Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Interesting Leica product announcements today ...

Reply
Thread Tools

Interesting Leica product announcements today ...

 
 
Peter Irwin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On May 14, 10:28*pm, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:.

>
>>> The reason scanned images of film
>>> are large is that the highest resolution scanners are actually
>>> recording the shape of grain particles,

>
>> bullshit. Grain cannot be scanned with ANY vailable scanner. You
>> need an electronic microscope to do that.

>
> Hang on! Did you ever do your own enlarging of B&W film?


Um, there is a big difference between seeing grain patterns,
even (barely) seeing some individual grains, and "actually
recording the shape of grain particles".

I would be astonished if anyone could even guess at the
shape of individual grains based on what is visible in a
grain focuser.

Peter.
--
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
Chris Malcolm wrote,on my timestamp of 16/05/2012 9:38 AM:


>> bullshit. Graion cannot be scanned with ANY vailable scanner. You
>> need an electronic microscope to do that.

>
> Hang on! Did you ever do your own enlarging of B&W film?


and colour as well. Cibachrome.

> If you did
> large enough blow ups you didn't bother focusing the enlarger by
> looking at image detail, you focused on the grain.


Yup. Around 15X blow-up, THEN and only then I used the grain focuser to FURTHER
magnify the image. And yes, the grain would be visible. With slide film and
Cibachrome.

The case pointed here was Tech Pan. Have you ever tried to focus Tech Pan using
that technique? I can promise you a very big surprise. The same goes for Adox
CMS20 and the "Rollei" clones.

>
> I've probably still got mine somewhere, along with my pneumatic bulb
> shutter releases and red filters


Still got mine. AND a microscope.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
Peter Irwin wrote,on my timestamp of 16/05/2012 8:40 PM:

>
> I would be astonished if anyone could even guess at the
> shape of individual grains based on what is visible in a
> grain focuser.


And with Tech Pan I defy anyone to tell me when they are "seeing" grain...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
David Dyer-Bennet wrote,on my timestamp of 16/05/2012 11:06 AM:

> You can see grain quite clearly with moderate optical magnification; a
> few tens.


No you CANNOT. Not with Tech Pan. THAT is the point. Stop changing the subject
to match your "theories": it won't work.


>> Are you on drugs? Since when is scanned size dependent on film ISO?
>> What the hell are you smoking today?

>
> In a compressed format, including LZW-compressed TIFF, a noiser image
> will compress less well, and I *think* he may have been alluding to
> that.


Ah, so a scan is a compressed TIFF image? Care to translate into the Queen's
language?


> The stuff we saw in 11x14 optical prints from TRI-X is what was called
> "grain". That's an optical magnification of just over 10x.


NO one was talking about Tri-x. Like I said: stop evading the subject.


> You're going to insist those are "grain clumps", right? I think I know
> this trick. They're universally referred to as "grain" by people
> describing the appearance of optical darkroom prints.


NO they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012

"David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> At any given ISO I've tried (about 25-25600), digital is much less
>>> grainy/noisy than film.

>>
>> True for recent DSLR's of course, but not a universal truth as quoted. I
>> guess you just haven't "tried" those that are not

>
> True back to my first DSLR in 2002.


Right, you should have said that then. Doesn't include many digital P&S
though.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
On 5/16/2012 6:03 AM, Noons wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote,on my timestamp of 16/05/2012 11:06 AM:
>
>> You can see grain quite clearly with moderate optical magnification; a
>> few tens.

>
> No you CANNOT. Not with Tech Pan. THAT is the point. Stop changing the subject to match your
> "theories": it won't work.
>



I have lots of Tech Pan negatives, so I was going to
look at them with my excellent microscope.

But what I found first was Tri-X.

At 100x all I could actually resolve was grain clumps. At 400x
(N.A. 0.75) I could see individual grains, and resolve some
but not all. At 1000x (N.A. 1.30) I could resolve all the grains.
There is a huge variation in grain size, and in clumpiness.

Then I looked at Tech Pan. There are no clumps. And the grain
size is far more uniform. I actually need 1000x to truly resolve the grains.
It really can't be done at 400x, though that is perfectly adequate
to see the individual grains. Resolution is clearly limited
not by grain size but by emulsion thickness.

But can you see the grain "structure" at 50x in Tech Pan?
Yes, you can ... the fluctuation in density is easily seen.
In fact, at background density you can see individual grains
at 50x, but they are far from resolved. At ordinary density
you see only fluctuations and the image itself. The bottom
line is that at background density you should indeed be able,
with a good enlarger lens ( at f/4) and a grain focuser,
to actually focus on the grains themselves ... but they
won't be resolved at all. You will be seeing little gray spots,
not black.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote,on my timestamp of 16/05/2012 11:06 AM:
>
>> You can see grain quite clearly with moderate optical magnification; a
>> few tens.

>
> No you CANNOT. Not with Tech Pan. THAT is the point. Stop changing
> the subject to match your "theories": it won't work.


No, the point is that in general grain is the limiting factor to
"satisfactory" enlargement of film images.

>>> Are you on drugs? Since when is scanned size dependent on film ISO?
>>> What the hell are you smoking today?

>>
>> In a compressed format, including LZW-compressed TIFF, a noiser image
>> will compress less well, and I *think* he may have been alluding to
>> that.

>
> Ah, so a scan is a compressed TIFF image? Care to translate into the
> Queen's language?


I was looking for something he might have meant by saying the scanned
size depended on film ISO. One thing he might have meant is that the
file size of the scanned image as stored on disk is larger for high-ISO
films.

>
>> The stuff we saw in 11x14 optical prints from TRI-X is what was called
>> "grain". That's an optical magnification of just over 10x.

>
> NO one was talking about Tri-x. Like I said: stop evading the subject.
>
>
>> You're going to insist those are "grain clumps", right? I think I know
>> this trick. They're universally referred to as "grain" by people
>> describing the appearance of optical darkroom prints.

>
> NO they are not.


Um, look around you at the newsgroup, where many people are using it
exactly that way.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
K W Hart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012

"David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Chris Malcolm writes:
>>
>>> I think most DSLRs have menu-switchable long exposure noise
>>> reduction.

>>
>> Noise reduction also reduces image quality.

>
> Mostly, it *improves* image quality.


Just out of curiosity, how does noise reduction know what is noise and what
is fine detail in the photo?


--
Ken Hart
(E-Mail Removed)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On May 13, 3:20*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)>


>> > Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise. *I
>> > have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP.


>> Of course you should see *way* more than 24 MPix there.
>> But the others are talking about 24x36mm film.
>> 13,5 cm? As in "4x5 inch large format camera"?


> No. Read about film sizes and then comment.


There is no "135mm" film size. There is "135" film and there
is "35mm" film. So which is it?

>> better? *I doubt it. *Yes, you should overscan. *But the extra
>> pixels don't translate 1:1 into detail recovered.


> No one is talking about "overscan". Stay on topic.


>> So photograph the microscope output.


> Really? Have you ever looked through a microscope at an entire film
> image? HOw big was that microscope? Any other pearls of idiocy to
> share?


Are you an idiot?
Or are you just trying hard to be one?

Noone --- except you! --- says you're to photograph the whole
image in one go under the microscope.

>> So show your own proof.


> I have. Many times. Still do, in many places.


Post the URL with the proof, that's less work than that handwaving
of yours.

>> Go ahead, do a drum scan ...


> Wish I could find one.


Google for >>drum scan service<<.
That isn't *that* complicated.
Even you can manage that.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > Savageduck writes:

>
> > I already know exactly what can be done in post-processing, because I know all
> > the theory behind it. I also know the information theory that prevents such
> > post gadgets from duplicating the results you can get with B&W film and
> > (optionally) a filter.
> >
> >> So we are at an impasse, I am hampered by my current lack of monochrome
> >> film and a wet darkroom, and you are hampered by being locked into
> >> mathematical theory.

> >
> > Mathematics doesn't lie. If something is mathematically impossible, there's no
> > way around it.

>
> I trained as a theoretical mathematician, while working (and I have
> continued to work ever since college) as a software engineer. I feel
> like I know something about theory, and a little bit about the real
> world.
>
> They're not the same. People claimed for years that it was
> mathematically impossible for bumblebees to fly. The math was right,
> too; problem was, they were using it improperly (modeling bublebees as
> fixed-wing aircraft!). That kind of thing happens a lot -- people apply
> correct mass to an incorrect model, and get nonsense results out.


People still claim that, and they're as wrong now as the ones who
claimed it in the '30s.

The real story is that a mathematician (some sources say Prandtl, some
say Ackeret, some say Sainte-Lague) was asked the question at dinner and
did a back of the envelope calculation based on many simplifying
assumptions, and a biologist, Antoine Magnan, presumably the one who
asked the question, assumed that that was the definitive word and put it
in a biology text that he was writing. Magnan credits Sainte-Lague, who
was not an aerodynamicist.

The real story here is that one who can't do the math oneself should not
report the results of another's work without first consulting with that
person and making sure that one is telling the correct story.


 
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
What is best (non-Leica) digital slr back for Leica R lenses? TJ Digital Photography 13 12-23-2007 10:46 PM
Is Lumix Leica real Leica? John Navas Digital Photography 1 11-18-2007 09:16 AM
HP product announcements wayne Digital Photography 2 08-25-2005 06:16 AM
CES is around the corner. We can expect signficant camera announcements. John Doe Digital Photography 10 01-08-2004 08:16 PM
+ Weekly DVD Release Announcements via Email? + Quixote DVD Video 0 12-23-2003 03:56 PM



Advertisments