramas need a LOT of frames
to reach the 200+ megapixels of a single 4x5 image.
I do digital mosaics too. But I've found them a real
limitation with changing environments, e.g. a tree
branch shifting in the wind. That won't stitch
together well. It is always easier to take
the right image in the field and requires less time
than to repair it digitally later. My time is
valuable, both in the field and at home.

Roger

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Toralf <toralf-delete-> wrote in news:ce101c$sb4
> $:
>
>
>>Right... To a certain extent, I meant this particular argument as a
>>purely principal one, too, though, i.e. the question is not just
>
> whether
>
>>it matters for photographs or not, but whether camera producers are
>>honest when they talk about e.g. 6MP. I just don't like being lied to,
>>even when it's a white lie, or a lie about something that doesn't
>>matter, if you know what I mean...
>>
>
>
> Hmmm ... those that do produce cameras based on Bayer sensors
> have a problem here. The Bayer sensor is a sound principle and
> it does have a potential for a resolution of 6 Mpixels if there
> are 6 Msensels. But ... it is not the same as having 6 Million
> full color sensels.
My point, exactly.
So ... what shall they do. Be so honest that
> they give the impression that their cameras are worse than they
> actually are.
Of course, the actual number doesn't really matter if you're only
comparing different cameras - as long as all producers use the same way
of counting. If you compare e.g. with scans, lower numbers would make
camera image quality sound worse - but that would be fair, really, since
6 million pixels from a scanner is clearly "better" in most cases than 6
million from a camera. But of course, it woudn't be easy to choose the
right number; 1.5M or 2M would probably be unfair to the cameras...

No ... it is not an easy task to choose what to
> call their cameras. Furthermore, the only sensible output from
> a 6 Msensel Bayer camera is 6 Mpixels (*).
I guess they might simply say that the camera has 6M sensor elements,
though... But of course, most people wouldn't know what they were
talking about... (But then again, do most people know what 6 million
pixels really means?)

> If you choose more you
> waste space and if you choose less you lose information.
>
> /Roland
>
>
>
> (*) ignoring the Fuiji 45 degree tilted sensors where the only
> sensible output is twice as many pixels as sensels.

MXP wrote:

>
> The films has not got documentation in english and is quite good.
> 10 pcs. was EUR 95 including shipping.....not to bad I think.....as each
> film has a little bottle of
> developer.
>
> Max
>
>

Thanks,

Photoimpex is where I buy my Efke film (maybe not as fine-grained, but
certainly cheaper).

Chris

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Toralf <toralf-delete-> writes:
>
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>
>>>>You, and many other people when discussing these matters, seem to
>>>>forget that the storage space necessary for the digital cameras is not
>>>>free of charge, though (neither are the prints, even if you have your
>>>>own printer.)
>>>
>>>The storage space costs something like $0.60 per 650 meg, for
>>>archival-grade CDs.
>>
>>I don't think I could get them *that* cheap around here and/or I
>>wouldn't trust the ones I do get at that price, but never you mind.
>>
>>
>>>Or something like $100 for 120gig of hard drive.
>>
>>Yep. Or $100 (2) for 25GB of tape.
>
>
> I would *never* use tape for archival storage; it has a *very* short
> life.
I think you are confusing actual media ("shelf") life with media
durability. Tapes are subject to wear and tear to a much higher degree
than e.g. CD, so their lifetime drops somewhat significantly if they are
used continually. For archival, purposes, however, tapes are usually
expected to last at least 30 years - and that's based on actual
experience, since tape technology is more that 50 years old.
>
[ ... ]

>
> Slides, too. I hear a lot of professionals actually throw out a lot
> of the slides they shoot, after picking out the keepers. (I've seen
> articles on their using shredders to make sure nobody steals their
> outtakes.)
He, he...


> I have gotten some "coasters", immediate burn failures. But I've
> never seen a verification error, ever.
Maybe you've been lucky, or perhaps we've been unlucky. Or could it be
that you haven't tested thoroughly enough? We use CDs a lot for data
exchange at work, and while you may say that most CDs written are just
fine, now and then we get a CD where the write operation seems to have
completed successfully, and when we inspect the filesystem everything
all files are there, and everything looks all right. Then if we compare
the contents of the files with the actual data written, we find that
there is a mismatch! Also, there are cases where the CD can be read just
fine on the CD-R(W) unit used to write it, but other readers have
problems with it - watch out for those.

And I've never had an old CD
> fail yet, either audio CDs going back to 1983 or CD-Rs. (The failure
> model for pressed CDs is actually very different than for CD-R; a
> pressed CD can de-laminate, and some early ones did.)
A CD-R is laminated, too, isn't it?
>
>
[ ... ]

>
> One CD per 36-picture film? So you're storing 18 megabytes per image?
> My fine jpeg (most often used) original is about 2 megabytes. If I've
> worked on the image I have a much bigger PSD file, but often the image
> can be auto-processed into a screen image of about 40k, with no
> intermediate kept. I average a LOT more than 36 pictures per CD.
JPEG destroys the data as a manner of course, and I've been brought up
to believe it's evil... If we assume pictures are kept, we should assume
the *actual pictures* are kept, not some degraded form of them. That's
the only fair way of comparing. But of course, the mere ability to
neither keep nor completely throw away the originals, but do something
in between, is of course in its own right a point in the favour of
digital cameras.
>
>
>>And of course, you'll need to purchase a certain amount of
>>microdrive/compactflash/SD media, to, and that's still rather
>>expensive - it's cost may actually be as much as 20 times the one of
>>film.
>
>
> So far in 4 years with 2 digital cameras I've purchased 5 CF cards,
> yes. And also an Iomega Fotoshow to transfer cards to zip disks in
> the field.

Toralf <toralf-delete-> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Toralf <toralf-delete-> writes:
>>
>>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You, and many other people when discussing these matters, seem to
>>>>>forget that the storage space necessary for the digital cameras is not
>>>>>free of charge, though (neither are the prints, even if you have your
>>>>>own printer.)
>>>>
>>>>The storage space costs something like $0.60 per 650 meg, for
>>>>archival-grade CDs.
>>>
>>>I don't think I could get them *that* cheap around here and/or I
>>>wouldn't trust the ones I do get at that price, but never you mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or something like $100 for 120gig of hard drive.
>>>
>>>Yep. Or $100 (2) for 25GB of tape.
>> I would *never* use tape for archival storage; it has a *very* short
>> life.

> I think you are confusing actual media ("shelf") life with media
> durability. Tapes are subject to wear and tear to a much higher degree
> than e.g. CD, so their lifetime drops somewhat significantly if they
> are used continually. For archival, purposes, however, tapes are
> usually expected to last at least 30 years - and that's based on
> actual experience, since tape technology is more that 50 years old.

Last time I looked into tape life, archivists thought 10 years was
optimistic. They may, of course, have improved the oxide and binder
formulations since then.

>> I have gotten some "coasters", immediate burn failures. But I've
>> never seen a verification error, ever.

> Maybe you've been lucky, or perhaps we've been unlucky. Or could it be
> that you haven't tested thoroughly enough? We use CDs a lot for data
> exchange at work, and while you may say that most CDs written are just
> fine, now and then we get a CD where the write operation seems to have
> completed successfully, and when we inspect the filesystem everything
> all files are there, and everything looks all right. Then if we
> compare the contents of the files with the actual data written, we
> find that there is a mismatch! Also, there are cases where the CD can
> be read just fine on the CD-R(W) unit used to write it, but other
> readers have problems with it - watch out for those.

Always possible that I haven't tested thoroughly enough. I tend to
use data compare verifiction in the writing program, and then
periodically use CDR-diagnostic to review the general state of a CD
(mostly on a different drive from the original writer). I don't
really do this *systematically* enough to be sure I'm on top of
everything, though.

>> And I've never had an old CD
>> fail yet, either audio CDs going back to 1983 or CD-Rs. (The failure
>> model for pressed CDs is actually very different than for CD-R; a
>> pressed CD can de-laminate, and some early ones did.)

> A CD-R is laminated, too, isn't it?

I don't believe so; at least not in anything like the same way.

> [ ... ]
>
>> One CD per 36-picture film? So you're storing 18 megabytes per
>> image?
>> My fine jpeg (most often used) original is about 2 megabytes. If I've
>> worked on the image I have a much bigger PSD file, but often the image
>> can be auto-processed into a screen image of about 40k, with no
>> intermediate kept. I average a LOT more than 36 pictures per CD.
> JPEG destroys the data as a manner of course, and I've been brought up
> to believe it's evil... If we assume pictures are kept, we should
> assume the *actual pictures* are kept, not some degraded form of
> them. That's the only fair way of comparing. But of course, the mere
> ability to neither keep nor completely throw away the originals, but
> do something in between, is of course in its own right a point in the
> favour of digital cameras.

The JPEG is the camera original. I'll shoot RAW files for exceptional
circumstances, but at 12MB per shot (and hence long write times, too)
I rarely use it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd->, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Toralf <toralf-delete-> writes:

> Of course, the actual number doesn't really matter if you're only
> comparing different cameras - as long as all producers use the same
> way of counting. If you compare e.g. with scans, lower numbers would
> make camera image quality sound worse - but that would be fair,
> really, since 6 million pixels from a scanner is clearly "better" in
> most cases than 6 million from a camera. But of course, it woudn't be
> easy to choose the right number; 1.5M or 2M would probably be unfair
> to the cameras...

You've got that backwards; digital original pixels are *better* than
scanned pixels, at a ratio of somewhere around 1.2:1 to 2:1 (varies
with image content, camera, phase of the moon, etc.).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd->, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-> wrote:
> Toralf <toralf-delete-> writes:
>
> > Of course, the actual number doesn't really matter if you're only
> > comparing different cameras - as long as all producers use the same
> > way of counting. If you compare e.g. with scans, lower numbers would
> > make camera image quality sound worse - but that would be fair,
> > really, since 6 million pixels from a scanner is clearly "better" in
> > most cases than 6 million from a camera. But of course, it woudn't be
> > easy to choose the right number; 1.5M or 2M would probably be unfair
> > to the cameras...
>
> You've got that backwards; digital original pixels are *better* than
> scanned pixels, at a ratio of somewhere around 1.2:1 to 2:1 (varies
> with image content, camera, phase of the moon, etc.).

I put it at 3:1 for 4000 dpi scans. Scans are grossly soft. Here's a page
with scans from the best scanners around, and they're all mush.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

(Kodak ProPhotoCD 1800 dpi scans of MF slides are very nice, but that's not
a lot of dpi: barely 9MP from 645.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-> wrote:
>> Toralf <toralf-delete-> writes:
>>
>> > Of course, the actual number doesn't really matter if you're only
>> > comparing different cameras - as long as all producers use the same
>> > way of counting. If you compare e.g. with scans, lower numbers would
>> > make camera image quality sound worse - but that would be fair,
>> > really, since 6 million pixels from a scanner is clearly "better" in
>> > most cases than 6 million from a camera. But of course, it woudn't be
>> > easy to choose the right number; 1.5M or 2M would probably be unfair
>> > to the cameras...
>>
>> You've got that backwards; digital original pixels are *better* than
>> scanned pixels, at a ratio of somewhere around 1.2:1 to 2:1 (varies
>> with image content, camera, phase of the moon, etc.).
>
> I put it at 3:1 for 4000 dpi scans. Scans are grossly soft. Here's a page
> with scans from the best scanners around, and they're all mush.
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Thanks. My LS-2000 is 2700 dpi, so I haven't looked at that many 4000
DPI scans. Fascinating web site.

> (Kodak ProPhotoCD 1800 dpi scans of MF slides are very nice, but that's not
> a lot of dpi: barely 9MP from 645.)

It's the standard MF advantage -- lower degree of enlargement for any
particular print size.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd->, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"Chris Loffredo" <> skrev i en meddelelse
news:...
> MXP wrote:
>
> >
> > The films has not got documentation in english and is quite good.
> > 10 pcs. was EUR 95 including shipping.....not to bad I think.....as each
> > film has a little bottle of
> > developer.
> >
> > Max
> >
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> Photoimpex is where I buy my Efke film (maybe not as fine-grained, but
> certainly cheaper).
>
> Chris

OK....so Photoimpex is a well known place out there.........
I have heard a lot about the ISO 25 Efke....but never tried it.
It seems Photoimpex also have some interresting B/W paper.

Max

In article <>, says...
> Yes, I agree. But digital panoramas need a LOT of frames
> to reach the 200+ megapixels of a single 4x5 image.

Very true. But digital panoramas can grow to just about any size or
field of view quite easily. Both options have their merits.

> I do digital mosaics too. But I've found them a real
> limitation with changing environments, e.g. a tree
> branch shifting in the wind. That won't stitch
> together well. It is always easier to take
> the right image in the field and requires less time
> than to repair it digitally later. My time is
> valuable, both in the field and at home.

That's the biggest drawback to digital panoramas. However, considering
its low cost and flexibility, it remains a good option for certain
settings.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/