Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
    lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
    information is useless junk. When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
    and 48 bits, it generates huge files. But much of this is worthless
    (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. What the
    scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
    that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
    A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
    clouds, even the info for the garbage. For proof of this from a
    digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
    one at 3200 ISO. Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
    image and save them. Take a look at the file size. The grainy, high
    ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
    information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
    image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
    noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.
    RichA, Mar 31, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    dan c. Guest

    On Mar 30, 4:04 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
    > lot more information than a digital image.  This is true, but the
    > information is useless junk.  When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
    > and 48 bits, it generates huge files.  But much of this is worthless
    > (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned.  What the
    > scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
    > that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
    > A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
    > clouds, even the info for the garbage.  For proof of this from a
    > digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
    > one at 3200 ISO.  Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
    > image and save them.  Take a look at the file size.  The grainy, high
    > ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
    > information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
    > image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
    > noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.


    Soooo, what's your point? Film is amazing, a scrap of clear plastic
    with a tiny amount of light-sensitive emulsion spread upon it, in the
    right hands, can make a huge Cibachrome print that knocks your socks
    off and sells for thousands is pretty magical in my book. Don't get
    me wrong, Digital is up and coming. However, the amount of technology
    that lies between the lens and the print is astronomical in
    comparison! Think of it, a lens focuses an image on a scrap of
    plastic. That's it! The image is saved in Extra High Definition for
    the cost of a penny! I love both digital and darkrooms, but after a
    couple of decades of printing large Cibachromes from little scraps of
    plastic.....what's your point? Some day digital will rule the fine
    art world. But for now I'm still on my hands and knees to film for
    the final, pristine, dazzling piece of art that hangs on a wall. Same
    with black and white by the way, a well-done fiber-based print from
    film is still king. Call me a jaded "pro" (I hate the term) but after
    listening for hours of boring chit chat, it all comes down to one
    thing. The Fine Print. BTW, what is a "filmist" I mean, I know what
    it must be (or who) but is it derogatory in nature? Is there an on-
    going debate about which is better, film or digital? And yes, I did
    in fact just crawl out from under a rock. I also had the extreme
    pleasure and luck to have been trained by an old man who looked like
    Santa many years ago. You may have heard of him. dan (who is going
    back under his rock)
    dan c., Mar 31, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems dan c. <> wrote:
    > On Mar 30, 4:04?pm, RichA <> wrote:
    >> We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
    >> lot more information than a digital image. ?This is true, but the
    >> information is useless junk. ?When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
    >> and 48 bits, it generates huge files. ?But much of this is worthless
    >> (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. ?What the
    >> scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
    >> that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
    >> A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
    >> clouds, even the info for the garbage. ?For proof of this from a
    >> digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
    >> one at 3200 ISO. ?Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
    >> image and save them. ?Take a look at the file size. ?The grainy, high
    >> ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
    >> information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
    >> image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
    >> noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.


    > Soooo, what's your point? Film is amazing, a scrap of clear plastic
    > with a tiny amount of light-sensitive emulsion spread upon it, in the
    > right hands, can make a huge Cibachrome print that knocks your socks
    > off and sells for thousands is pretty magical in my book. Don't get
    > me wrong, Digital is up and coming. However, the amount of technology
    > that lies between the lens and the print is astronomical in
    > comparison! Think of it, a lens focuses an image on a scrap of
    > plastic. That's it!


    My guess is that you think there's less technology intervening between
    lens and print in a film camera because you know a bit more about
    computers than you do about chemistry, and have forgotten to take into
    account the important advantage of digital reproduction technologies.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 31, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Guest

    On Mar 31, 2:17 am, "dan c." <> wrote:
    > On Mar 30, 4:04 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
    > > lot more information than a digital image.  This is true, but the
    > > information is useless junk.  When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
    > > and 48 bits, it generates huge files.  But much of this is worthless
    > > (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned.  What the
    > > scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
    > > that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
    > > A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
    > > clouds, even the info for the garbage.  For proof of this from a
    > > digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
    > > one at 3200 ISO.  Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
    > > image and save them.  Take a look at the file size.  The grainy, high
    > > ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
    > > information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
    > > image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
    > > noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.

    >
    > Soooo, what's your point?  Film is amazing, a scrap of clear plastic
    > with a tiny amount of light-sensitive emulsion spread upon it, in the
    > right hands, can make a huge Cibachrome print that knocks your socks
    > off and sells for thousands is pretty magical in my book.  Don't get
    > me wrong, Digital is up and coming. However, the amount of technology
    > that lies between the lens and the print is astronomical in
    > comparison!  Think of it, a lens focuses an image on a scrap of
    > plastic.  That's it!  The image is saved in Extra High Definition for
    > the cost of a penny!  I love both digital and darkrooms, but after a
    > couple of decades of printing large Cibachromes from little scraps of
    > plastic.....what's your point?  Some day digital will rule the fine
    > art world.  But for now I'm still on my hands and knees to film for
    > the final, pristine, dazzling piece of art that hangs on a wall.  Same
    > with black and white by the way, a well-done fiber-based print from
    > film is still king.  Call me a jaded "pro" (I hate the term) but after
    > listening for hours of boring chit chat, it all comes down to one
    > thing.  The Fine Print.  BTW, what is a "filmist"  I mean, I know what
    > it must be (or who) but is it derogatory in nature?  Is there an on-
    > going debate about which is better, film or digital?  And yes, I did
    > in fact just crawl out from under a rock.   I also had the extreme
    > pleasure and luck to have been trained by an old man who looked like
    > Santa many years ago.  You may have heard of him.  dan (who is going
    > back under his rock)


    The technology behind film is immense too, the coating machines owned
    by Kodak, Fuji and formerly AGFA are amazing they put down a uniform
    thin film on rolls of plastic, to get the consistency that films have
    is almost a magic trick. Same for paper again an amazing thing and
    20th century industrial magic. The chemistry behind film and paper is
    also a technological wonder. The thing about film is the technology is
    hidden from you. Just apply some chemicals and the magic process of
    film development happens. Then you pour the chemicals down the drain,
    a questionable practice.
    That said RichA is right about scanners they are all optimistically
    rated, about 1/2 the rated ppi is about right with lower priced
    models, maybe less on flatbeds. You also get what you pay for, the
    more expensive generally are better. Though there is a discussion
    about Nikon film scanner vs Imacon scanners.

    Tom
    , Mar 31, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    Nobody Guest

  6. RichA

    Charles Guest

    Charles, Apr 1, 2009
    #6
  7. In article
    <>,
    RichA <> writes
    >We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
    >lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
    >information is useless junk. When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
    >and 48 bits, it generates huge files. But much of this is worthless
    >(even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. What the
    >scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
    >that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
    >A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
    >clouds, even the info for the garbage. For proof of this from a
    >digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
    >one at 3200 ISO. Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
    >image and save them. Take a look at the file size. The grainy, high
    >ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
    >information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
    >image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
    >noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.


    There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
    claims that you dispute in your first sentence.

    Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200ISO and the
    3200ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the compression
    that is generating the size difference.

    Secondly, what you are demonstrating in the digital domain has no
    relevance to the film domain. Its a bit like saying adding gasoline to
    my soup makes it taste horrid, so it can't be any good adding it to the
    fuel tank in my car.

    Thirdly, I don't know of any "filmist" that makes your original claims,
    except in error. Generally what is claimed is that film has more
    intrinsic resolution than digital, which is just one aspect of
    information.

    The problem with this type of idiotic comparison is that film has a
    signal to noise ratio which degrades gradually with increasing
    resolution. Film can resolve very fine high contrast detail without
    corruption even at very low signal to noise ratios. By contrast,
    digital sensors run up against their limits at resolutions where their
    SNR is still very high. A small SNR certainly means that most of the
    "information" present in the medium is just noise, but that doesn't mean
    that there is no useful information. If the resolution at a useful SNR
    exceeds the Nyquist limit of a digital sensor then film certainly has
    the higher resolution, irrespective of its SNR. That has been the case
    almost universally until recently.

    Fourthly, "information" is more than just SNR and resolution, there is
    also dynamic range and the ability to handle highlights acceptably.

    It is horses for courses. Some images, and applications, benefit more
    from fine detail than signal to noise, other images and application
    benefit more from the SNR and don't require the finest detail.

    Having said all of that, the resolution of digital sensors continues to
    improve. However in the highest resolution applications, including the
    manufacture of the digital sensors themselves, it is still a film
    emulsion technology that is used.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Apr 1, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    dan c. Guest

    On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > RichA <> writes
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
    > >lot more information than a digital image.  This is true, but the
    > >information is useless junk.  When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
    > >and 48 bits, it generates huge files.  But much of this is worthless
    > >(even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned.  What the
    > >scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
    > >that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
    > >A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
    > >clouds, even the info for the garbage.  For proof of this from a
    > >digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
    > >one at 3200 ISO.  Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
    > >image and save them.  Take a look at the file size.  The grainy, high
    > >ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
    > >information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
    > >image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
    > >noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.

    >
    > There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
    > claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
    >
    > Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200ISO and the
    > 3200ISO files will be exactly the same size.  Ie. it is the compression
    > that is generating the size difference.
    >
    > Secondly, what you are demonstrating in the digital domain has no
    > relevance to the film domain.  Its a bit like saying adding gasoline to
    > my soup makes it taste horrid, so it can't be any good adding it to the
    > fuel tank in my car.
    >
    > Thirdly, I don't know of any "filmist" that makes your original claims,
    > except in error.  Generally what is claimed is that film has more
    > intrinsic resolution than digital, which is just one aspect of
    > information.
    >
    > The problem with this type of idiotic comparison is that film has a
    > signal to noise ratio which degrades gradually with increasing
    > resolution.  Film can resolve very fine high contrast detail without
    > corruption even at very low signal to noise ratios.  By contrast,
    > digital sensors run up against their limits at resolutions where their
    > SNR is still very high.  A small SNR certainly means that most of the
    > "information" present in the medium is just noise, but that doesn't mean
    > that there is no useful information.  If the resolution at a useful SNR
    > exceeds the Nyquist limit of a digital sensor then film certainly has
    > the higher resolution, irrespective of its SNR.  That has been the case
    > almost universally until recently.
    >
    > Fourthly, "information" is more than just SNR and resolution, there is
    > also dynamic range and the ability to handle highlights acceptably.
    >
    > It is horses for courses.  Some images, and applications, benefit more
    > from fine detail than signal to noise, other images and application
    > benefit more from the SNR and don't require the finest detail.
    >
    > Having said all of that, the resolution of digital sensors continues to
    > improve.  However in the highest resolution applications, including the
    > manufacture of the digital sensors themselves, it is still a film
    > emulsion technology that is used.
    > --
    > Kennedy
    > Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    > A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    > Python Philosophers         (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Those guys making their own glass plate negatives high in the Sierra
    made some pretty impressive prints later on in the darkroom. Kinda
    blows the idea right out of the water that putting emulsion on plastic
    is anywhere near the tech that exists in a digital camera! I think
    their technology was a paintbrush of some sort. I once made light
    sensitive emulsion, spread it on a ROCK, and made a decent image on it
    in the darkroom. I know, not the same thing. dan
    dan c., Apr 1, 2009
    #8
  9. dan c. wrote:
    > On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:


    >> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and the
    >> 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the compression
    >> that is generating the size difference.


    This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
    being equal.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 1, 2009
    #9
  10. John McWilliams wrote:
    > dan c. wrote:
    >> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
    >>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
    >>> compression that is generating the size difference.

    >
    > This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
    > being equal.


    How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?

    Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file size.

    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 2, 2009
    #10
  11. Re: OT: New from Sony test 3

    user identity wrote:
    > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:22:35 -0400
    >>
    >>

    > test 3



    Please use a test group.
    John McWilliams, Apr 2, 2009
    #11
  12. David J Taylor wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >> dan c. wrote:
    >>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
    >>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
    >>>> compression that is generating the size difference.

    >>
    >> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
    >> being equal.

    >
    > How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
    >
    > Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file size.


    My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
    by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
    compression of the RAW data causes this?

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Apr 2, 2009
    #12
  13. John McWilliams wrote:
    []
    > My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes,
    > not by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying
    > camera compression of the RAW data causes this?


    I was actually thinking of JPEG files but, yes, some cameras use
    compression on RAW data as well. Just like the compression in Zip files,
    compression /can/ be lossless.

    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 2, 2009
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <49d4e61d$>, Bob Larter
    <> wrote:

    > Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed,


    usually, but not always.
    nospam, Apr 2, 2009
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bob Larter Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> dan c. wrote:
    >>>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
    >>>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
    >>>>> compression that is generating the size difference.
    >>>
    >>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
    >>> being equal.

    >>
    >> How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
    >>
    >> Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file
    >> size.

    >
    > My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
    > by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
    > compression of the RAW data causes this?


    Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed, & the file size will increase
    with increases in detail or noise.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Apr 2, 2009
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <49d4f4cb$>, Bob Larter
    <> wrote:

    > >> Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed,

    > >
    > > usually, but not always.

    >
    > The formats I've seen are, but it's entirely possible there are ones
    > that are uncompressed.


    i was referring to lossy compressed but there's uncompressed too. nikon
    offers all three variants on some cameras.
    nospam, Apr 2, 2009
    #16
  17. RichA

    Bob Larter Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <49d4e61d$>, Bob Larter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed,

    >
    > usually, but not always.


    The formats I've seen are, but it's entirely possible there are ones
    that are uncompressed.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Apr 2, 2009
    #17
  18. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> dan c. wrote:
    >>>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
    >>>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
    >>>>> compression that is generating the size difference.
    >>>
    >>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
    >>> being equal.

    >>
    >> How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
    >>
    >> Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file
    >> size.

    >
    > My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
    > by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
    > compression of the RAW data causes this?


    Very likely. If it was truly pure uncompressed raw then it would be some
    random header length + sensor sites*measured_bits_per_pixel/8 long every
    time. Traditional raw files in the early days were one byte per sensor
    pixel + header. These days some are 12bits per pixel and then losslessly
    compressed because CPUs are a lot faster now.

    It is possible to use lossless data compression on images (or even on
    executables). You get back the identical binary image.

    At the simplest level the previous line of the image is quite a good
    predictor of the next one. PNG and some other formats exploit this
    adjacent pixel image data redundancy and then do lossless compression
    LZH or similar on the residuals.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Apr 2, 2009
    #18
  19. In article <gr2obo$cuo$>, John McWilliams
    <> writes
    >David J Taylor wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> dan c. wrote:
    >>>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
    >>>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
    >>>>> compression that is generating the size difference.
    >>>
    >>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
    >>> being equal.

    >> How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
    >> Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file
    >>size.

    >
    >My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
    >by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
    >compression of the RAW data causes this?
    >

    Yes - compression can be lossless.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Apr 2, 2009
    #19
  20. In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> writes
    >Kennedy McEwen wrote:
    >
    >> There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
    >>claims that you dispute in your first sentence.

    >
    >Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
    >usual) idiotic presentation.
    >
    >Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners scan
    >beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or simply
    >out of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting uncompressed
    >file.
    >
    >Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13 -
    >14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of the
    >scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word
    >ordering and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they
    >might not be compressed out if they are not constant.
    >

    The mistake here is that you are talking about dynamic range of the
    film, not of the resulting image. Some film, eg. Kodachrome, has a
    dynamic range which can easily exceed 16 linear bits. The emulsion
    itself does not have that dynamic range in sensitivity, but the
    resulting image has. On the other hand, some film has the 12-13
    equivalent bits of sensitivity compressed into a dynamic range of only
    around 8-bits (eg. most C-41 negatives).

    >Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
    >further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
    >does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100
    >and higher films.
    >

    However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
    scanners, especially with high contrast images.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Apr 2, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andrew Gideon
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    451
  2. Marty Fremen

    Nikon S10 - zoom range less than claimed?

    Marty Fremen, Nov 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    348
    David J Taylor
    Nov 21, 2007
  3. Another Dave

    Is laptop HD size the 40GB claimed?

    Another Dave, Nov 13, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    630
    ~misfit~
    Dec 16, 2005
  4. nospam

    Re: adding exif data to scanned film

    nospam, Oct 29, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    522
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Nov 1, 2009
  5. Keith Nuttle

    Re: adding exif data to scanned film

    Keith Nuttle, Oct 30, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    989
    Charlie Groh
    Oct 30, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page