Re: Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Browne, Sep 21, 2004.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Deryck Lant wrote:

    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/


    This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a
    camera system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more
    than enough for the most demanding magazines and probably more
    than enough for high quality book printing.

    The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.

    potential print o/p (inches)

    dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

    pix
    4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
    3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2


    Cheers,
    Alan



    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <mRY3d.50333$>,
    says...
    > The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.


    I'm drooling as we speak. I've open one in Photoshop to tweak it... but
    I'm afraid to. It looks too good.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <mRY3d.50333$>,
    > says...
    >> The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.

    >
    > I'm drooling as we speak. I've open one in Photoshop to tweak it... but
    > I'm afraid to. It looks too good.
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/



    Run a luminosity layered 400/0.3/0 USM over the portrait. This cam' could
    become a studio favourite
    --
    Simon
    http://www.pbase.com/phoenikz
    Simon Stanmore, Sep 21, 2004
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Ryadia Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Deryck Lant wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

    >
    >
    > This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a camera
    > system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more than enough for
    > the most demanding magazines and probably more than enough for high
    > quality book printing.
    >
    > The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.
    >
    > potential print o/p (inches)
    >
    > dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72
    >
    > pix
    > 4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
    > 3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2
    >
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Alan
    >
    >
    >


    Potential image size? Surely you jest Alan?
    Digital images enlarge to somewhat unusually big sizes via a process
    called Interpolation and before you start... Every time you send an
    image to your Epson inkjet printer, the printer driver interpolates the
    image.

    This just a tiny peek at potential image size. Any blown highlights are
    due to my digicam taking the photo of the photo. Broadband stuff here. 2
    minute download via dialup - be warned:
    http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/

    Ryadia
    Ryadia, Sep 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Bill Bannon Guest

    Nice write-up on interpolation. One thing you don't mention, though, is
    what software you prefer. I have downloaded trial versions of Genuine
    Fractals and Photozoom Pro. Both seem to work well. What are your
    thoughts?

    Bill B


    "Ryadia" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >> Deryck Lant wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

    >>
    >>
    >> This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a camera
    >> system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more than enough for
    >> the most demanding magazines and probably more than enough for high
    >> quality book printing.
    >>
    >> The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.
    >>
    >> potential print o/p (inches)
    >>
    >> dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72
    >>
    >> pix 4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5
    >> 69.3
    >> 3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2
    >>
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Alan
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Potential image size? Surely you jest Alan?
    > Digital images enlarge to somewhat unusually big sizes via a process
    > called Interpolation and before you start... Every time you send an image
    > to your Epson inkjet printer, the printer driver interpolates the image.
    >
    > This just a tiny peek at potential image size. Any blown highlights are
    > due to my digicam taking the photo of the photo. Broadband stuff here. 2
    > minute download via dialup - be warned:
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/
    >
    > Ryadia
    Bill Bannon, Sep 22, 2004
    #5
  6. I ran nic SharpenerPro on the night scene....better than porn!

    "Simon Stanmore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <mRY3d.50333$>,
    > > says...
    > >> The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.

    > >
    > > I'm drooling as we speak. I've open one in Photoshop to tweak it... but
    > > I'm afraid to. It looks too good.
    > > --
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

    >
    >
    > Run a luminosity layered 400/0.3/0 USM over the portrait. This cam' could
    > become a studio favourite
    > --
    > Simon
    > http://www.pbase.com/phoenikz
    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 22, 2004
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Ryadia Guest

    Bill Bannon wrote:
    > Nice write-up on interpolation. One thing you don't mention, though, is
    > what software you prefer. I have downloaded trial versions of Genuine
    > Fractals and Photozoom Pro. Both seem to work well. What are your
    > thoughts?
    >
    > Bill B
    >
    >

    I wasn't about to make free advertisements for Extensis. They have no
    support worth getting and never answer any emails. It's just as well
    their product is flawless! I have never used Photozoom. Both Extensis
    and Genuine Fractals do a good job.

    I used Genuine Fractals when I first got into enlarging Digital Images.
    Personally I think having to save the image in one particular format and
    then open it again to resize it is a waste of time. I now use Pixel
    Smart from Extensis. All their stuff is absolutely first rate, even if
    it does cost more, it is definitely worth it.

    Ryadia
    Ryadia, Sep 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Ryadia wrote:
    [...]
    > This just a tiny peek at potential image size. Any blown highlights are
    > due to my digicam taking the photo of the photo. Broadband stuff here. 2
    > minute download via dialup - be warned:
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/


    Hmmm, not very convincing.

    For the full photo, "The original image is 3083 pixels x 2050
    pixels". The web page shows it at 541 x 360, of which the
    outlined section covers about 104 x 65. Thus the framed section
    corresponds to about 592 x 370 pixels from the original
    capture.

    The page then shows the framed section at 537 x 360. That's a
    reduction, not an enlargement.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, Sep 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    Ryadia Guest

    Bryan Olson wrote:

    > Ryadia wrote:
    > [...]
    > > This just a tiny peek at potential image size. Any blown highlights are
    > > due to my digicam taking the photo of the photo. Broadband stuff here. 2
    > > minute download via dialup - be warned:
    > > http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/

    >
    > Hmmm, not very convincing.
    >
    > For the full photo, "The original image is 3083 pixels x 2050
    > pixels". The web page shows it at 541 x 360, of which the
    > outlined section covers about 104 x 65. Thus the framed section
    > corresponds to about 592 x 370 pixels from the original
    > capture.
    >
    > The page then shows the framed section at 537 x 360. That's a
    > reduction, not an enlargement.
    >
    >

    So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
    happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination. Otherwise it's
    giving as much consideration as I care to for dial up visitors. Not
    everyone has broadband connections, you know?

    Ryadia
    Ryadia, Sep 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Ryadia wrote:

    > Bryan Olson wrote:
    >
    >> Ryadia wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> > This just a tiny peek at potential image size. [...]
    >> > http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/

    [...]
    >> That's a
    >> reduction, not an enlargement.
    >>

    > So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
    > happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination. Otherwise it's
    > giving as much consideration as I care to for dial up visitors. Not
    > everyone has broadband connections, you know?


    Well, if you want to show something convincing, you might post a
    small crop of the enlarged version. Up to you of course. The
    fact that you're being considerate to dial-up users has nothing
    to do with whether the page makes its case.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, Sep 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    Ryadia Guest

    Bryan Olson wrote:
    >
    > Ryadia wrote:
    >
    > > Bryan Olson wrote:
    > >
    > >> Ryadia wrote:
    > >> [...]
    > >> > This just a tiny peek at potential image size. [...]
    > >> > http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/

    > [...]
    > >> That's a
    > >> reduction, not an enlargement.
    > >>

    > > So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
    > > happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination. Otherwise it's
    > > giving as much consideration as I care to for dial up visitors. Not
    > > everyone has broadband connections, you know?

    >
    > Well, if you want to show something convincing, you might post a
    > small crop of the enlarged version. Up to you of course. The
    > fact that you're being considerate to dial-up users has nothing
    > to do with whether the page makes its case.
    >
    >


    This is precisely where the problem with Internet credibility exists.
    I took a photo of a small (marked) area of the print with a digicam.
    This is the pic I posted. It has a real human finger in it. This is as
    far as I go.

    In a perfect world you'd get the whole file. You'd also just accept that
    I did this in my free time instead of doing something else I enjoy...
    Like going out to dinner or having a few drinks with friends. I don't
    make a habit of photographing every job I do and making a web page out
    of it.

    You'll just have to satisfy yourself with what there is. Sorry if this
    is not what you want but I'm sure you could download some trial software
    and interpolate one of your files just to see how it works. Use my site
    as the beginning of the idea, not a solution to your needs.

    Ryadia
    Ryadia, Sep 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    JK Guest

    Two of those and the accesories for them won't be cheap though.
    I will get excited when cameras like this are cheap.

    Alan Browne wrote:

    > Deryck Lant wrote:
    >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

    >
    > This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a
    > camera system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more
    > than enough for the most demanding magazines and probably more
    > than enough for high quality book printing.
    >
    > The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.
    >
    > potential print o/p (inches)
    >
    > dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72
    >
    > pix
    > 4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
    > 3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Alan
    >
    > --
    > -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    > -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    JK, Sep 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Ryadia wrote:

    >>

    >
    > Potential image size? Surely you jest Alan?


    Just tthe straight out of the box sizes w/o interpolation, obviously. If I had
    stated numbers with interpolation, then endless arguments ensue about the
    quality of the interpolation, which kind, etc. By just presenting the 'plain
    facts' each can make his own assumptions about how much further the images can
    be taken.
    > Digital images enlarge to somewhat unusually big sizes via a process
    > called Interpolation and before you start... Every time you send an
    > image to your Epson inkjet printer, the printer driver interpolates the
    > image.


    by very minor amounts compared to purposely inflating an image in, eg, PS for a
    larger output.

    >
    > This just a tiny peek at potential image size. Any blown highlights are
    > due to my digicam taking the photo of the photo. Broadband stuff here. 2
    > minute download via dialup - be warned:
    > http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/


    And yes "viewing distance" remains a criteria. When you blow an image up using
    interpolation (simple or exotic) you are adding non-original information. It
    may look very good in many cases and that in the end is sufficient... an image
    in most cases is meant to be looked at in the whole.

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Ryadia <> writes:
    > Bryan Olson wrote:
    >> Ryadia wrote:


    >>> This just a tiny peek at potential image size. Any blown highlights are
    >>> due to my digicam taking the photo of the photo. Broadband stuff here. 2
    >>> minute download via dialup - be warned:
    >>> http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/


    >> Hmmm, not very convincing.
    >> For the full photo, "The original image is 3083 pixels x 2050
    >> pixels". The web page shows it at 541 x 360, of which the
    >> outlined section covers about 104 x 65. Thus the framed section
    >> corresponds to about 592 x 370 pixels from the original
    >> capture.
    >> The page then shows the framed section at 537 x 360. That's a
    >> reduction, not an enlargement.


    > So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
    > happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination.


    Ryadia and I've locked horns on the interpolation issue before.

    To make things clearer I've created a simple, little test page with
    crops (since Ryadia is so reluctant to provide those).

    The test page is on:
    http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html

    (There is also an standing offer to Ryadia - in case he finds my
    skills in the fine art of interpolation lacking - to host his
    demonstration of what can be achieved with whatever tools he
    choose to use on this page.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Ryadia Guest

    Ryadia, Sep 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Ryadia wrote:
    > This is precisely where the problem with Internet credibility exists.
    > I took a photo of a small (marked) area of the print with a digicam.
    > This is the pic I posted. It has a real human finger in it. This is as
    > far as I go.
    >
    > In a perfect world you'd get the whole file. You'd also just accept that
    > I did this in my free time instead of doing something else I enjoy...
    > Like going out to dinner or having a few drinks with friends. I don't
    > make a habit of photographing every job I do and making a web page out
    > of it.
    >
    > You'll just have to satisfy yourself with what there is. Sorry if this
    > is not what you want but I'm sure you could download some trial software
    > and interpolate one of your files just to see how it works. Use my site
    > as the beginning of the idea, not a solution to your needs.


    Dude, I didn't attack your credibility. I didn't tell you what
    to do with your time. I'm not about that. I just have this
    technical point, which I believe is correct: If you enlarge, but
    then shrink to smaller than the original, the net result is
    useless for demonstrating the quality of the enlargement
    process.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, Sep 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Alan Browne <> wrote in message news:<mRY3d.50333$>...
    > Deryck Lant wrote:
    >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

    >
    > This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a
    > camera system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more
    > than enough for the most demanding magazines and probably more
    > than enough for high quality book printing.
    >
    > The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.
    >
    > potential print o/p (inches)
    >
    > dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72


    That's monochrome dpi. Interpolating color from monochrome photosites
    lowers effective dpi by roughly 400%.

    > pix
    > 4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
    > 3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2
    >
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Alan
    Georgette Preddy, Sep 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    Mark M Guest

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alan Browne <> wrote in message

    news:<mRY3d.50333$>...
    > > Deryck Lant wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

    > >
    > > This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a
    > > camera system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more
    > > than enough for the most demanding magazines and probably more
    > > than enough for high quality book printing.
    > >
    > > The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.
    > >
    > > potential print o/p (inches)
    > >
    > > dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

    >
    > That's monochrome dpi. Interpolating color from monochrome photosites
    > lowers effective dpi by roughly 400%.


    That only applies to morons.
    Mark M, Sep 26, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, Georgette
    Preddy <> writes
    >Alan Browne <> wrote in message
    >news:<mRY3d.50333$>...
    >> Deryck Lant wrote:
    >>
    >> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

    >>
    >> This is starting to edge into MF digital capabilities... with a
    >> camera system that is lower cost than a back... definitely more
    >> than enough for the most demanding magazines and probably more
    >> than enough for high quality book printing.
    >>
    >> The images at the Canon site are very detailed and clean.
    >>
    >> potential print o/p (inches)
    >>
    >> dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

    >
    >That's monochrome dpi. Interpolating color from monochrome photosites
    >lowers effective dpi by roughly 400%.
    >

    Hot news, "Georgette": your eye has approximately 1 billion rods (which
    give a purely B&W image) and about 3 million cones (about 1 million each
    of red, green and blue sensitive). By your reckoning, I guess you must
    see mostly in B&W. For everyone else, the brain post-processes the image
    information to give the full colour image we "see".
    --
    David Littlewood
    David Littlewood, Sep 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Georgette Preddy wrote:

    > That's monochrome dpi. Interpolating color from monochrome photosites
    > lowers effective dpi by roughly 400%.


    BWAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHAH... I guess now that Sigma are really dying on the vine, we
    can expect to hear less from you.

    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 27, 2004
    #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. golden67

    Canon EOS-1Ds Question

    golden67, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    635
    HRosita
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. HRosita

    Re: Canon EOS-1Ds Question

    HRosita, Jul 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    365
    Lionel
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. George Preddy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,628
    Douglas
    May 24, 2004
  4. Keith Cooper

    1Ds mkII? No more 1Ds in UK

    Keith Cooper, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    472
    this old user
    Jun 17, 2004
  5. vampire5150

    For sale Canon 1ds MKII only 27K clicks

    vampire5150, Mar 31, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    297
    vampire5150
    Mar 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page