date:20060616

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From

2006-06-16 Thread Igor Roshchin


Thu Jun 15 21:51:40 EDT 2006 
Paul Stenquist wrote:

 Jpeg is a compressed file. Tiff is an uncompressed file. When you open 
 a jpeg in PhotoShop, the software decompresses the file, restoring it 
 to original size.

A few academic corrections (aka nit-picking) which I hope
might help somebody people to obtain a better understanding of 
what is happening.
Strictly speaking, when a jpeg is read and displayed, it is the
image, and not the file that is decompressed. I.e. jpeg format
assumes a special format of encoding the image pixels into a
smaller data volume, resulting in smaller file size.
This algorithm is not applicable to any other type of data.

Other compression algorithms (e.g. zip, which is lossless ) can be used 
on both data and images (e.g. in a compressed TIFF or PDF).
When used on images, zip-compression essentially compresses image-data 
part of the file, rather similarly to how any file is compressed with
zip.

In either case, the number of pixels in the image is unchanged
(unless you resize the image), which results in the same file size
if you save the image as uncompressed TIFF (or any other uncompressed
bitmap format, i.e. where each the value of each pixel is stored as is,-
what I would call a pixelmap).  If you use compression in the TIFF, 
the size may very depending on the type of compression and type of the
image.

Igor



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO - My Lonely Ass Redux

2006-06-16 Thread Cotty

On 15/6/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

I might prefer your ass in hell

Mark!

(the best ones are always out of context :-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

2006-06-16 Thread Cotty

On 15/6/06, Ryan Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:

You're not getting more dynamic range, you're getting a smaller 
quantization between dynamic range steps.

So a jpeg and a RAW file shot from the same camera with the same sensor
have the same 'latitude'?

If represented as a stairway in a house from ground floor to first (or
first floor to second for the US market ;-), the jpeg house has (say) 15
steps taking you up, while the RAW house has (say) 32 steps taking you
up to the same height?

And so this is why shooting RAW allows greater flexibility in terms of
'dynamic range' of an image?

One point: surely an LCD monitor can't display that dynamic range fully
for pics viewed on a web page?

Could a print from a best quality inkjet printer?



-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty
Not a mathematician, nor a wet darkroom dude, just a bloke with a camera ;-))


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Where Do All the Pixels Come From

2006-06-16 Thread Bob W

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
 Behalf Of keith_w
 
 Perhaps you'll pardon my ignorance, but, how does the 
 software know what to 
 add back, and where to put it?
 

In some cases it doesn't, because jpeg is a lossy algorithm. However,
in general compression techniques find patterns in the source data,
and identify the frequency with which they occur. They store the
pattern itself  the frequency once in the destination and replace
other occurrences with references to the pattern. To reconstruct the
original they replace the references with the actual pattern.

This is a much simplified explanation!

Bob



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

2006-06-16 Thread Cotty

On 16/6/06, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:

So a jpeg and a RAW file shot from the same camera with the same sensor
have the same 'latitude'?

Actually I can see that's bollocks. What I meant to ask was:

So a jpeg and a RAW file shot with the same camera with the same sensor
have the same 'exposure range' ?

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson

 From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 07:59:08 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

 Tom,

 I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between
 the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation.  The bigger problem that I
 see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit.  So you
 are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and
 Tiff.  I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits
 by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right
 out of the camera are probably not worth the bother.  Tiff is giving
 you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg.
 In some ways, the worst of both worlds.

 Thoughts?

 -- 
 Bruce

On the DL2, there is no option to save as Tiff but the 
converter gives you the option of changing the RAW file to 
either 8 or 12 bit Tiffs.

m

 Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:48:32 PM, you wrote:

 TC Of course not... :-)  I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting in 
 the
 TC camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the color,
 TC contrast, lighting, etc.,  of the subject to be captured.

 TC All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and
 TC knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the
 TC algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that storage
 TC is relatively inexpensive.

 TC Tom C.

 From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400

  it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at.

 I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level.

 Kenneth Waller

 - Original Message -
 From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

  I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving
   at.  I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I
   preferred
   .tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are
   lossy compression.  I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with
   .tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may
   not
   contain everything that was shot.

   This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made
 sense
   to me.

   Tom C.

  From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
  To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
  Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
  Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400

No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing.

  I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody?

  Kenneth Waller

  - Original Message -
  From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing.

-Adam

Kenneth Waller wrote:
I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest
quality
JPEG. What's to be gained?

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera
 since
last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to
 use
the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had
  only
one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work
mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture
out
with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now
 have
three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But
like
all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good
  planning.
I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results.

Don W

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

   I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue.  That
  would
   be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics in
  RAW
   using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day.
 Cards
   are
   cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a
  roll
   of
   film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do
   photography,
   I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will provide
   that,
   then raw it is.  If JPEG will provide appropriate quality, then
   there's
   nothing wrong with shooting in that format.

   Perhaps it's just me being irksome, but it seems odd that you'd go
 out
  to
   make photographs and just dump what could be good pictures because
 you
   don't want to take the time to learn a few simple techniques to

Re: Re: My kludge is broken (further question)

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson


 
 From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Now that you've described it fully, yes it seems normal, that's exactly 
 how my DS works.  It half sleeps and has to be awakened with a kiss to 
 it shutter button before it will respond to the AE lock button.

Thanks.  I missed some posts from last night so this will be a catchall answer. 
 Every camera I have owned up to now has
had either just a meter or had other electronics that sleep
at the same time as the meter.  When I saw the LCD still 
activated on the DL2, I assumed that the beast was awake
completely.  Hence my concern that metering apparently 
didn't work on pressing the AE-L button.  Being four-eyed,
I cannot see the whole of the information in the viewfinder
and, even when looking for it, often find it hard to discern 
against background illumination.

Now; why should the camera have separate alive times for 
the meter and everything else?  Just a power saver?

m

 
 mike wilson wrote:
 
 Brand new and freshly recharged.  Might not be up to full capacity.
 
 It's very consistent now.  Turn off and on; no stopdown.  Half press 
 shutter; works.  Between 5 and 10 seconds later; stopped working.  Half 
 press; back again.
 
 Does everyone else's kludge work as soon as the camera is turned on?  Does 
 it stop before the camera sleeps?
 
 
   
 
 From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/15 Thu AM 10:17:02 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: My kludge is broken
 
 Your batteries are bad. Buy some lithiums and be done with it.
 Paul
 On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:59 AM, mike wilson wrote:
 
 
 
 I think
 
 ist DL2.  I had the batteries out for some time, charging.  When I 
 mounted a plain vanilla K lens, the AE-L button would not stop it down 
 for a reading.  Tried a couple of different ones, made sure it was in 
 manual; no effect.
 
 Went into the menu and checked that aperture ring use was allowed; 
 tick.  It's the default, anyway.
 
 Came out of the menu and it worked.
 
 Switch it off and on; doesn't work.  Touch the shutter button; works.  
 Leave it five seconds; doesn't work, even though the display is still 
 working.
 
 Now, I'm nervous.
 
 m



-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: RE: Bye, Bye Bill Gates

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson


 
 From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 11:20:31 GMT
 To: pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: RE: Bye, Bye Bill Gates
 
 Bill Gates for President? ;-)

He can certainly outbid the Bushes for it.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson

 From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 11:37:55 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

 This has been a lively and educational discussion.  I shot quite a few
 JPEGs today and have decided that I'll probably stick to raw for 98.76% of
 the photography I do.  

You just made that up.

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

FS: several Pentax lenses (and an AF body)

2006-06-16 Thread Carlos Royo

For sale: (I sent this message yesterday, but it didn't show in the list 
or the archives. Sorry if it appears twice)

SMC Pentax-A 15 mm. 3.5, , an excellent ultra wide lens, LN- 600 euros.

SMC Pentax-A 50 mm. 1.2, the fastest lens Pentax has ever made, in A
version.
LN- 250 euros.

SMC Pentax 85 mm. 1.8 (K series)+ original lens hood, well used, but no
dust inside. The lens was serviced 3 years ago and shows some brassing,
but the aperture and focus rings work smoothly, There's a very tiny
coating mark in the back element, hardly visible, which doesn't affect
the image quality. As many of you will know, nowadays it is a very
difficult to find lens. 250 euros.

SMC Pentax-FA 80-320 mm. 4.5-5.6 (AF, black version). Ex+. 150 euros.

Pentax MZ-5 AF SLR + F remote switch and FG battery pack. Ex+. 120 euros.

Prices don't include shipping expenses from Spain.

Regards,

Carlos





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Test picture from DA21mm 3.2

2006-06-16 Thread Sylwester Pietrzyk

On 14.06.2006, at 18:34 , Joseph Tainter wrote:

 The question in my mind will be performance relative to the FA 20  
 F2.8.
 I do hope to get the DA 21, and will test it against my FA 20.

 Some have criticized the FA 20 for being weak in the corners at wider
 apertures. With the restricted FOV of the D, I haven't noticed  
 that. On
 Photodo the FA 20 F2.8 tests as the sharpest 20/2.8 except for one  
 from
 Zeiss or Leica (I forget which) that costs three times as much.

 I greatly like the FA 20 F2.8.
And Arnold wrote that FA 20/2.8 can't match DA 21 until f8 si it  
seems that DA21 is really fantastic lens. Maybe it was not too  
fortunate to use JPEG straight from Ds, but it is evident that  
quality in the corners is similar to center even when wide open and  
no signs of CAs(!!!) Together with DA 40 and DA 70 it will be a very  
nice set of ultra small and light high quality lenses for DSLR all  
with the same 49 mm filter size.

Cheers,
Sylwek



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson

 From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/16 Fri AM 07:53:18 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

  From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Date: 2006/06/15 Thu PM 07:59:08 GMT
  To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
  Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

  Tom,

  I think you're right that there is a very slight difference between
  the Tiff and jpg saving for 1st generation.  The bigger problem that I
  see is that both of them are 8 bit while the sensor is 12 bit.  So you
  are throwing a lot more not shooting raw than you are between jpg and
  Tiff.  I guess I'm saying that if you are willing to throw away 4 bits
  by not using raw, the remaining difference between Tiff and jpg right
  out of the camera are probably not worth the bother.  Tiff is giving
  you the storage requirements of raw and the clipping of data of jpg.
  In some ways, the worst of both worlds.

  Thoughts?

  -- 
  Bruce

 On the DL2, there is no option to save as Tiff but the 
 converter gives you the option of changing the RAW file to 
 either 8 or 12 bit Tiffs.

 m

16bit Tiffs.

  Thursday, June 15, 2006, 12:48:32 PM, you wrote:

  TC Of course not... :-)  I didn't mean to imply the .jpg quality setting 
  in the
  TC camera (although that would obviously have a bearing). I meant the 
  color,
  TC contrast, lighting, etc.,  of the subject to be captured.

  TC All I'm saying is that assuming all .jpgs are lossy, to any degree, and
  TC knowing that I don't necessarialy understand, nor can predict what the
  TC algorithm will do, I chose to shoot .tiffs, based on the fact that 
  storage
  TC is relatively inexpensive.

  TC Tom C.

  From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
  To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
  Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
  Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:32:17 -0400

   it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is saving at.

  I've never shot JPEG at anything but the highest quality level.

  Kenneth Waller

  - Original Message -
  From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

   I have but it all depends on the photo and the .jpg quality one is 
   saving
at.  I must admit I saw it really fast when using a Sony Mavica. I
preferred
.tiffs over .jpgs for this reason and because by their nature .jpgs are
lossy compression.  I felt I was truly getting a '1st gen' image with
.tiffs, where with .jpgs out of camera, I already had an image that may
not
contain everything that was shot.

This may be a little simplistic or a splitting of hairs, but it made
  sense
to me.

Tom C.

   From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
   To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
   Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode
   Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:09:28 -0400

 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing.

   I guess I knew that but haven't observed the difference. Has anybody?

   Kenneth Waller

   - Original Message -
   From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

 No quality losses when saving the first JPEG after editing.

 -Adam

 Kenneth Waller wrote:
 I guess I don't see the advantage of shooting TIFF over highest
 quality
 JPEG. What's to be gained?

 Kenneth Waller

 - Original Message -
 From: Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

 I have yet to shoot a single picture in JPG. I've had the camera
  since
 last year and started shooting TIFF because I had to learn how to
  use
 the camera and hadn't a clue about handling RAW files anyway. I had
   only
 one card for months -- a 512 Kingston and it was enough. But I work
 mainly indoors and can unload a card without trouble. I did venture
 out
 with the small card once or twice and didn't have trouble. I now
  have
 three cards ) 1/2, 1 and 2 gig) and don't really need so many. But
 like
 all electronic things they can fail, so having several is good
   planning.
 I shoot only RAW now and am perfectly satisfied with the results.

 Don W

 Shel Belinkoff wrote:

I really don't see getting more photos on a card as an issue.  That
   would
be the least of my concerns. 2GB of space will net about 185 pics 
in
   RAW
using the DS - that's certainly a fair number of pics for a day.
  Cards
are
cheap now - a 1gb card can be purchased for less than the cost of a
   roll
of
film and processing with prints. After all, if I'm going to do
photography,
I'd want the best possible results, and if shooting raw will 
provide

Re: Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson

 From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/16 Fri AM 06:56:43 GMT
 To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in 
 JPEGMode)

 On 15/6/06, Ryan Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:

 You're not getting more dynamic range, you're getting a smaller 
 quantization between dynamic range steps.

 So a jpeg and a RAW file shot from the same camera with the same sensor
 have the same 'latitude'?

 If represented as a stairway in a house from ground floor to first (or
 first floor to second for the US market ;-), the jpeg house has (say) 15
 steps taking you up, while the RAW house has (say) 32 steps taking you
 up to the same height?

 And so this is why shooting RAW allows greater flexibility in terms of
 'dynamic range' of an image?

 One point: surely an LCD monitor can't display that dynamic range fully
 for pics viewed on a web page?

 Could a print from a best quality inkjet printer?

As I understand it 8-) no, because those houses only have 
eight steps.

Unlike the film house, which has an infinite number.  No 
wonder it's so slow and clunky.

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From

2006-06-16 Thread Don Williams

I've always believed that the compression software creates a table. So 
for example in a line of 3000 pixels there may be 967 particular ones 
(in blue sky there might be more) the table lists them and their 
positions and stores the data. The program reconstructs the image from 
the data in the table. Blue skies compress very well as do any large 
areas of the same hue and density. Try this with 'lossless' compression 
of a TIFF with plenty of sky, then one with a lot of detail trees, 
buildings, etc. The files will be very different in size. But this is an 
oversimplification. What do our software experts say? JPEG files are 
quite complicated and I may be totally wrong. Its also possible to drop 
the least significant bits in each byte without messing the images up 
too much. You can do all kinds of arcane things with these bits.

Don W


Bob W wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
 Behalf Of keith_w

 Perhaps you'll pardon my ignorance, but, how does the 
 software know what to 
 add back, and where to put it?

 

 In some cases it doesn't, because jpeg is a lossy algorithm. However,
 in general compression techniques find patterns in the source data,
 and identify the frequency with which they occur. They store the
 pattern itself  the frequency once in the destination and replace
 other occurrences with references to the pattern. To reconstruct the
 original they replace the references with the actual pattern.

 This is a much simplified explanation!

 Bob



   


-- 
Dr E D F Williams
www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/
41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread Lon Williamson

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
 LOL ... That's exactly what I said in the first response to this  
 thread .. :-)
 
 Godfrey
 
 On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Lon Williamson wrote: 
Try shooting jpg as if you were shooting slide film.  In my  
experience,
they're quite similar.

Yeah, I know that now.  Usually I read through responses, see my
position covered, and then don't post at all.  I didn't read through
things yesterday.

Lon


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

2006-06-16 Thread Paul Stenquist

It doesn't defame Wasti. As long as attribution is made, It's probably 
fair game. It's like quoting an author.
Paul
On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

 I don't know, but Mark gave copyright credit for the image on his web
 page to Frederick Wasti. it would seem that the credit for the images 
 on
 the ebay advert. were also attributed to Mr. Wasti.  Based on the
 quality I believe he, (Mr. Wasti), has cause for a defamation action.

 Paul Stenquist wrote:

 Since the charts are originally from a magazine, they're not Mark's
 property. If anyone's copyright is violated, it's the original
 publisher.
 Paul
 On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:



 Mark, I've seen your page quoted several times on eekBay.
 I've also had my photos used in other auctions.
 I've reported all instances of copy theft (yours and mine) to
 the powers that be.
 Sometimes helps, sometimes not.
 Actually, I feel rather sorry for poor As*s that can't get thru
 life by the rules without cheating.  ;-(

 Don

 On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 eBay auction
 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
 ViewItemitem=762505ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/
 762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ1
 Looks a lot like this:
 http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

 (Already reported to eBay)

 --
 Mark Roberts Photography  Multimedia
 www.robertstech.com
 412-687-2835

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net









 -- 
 When you're worried or in doubt,
   Run in circles, (scream and shout).


 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread keith_w

Kenneth Waller wrote:
 You know, I hate to be picky about this, but...nothing is actually LOST, 
 per se, on initial capture of a jpeg image.
 What's there is there, as your lens/camera system captures it and delivers 
 it to the sensor. Just because you have chosen to capture an image as a jpeg
 doesn't mean you've selected an inferior image format


 Not my understanding.
 
 LOST as compared to some non lossy capture modes. JPEG compresses file size 
 by selectively discarding data.. The file is compressed relative to other 
 possible file formats.
 
 Kenneth Waller

I misspoke, didn't I.
A jpeg automatically compresses the image data. That's the nature of the beast.
Even the least compression means you actually lose some data, but I'm not sure 
we'd see it under normal circumstances.
As you tell the camera to reduce the image size, you lose more and more.
And that is before you start fooling around with it!

Thanks for  reminding me of that.

keith

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread keith_w

Tom C wrote:
 I hate to be picky too because I readily admit that you could easily show me 
 the results of a raw, .tif, and .jpg out of camera and 99 times out a 100, I 
 probably could not tell the difference.

I agree with that.

 However, given the vast difference in size between the file formats, knowing 
 that .jpg is by nature lossy, I still believe something IS being lost, 
 besides just the bytes saved due to compression.  It's just that our eyes 
 may not readily perceive it. I recognize that it's the same number of pixels 
 captured in a raw file vs. a .jpg.   I will happily accept being wrong on 
 this issue.

My manual tells me that with its highest level of resolution, which is 3264 X 
2448, the camera saves the images as RAW, TIFF or one of two levels of jpegs.
All the remaining levels of resolution, decreasing to 640 X 480, are saved as 
either TIFF or JPEG.

 With film it was easy.  A transparency from the film in camera was a 1st 
 generation image.  A negative was too, but to readily view it, it needed to 
 be made positive (usually a print) which was a 2nd generation image. For 
 that matter a print or projection of a slide was second generation as well, 
 as is of course, any photo we view online or in print.  So it can get pretty 
 silly.  For me it was about having the best 1st gen image to work from.  Raw 
 surely must be the best, with .tif coming in second, and .jpg 3rd.

Yes, I can understand that, having spent untold hours looking up at a negative 
in an enlarger... getting a crick in my back!  g
I was obsessed at how beautiful a negative was, such detail that would never 
be captured on a print...

 The problem I have, in principle only, with shooting .jpgs is that I don't 
 view them as a 1st gen  image.  One can believe that they are, because 
 that's what the camera spits out, but are they?
 
 
 Tom C.

I guess RAW is the best one has, isn't it.
I can't speak to .tiff images, because I haven't figured out what it's good 
for yet. That's MY problem. One day I'll look into that.

So far as jpegs are concerned, I think the original high pixel count images 
are *very* good quality, at least they are in my camera, and most of us will 
never need more quality than they give. Usually.
Of course, there are always exceptions. But for the bulk of any work I do, a 
high quality jpeg will do very well. I do minimum manipulation of my images, 
and I always keep the original jpeg in it's own file, using copies for 
manipulation purposes.
Therein lies another discussion, for another time...

keith

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

2006-06-16 Thread Mark Roberts

Paul Stenquist wrote:

Since the charts are originally from a magazine, they're not Mark's  
property. If anyone's copyright is violated, it's the original  
publisher.

All the accompanying text is mine, as is the design and layout (right
down to the CSS classes which obviously don't even *do* anything once
the HTML is posted on eBay's server). The photo belongs to Fred
Wasti... or at least the original photo did - since it was just linked
to my server I have replaced it with a different image now :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=762505ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ

Paul
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:

 Mark, I've seen your page quoted several times on eekBay.
 I've also had my photos used in other auctions.
 I've reported all instances of copy theft (yours and mine) to
 the powers that be.
 Sometimes helps, sometimes not.
 Actually, I feel rather sorry for poor As*s that can't get thru
 life by the rules without cheating.  ;-(

 Don

 On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 eBay auction
 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? 
 ViewItemitem=762505ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/ 
 762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ1
 Looks a lot like this:
 http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm
 
-- 
Mark Roberts Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

2006-06-16 Thread David Mann

On Jun 16, 2006, at 8:33 PM, mike wilson wrote:

 Unlike the film house, which has an infinite number.  No
 wonder it's so slow and clunky.

I've just finished wading through four medium format scans.  After  
all that, my house is looking something like this:
http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/A23L.html

- Dizzy Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

2006-06-16 Thread David Savage

LOL

Good one Mark.

Dave

On 6/16/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:

Since the charts are originally from a magazine, they're not Mark's
property. If anyone's copyright is violated, it's the original
publisher.

All the accompanying text is mine, as is the design and layout (right
down to the CSS classes which obviously don't even *do* anything once
the HTML is posted on eBay's server). The photo belongs to Fred
Wasti... or at least the original photo did - since it was just linked
to my server I have replaced it with a different image now :

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=762505ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ

Paul
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:

Mark, I've seen your page quoted several times on eekBay.
I've also had my photos used in other auctions.
I've reported all instances of copy theft (yours and mine) to
the powers that be.
Sometimes helps, sometimes not.
Actually, I feel rather sorry for poor As*s that can't get thru
life by the rules without cheating. ;-(

Don

On 6/15/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
eBay auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItemitem=762505ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/
762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ1
Looks a lot like this:
http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread keith_w

John Francis wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 02:09:02PM -0700, keith_w wrote:
 The image captured as a tiff or a jpeg is converted by the camera's internal 
 firmware (I suppose ?) to be what it is. Same with RAW.

 Any losses that occur to any image captured and saved happen after the 
 photog 
 grabs hold of the image and messes around with it!


 Not really.  The original capture, as registered on the sensor,
 has 12-bit data.  That level of precision is retained in a RAW
 file, but in a TIFF or JPEG low-order bits are thrown away.
 It's not quite as simple as saying the bottom-most four bits
 are lost, because there are also some non-linear processing
 steps involved, but there is no way to store twelve bits of
 information in only eight bits.

Okay.
Re TIFF images, my manual says the tiff images are non-compressed.
That's just a gratuitous comment, as I don't know that much about tiff images, 
except that they are way too large! grin

But, by definition, jpegs are always compressed, from a little bit to a lot, 
depending on the file size you set.
I had not addressed that truth in my previous statement because I was thinking 
of how a jpeg image increasingly deteriorates the more times you manipulate 
the image and save it.
So, my mind got stuck on that aspect of it.

You're right, of course.

Thanks,

keith

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Shooting Digi in JPEG Mode

2006-06-16 Thread keith_w

Tom C wrote:
 Thanks for that concised rendering of what happens during conversion from 
 senor to file format.  I think most of us have a fuzzy to semi-sharp idea of 
 what's going on.  In my case I read it and quickly forget the finer details.
 
 
 Tom C.


 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 What the camera captures on the sensor is RAW data, a 12bit deep
 intensity map in an RGB mosaic with one value for each photosite.

[...]

I totally agree with Tom...concise and to the point.
In fact, I saved it to read again and possibly absorb some of it this time thru!

Thanks, Godfrey!

keith

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

2006-06-16 Thread Aaron Reynolds

On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:56 AM, Cotty wrote:

 One point: surely an LCD monitor can't display that dynamic range fully
 for pics viewed on a web page?

 Could a print from a best quality inkjet printer?

No -- the point of those extra steps is for messing around with the 
image afterwards.

-Aaron

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Ross Ensign camera info needed

2006-06-16 Thread brooksdj

Any one familiar with a Ross Ensign folding camera.
Lens has on it: Made in England, Epsilon 105mm, Rosstar F4.5

Obviously it a 120 format folder, and the shutter/ap is done on the lens,but 
any info on
the camera
itself and or basic operation. Range finder type of camera, correct.
I see two silver knobs and a hot shoe. The knobs are for film advacnment AFAICT.
I know bellows pinholes could be a problem and it may have a dirt spec in the 
lense. Would
that
cause any problems being how short the actual lens is on the bellows.(its on 
the side)

Dave




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in JPEGMode)

2006-06-16 Thread mike wilson

 From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/06/16 Fri AM 11:03:38 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 Subject: Re: Where Do All the Pixels Come From (was: Shooting Digi in 
 JPEGMode)

 On Jun 16, 2006, at 8:33 PM, mike wilson wrote:

  Unlike the film house, which has an infinite number.  No
  wonder it's so slow and clunky.

 I've just finished wading through four medium format scans.  After  
 all that, my house is looking something like this:
 http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/A23L.html

You need pest control.  Those buggers will knacker your 
woodwork.

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

2006-06-16 Thread Don Sanderson

Good move!

Don

On 6/16/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:

Since the charts are originally from a magazine, they're not Mark's
property. If anyone's copyright is violated, it's the original
publisher.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=762505ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/762505_W0QQfromZR40QQfviZ

Paul
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:

Don

--
Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Ross Ensign camera info needed

2006-06-16 Thread Adam Maas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Any one familiar with a Ross Ensign folding camera.
Lens has on it: Made in England, Epsilon 105mm, Rosstar F4.5

Obviously it a 120 format folder, and the shutter/ap is done on the lens,but 
any info on
the camera
itself and or basic operation. Range finder type of camera, correct.
I see two silver knobs and a hot shoe. The knobs are for film advacnment 
AFAICT.
I know bellows pinholes could be a problem and it may have a dirt spec in the 
lense. Would
that
cause any problems being how short the actual lens is on the bellows.(its on 
the side)

Dave   
   

  


The Classic Camera forum at photo.net is a great place to get such info, 
they're pretty friendly in there and are mostly oriented towards 120 
folders and TLR's.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Hmm, have a look at this

2006-06-16 Thread Mark Roberts

Don Sanderson wrote:

Good move!

:)
You know, I agree with your assessment that this guy is more pathetic
than anything else. I've seen other people reference my pages in eBay
auctions before and it's fine with me as long as they give credit and
a URL - I don't even demand that they ask permission first. This sad
case couldn't even be bothered to remove the style tags from my HTML
code or the Please don't telephone me with questions about this lens
text. Watta loser! (Love how he describes the lens as Macro, wide
angle, zoom!)

I'm going to update the image with something a little more obnoxious
every day and see how long it takes until it's noticed.

BTW: If the person who called to tell me about this auction is a PDML
lurker - thanks!
 
-- 
Mark Roberts Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Mac software question

2006-06-16 Thread Mark Roberts

I know of several Windows freeware apps for secure - or at least more
secure - file deletion. I need to do some hard drive scrubbing for a
couple of clients with Macs. Can someone point me toward equivalent
software for the Mac platform?
 
-- 
Mark Roberts Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 195 matches

Mail list logo