Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 21.5 meg mamiya

Reply
Thread Tools

21.5 meg mamiya

 
 
David Napierkowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
>, when they see 75 rolls or so they ask
>suspiciously if i'm a professional photographer ... with an easy
>heart i answer that i'm just an amateur ... >>


yeah. A pro does it with less right?. LOL ROF

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> thanks david-san,
>
> i was afraid you'd say what you said ... i usually scan my 35 mm
> negs or slides in with a nikon 5000 and yes i'm aware of the noise
> which is clearly visible in plain skies, but with some help from
> photoshop, even with cropping i can use the epson 2200 to print 288
> dpi at 13 x 19 and my photog patients as well as non photogs seem
> impressed, at least with the quality of the print if not the photo
> itself ...


Have you tried NeatImage? I find that on its lower settings it does a very
good job at least with Reala and Velvia 50 4000 dpi scans.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Meyers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:clhj4s$l27$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "David Napierkowski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >13 x 19 fine. Hell, if you are worried about size, wait a little bit
>> >and
>> >get an Olympus E-300 (8 MP), or a Pentax
>> >*ist DS.

>
> This poster seems to have missed the point that the 20D, that the original
> poster is considering, is an 8MP camera.


Nope. Pointing out that his wants can be fullfilled, if they are not
landscape or science,
with even less.

>> and detail.... shoot F I L M, scan it in manipulate it in PS and print
>> it

> on
>> an Epson 2200 or 4000.

>
> You won't get any more detail from 4000 dpi scanned _35mm_ film than you
> do
> from an 8MP dSLR such as the 20D or E-300. You'll need medium format to do
> that. (5400 dpi scans might edge out the 20D, but I doubt it.)


Ok. I scan. A good image on film kills digital in most things. It does
however need
more post work. I scan at 5400 (Minolta Scan Elite 5400) and 3600 dpi
(Power Slide 3600).
Either one will easily compete or beat the detail.

>> To my limited mind, the only advantage of digital is convenience to the

> pro
>> working against tight time lines.

>
> And to the amateur who has better things to do with his time that futz
> with
> scanning.


And not having a damn "Pro" lab killing your slides. That can hurt when you
are on a schedule.
Been there, done that.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <cli04o$4d7$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > thanks david-san,
> >
> > i was afraid you'd say what you said ... i usually scan my 35 mm
> > negs or slides in with a nikon 5000 and yes i'm aware of the noise
> > which is clearly visible in plain skies, but with some help from
> > photoshop, even with cropping i can use the epson 2200 to print 288
> > dpi at 13 x 19 and my photog patients as well as non photogs seem
> > impressed, at least with the quality of the print if not the photo
> > itself ...

>
> Have you tried NeatImage? I find that on its lower settings it does a very
> good job at least with Reala and Velvia 50 4000 dpi scans.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>

I'll second that. Of course, don't sharpen until after using Neat Image
(although you can use NI itself to sharpen) and start with maybe 50%
noise reduction, some images let you use more.

It also works with cheap film like Fuji Superia and Kodak HD that David
would never use. Finally, it cleans up images from my pocket digital P&S
taken at ISO400 (that David would also not use).

I think you can get a jpeg only home use version for free still. Various
versions are available some allow photoshop plug capability, 16 bit
operation and full file type support.

Bruce Graham
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
>From: (E-Mail Removed)

>did you use just bicubic in photoshop or something fancier like
>fractals to up-size?


If you have Photoshop CS try the 'bicubic smoother' option for moderate
resampling, like taking the 8 Mpix files to 16x20" @ 360 ppi (a bit more than
2x linear upsampling). If you have an older version of Photoshop try Stair
Interpolation with bicubic, which is basically doing it in 110% steps until you
reach the right size. Just write an action to do this and it runs quickly. Or
you can buy one for a few bucks from Fred Miranda ...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/SI/ ... interesting comparison of various solutions.

I have a copy of Genuine Fractals which came bundled with a scanner and have
tried it out several times ... it does a better job than Photoshop with test
patterns or images with vector-like shapes but for actual photos with more
random image structures I never saw an improvement with GF over Photoshop.
Maybe if you are resizing 10x linearly instead of 2x it works better than
Photoshop, dunno. But for the size upsamplings I'm doing I don't really use
GF.

Pretty easy to make copies of the image and resize with all options available
to you and compare them.

You also need to run USM on the final file, with a light touch I usually
run an edge sharpening Action to do this.

Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
pshaw@emmet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
hi david-san ...

yes i have and use a fully paid version of neat image pro ....though
i'm still not sure whether it is better to use it before i go to work
on a file ...or after ...

i use kodak's best film now called "high definition" which is the
exact same (according to kodak) as their royal gold ...

i'm still dithering and not noise-free yet ...

steve

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:36:39 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> thanks david-san,
>>
>> i was afraid you'd say what you said ... i usually scan my 35 mm
>> negs or slides in with a nikon 5000 and yes i'm aware of the noise
>> which is clearly visible in plain skies, but with some help from
>> photoshop, even with cropping i can use the epson 2200 to print 288
>> dpi at 13 x 19 and my photog patients as well as non photogs seem
>> impressed, at least with the quality of the print if not the photo
>> itself ...

>
>Have you tried NeatImage? I find that on its lower settings it does a very
>good job at least with Reala and Velvia 50 4000 dpi scans.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> hi david-san ...
>
> yes i have and use a fully paid version of neat image pro ....though
> i'm still not sure whether it is better to use it before i go to work
> on a file ...or after ...


Neat Image should be the _first_ thing you do to a file out of the scanner.

> i use kodak's best film now called "high definition" which is the
> exact same (according to kodak) as their royal gold ...


I've not heard anyone say anything nice about that film. Try Fuji Reala.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
pshaw@emmet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-27-2004
having a 'connection' at fuji we took all fuji on one trip but 'kanai'
(she who must be obeyed) said she liked the color/impact of the kodak
better ... ju-nin-too-iro or something like that ...

but i'll neat-image my stuff first - thanks for the tip ...

steve

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:14:27 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> hi david-san ...
>>
>> yes i have and use a fully paid version of neat image pro ....though
>> i'm still not sure whether it is better to use it before i go to work
>> on a file ...or after ...

>
>Neat Image should be the _first_ thing you do to a file out of the scanner.
>
>> i use kodak's best film now called "high definition" which is the
>> exact same (according to kodak) as their royal gold ...

>
>I've not heard anyone say anything nice about that film. Try Fuji Reala.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>


 
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
"Mamiya Tempts Photographers With Sample High Res ZD Photos" Bill Hilton Digital Photography 9 12-21-2005 06:54 AM
Mamiya Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 4 10-14-2005 10:37 PM
Mamiya ZD Michael McNulty Digital Photography 1 11-14-2004 07:23 PM
Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices Alan Browne Digital Photography 46 10-07-2004 10:10 PM
Mamiya ZD 22 Megapixels cameral announced Linda_N Digital Photography 16 10-07-2004 09:09 PM



Advertisments