Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Leonard Paris wrote: > > Movie theaters used to be a money laundering mechanism for much of > organized crime in the U.S. And just what sort of crime do you think most of the muck that comes out of Hollywood nowadays is? 8-) (But not much of one) mike
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
It's called leasing. It's how many small-scale pro studio photographers obtain the $11,000 Kodak back for their Mamiya and how commercial LF digital photogrpahers obtain the $30K-ish digital backs for their 4x5s. Some borrow the money, to be certain. Credit cards get filled quickly. But leasing, in some situations, allows for easier upgrading later. Just set the lease for 3 years and then lease the newer equipment @ the end of the current one. CRB >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >However as an aside, I have a hard time thinking that a 100 seat theater >that charges $1.50 admission can spend a million dollars to upgrade to >digital. Some of these little theators actually project 16mm as the
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Well, here I think you are going to far. You said: As long as there are processing machines that handle both film and digital it will remain viable, but eventually they will be replaced by digital only, or even disappear as it gets easier and cheaper for users to print their own digit shots at home. I agree that the printing process is the major element that will determine the future of Film As We Know It. Remember darkrooms? Nichey guys and gals will use niche products like B&W, colour print, 4X5 etc. and do their own thing in the darkroom. Ma and Pa Smith will keep using disposable cameras and P&S cameras and the old Argus C-3 35mm, maybe even a Spotmatic, as long as they have a place to take their film. The nichey digit-heads will print their own stuff in/on their own Epson "darkroom". Ma and Pa Smith who become digit-heads will happily take their digits to the film store to get the stuff printed. Doesn't matter how cheap the color printer is, it is too much bother. However, the real threat to film is when the processor companies start making processors that only print digits, not film. If that happens, run do not walk, to the nearest landfill to dispose of your obsolete film-based imaging equipment! IMHO... Stan graywolf wrote: ... And actually both B&W and Slide Film are already niche markets here in the US. They may not drop a great deal in use as a result of digital. Color negative which is currently the biggest market will continue to be hit hard. As long as there are processing machines that handle both film and digital it will remain viable, but eventually they will be replaced by digital only, or even disappear as it gets easier and cheaper for users to print their own digit shots at home.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Cotty wrote: >>TV remains the standard that the public compares images to. How many >>times have you been in someones house where the TV showed green faces >>and purple grass and it did not bother the viewer at all? > > That's NTSC for you ;-) As the saying goes: Never Twice the Same Color -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Thursday, October 30, 2003, 7:15:21 PM, you wrote: >>TV remains the standard that the public compares images to. How many >>times have >>you been in someones house where the TV showed green faces and purple >>grass and >>it did not bother the viewer at all? > That's NTSC for you ;-) Naah. Some of his best friends are from Mars. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 30/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >TV remains the standard that the public compares images to. How many >times have >you been in someones house where the TV showed green faces and purple >grass and >it did not bother the viewer at all? That's NTSC for you ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Agreed. I think that, aside from power issues, this might be a reasonable trade off since you would lose mirror slap vibrations. I only use the viewfinder for composition anyway. I used to have an E-100, and Olympus ZLR with a lousy 1.5 MP resolution. The viewfinder was a screen, but I really liked the way that camera handled. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/30/03 01:26PM >>> > > If they did that, it would not be a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) > now would it? It would have to use a partially-reflective mirror a la D1n, of course. But, realistically, you're right: there's no reason to do this. Though I bet if somebody made an interchangeable-lens body with an LCD screen where the current ground glass screen is all but the purists would call it a DSLR, just because it looked like one.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> > If they did that, it would not be a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) > now would it? It would have to use a partially-reflective mirror a la D1n, of course. But, realistically, you're right: there's no reason to do this. Though I bet if somebody made an interchangeable-lens body with an LCD screen where the current ground glass screen is all but the purists would call it a DSLR, just because it looked like one.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
If they did that, it would not be a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) now would it? Yes, they could, and maybe will, make a high-quality interchangable-lens digital viewfinder camera similar to the current Contax G2 film camera. But that camera would not be a DSLR by definition. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Francis wrote: I suspect there's a chicken-and-egg argument here. There are several other good reasons for keeping the mechanical-shutter design of DSLRs (not least of which is dust control), so there is no need to use fast-clear sensors; the sensor is in the dark (and cleared?) at all times except when the exposure is made. But it would be quite easy to build a DSLR around a sensor with characteristics similar to that in the PowerShot G5 were it to be deemed appropriate. You think? Well, if possible, then someday they certainly will do it. Marnie aka Doe This has been a very informative thread. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Well, as far as I know, MOST feature motion pictures are still shot on film. Taking a very specialized film that is 80% computer graphics as the mainstream is kind of silly. Cotty wrote: On 28/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on 35mm negative. True. Not entirely. http://millimeter.com/ar/video_digital_desert/ I stand corrected! Thanks Rob. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
That is true, Cotty. Production is pretty much the same as always. It is the projection end that is changing. There is still a lot of 16mm shot too, but it is usually mastered on to video tape (digital or not) for distribution. However as an aside, I have a hard time thinking that a 100 seat theater that charges $1.50 admission can spend a million dollars to upgrade to digital. Some of these little theators actually project 16mm as the equipment is much cheaper than with 35. 50 years ago there were 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier theators, now there are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ... 12th, etc., and not many of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. My very first paycheck job (1959) was at a 1st tier theater in Detroit. We could not get the very top rated film openings because we only had 1500 seats or so while the other two had 2500. Cotty wrote: On 28/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in five years time. in the US, there is wholesale replacement of film with digital projectors for commercial movie theaters. yes, they will retain film for a while, but not a long while, since the films wear out so quickly. after that, it will be the boutique and art film theaters only that continue to use film. I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on 35mm negative. True. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: OT: Film disappearing? Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
I had, but when the big theaters closed, or were broken down into multiple small ones, it pretty much died out here in the US. Why go to that expense for 100-200 seat theaters? Many are changing over to digital. And professional slide shows are now mostly digital also. Look on Ebay and see all the nice pro-quality slide projection equipment selling dirt cheap. Just the other day I saw a pair of S-AV 2000 projectors with lenses and desolve/sync unit with a BIN of $200. Needless to say I didn't have $200 available or I would now own them (sad shake of the head). Dr E D F Williams wrote: I thought 70 mm had displaced 35 mm to a large extent. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
I was pretty much referring to current distribution channels, e.g. Wal-Mart, etc. I am one who pointed out that as long as motion pictures were distributed on 35mm film, 35mm film would remain available. But the distribution channels are already changing. Ritz closed down their store here in Boone about a month ago. Wal-Mart, K-mart, etc. displays are 2/3-3/4 digital cameras now. The film shelve space has been reduced by 1/2. Of course in a more metropolitan market it is probably not so bad. On the other hand there are several small (mostly old pre-WWII Kodak) film plants around the world that make nothing but B&W products. They will probably still be in business when Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa (remember Agfa already has tried to sell off its film devision with no takers) drop out of film altogether. Ilford is iffy because they have been raising their prices slowly, maybe they will find an equilibrium that will allow them to remain profitable. And actually both B&W and Slide Film are already niche markets here in the US. They may not drop a great deal in use as a result of digital. Color negative which is currently the biggest market will continue to be hit hard. As long as there are processing machines that handle both film and digital it will remain viable, but eventually they will be replaced by digital only, or even disappear as it gets easier and cheaper for users to print their own digit shots at home. Unfortunately there are no longer the consumer protection laws that require them to produce film for 7 years after they quit making the cameras. Fortunately 35mm, 120, and 4x5 have become the standards in the past 50 years and those formats probably will be around for at least another decade. Betting on them being around longer than that is a fools bet if there ever was one. Because by then digital cameras will be cheaper than film cameras and only old die-hards will even consider using film. TV remains the standard that the public compares images to. How many times have you been in someones house where the TV showed green faces and purple grass and it did not bother the viewer at all? Digital has no problem matching that quality with even the cheapest cameras. --- Anders Hultman wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote: My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years. Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in five years time. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
I think that some fine tuning of the firmware n the *ist D will take care of the minor discrepancies between it and the Canon D10. I do like the ability to use the larger Adobe RGBcolor space in the *ist D. I own a Canon D30, D60, and a Powershhot G5 in addition to my *ist D. I'm pretty happy with the *ist D. Great build quality and great results, so far. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:36:29 -0600 (CST) On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Or maybe it means the sensor Pentax is using is not quite as good as Canon's. > I tend to think one cannot draw any conclusions yet. There is some evidence that the Canon sensor is a bit better, or Canon's handling of it is better. It's a more developed technology than the sensor in the *istD/D100. However, I do think that some of the problem is not the lenses but what digital post-processing does to the images from the lenses. I don't recall there being a great lamenting of chromatic aberration in Pentax lenses back when Fujichrome Velvia was king. I KNOW that some truly great Nikon lenses exhibit problems on Nikon digitals that they did not on film, and the Kodak N14 is almost legendary for inducing funky performance on very fine lenses. Try comparing the *istD to the Canon D30, which was Canon's first digital camera. That sort of points out how far Canon has come, and how good the *istD is for a first DSLR. DJE _ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Cinema projection - WAS - Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, John Francis wrote: > > > > > > > You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery > > > > Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me! > > Kenneth Williams (RIP), "Carry on Caesar", IIRC. Cleo. Rambling Sid Rumpo
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28 Oct 2003 at 13:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Try comparing the *istD to the Canon D30, which was Canon's first digital > camera. That sort of points out how far Canon has come, and how good > the *istD is for a first DSLR. Oh come on, first DSLR, OK the first that they successfully produced after having the advantage of being able to dissect and reverse engineer all the other manufacturers successful productions over several years. IOW they had no excuse to not get it near perfect. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28 Oct 2003 at 17:23, Alin Flaider wrote: > I went to the theater to see the technicalities behind Star War > episodes presented as reference in the above link. I did notice > almost involuntarily the pixelization and general lack of details. > There's no real comparison to the film, HDTV is orders of magnitude > below. All I read between the lines is convenience and costs cut. To > deliver crap as an inexpensive alternative is one thing, but to > extoll its virtues and push it like the only option is plain profit > pursuit played on the audience ignorance. > I'm truly horrified. I attended a film industry Q&A conference discussing the impact of digital production a couple of years ago, one of George's technical cronies was on the panel and taking questions. The decision to go with digital was based by comparing the final output of both media. Digital projection with it's obvious no-loss data path and film including its inter-generational losses due to copying. So in essence the current digital cameras can't compete in terms of absolute quality relative to first of second generation film but at the screen it's pretty even. As an aside production costs were cut dramatically even after factoring in the purchase of the cameras and editing equipment. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
>Try comparing the *istD to the Canon D30, which was Canon's first digital camera. That sort of points out how far Canon has come, and how good the *istD is for a first DSLR. >DJE Good pt. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Cinema projection - WAS - Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> > > > You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery > > Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me! Kenneth Williams (RIP), "Carry on Caesar", IIRC.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Or maybe it means the sensor Pentax is using is not quite as good as Canon's. > I tend to think one cannot draw any conclusions yet. There is some evidence that the Canon sensor is a bit better, or Canon's handling of it is better. It's a more developed technology than the sensor in the *istD/D100. However, I do think that some of the problem is not the lenses but what digital post-processing does to the images from the lenses. I don't recall there being a great lamenting of chromatic aberration in Pentax lenses back when Fujichrome Velvia was king. I KNOW that some truly great Nikon lenses exhibit problems on Nikon digitals that they did not on film, and the Kodak N14 is almost legendary for inducing funky performance on very fine lenses. Try comparing the *istD to the Canon D30, which was Canon's first digital camera. That sort of points out how far Canon has come, and how good the *istD is for a first DSLR. DJE
Re: Cinema projection - WAS - Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Bobolini wrote: > > You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
John Francis wrote: >I suspect there's a chicken-and-egg argument here. There are several other good reasons for keeping the mechanical-shutter design of DSLRs (not least of which is dust control), so there is no need to use fast-clear sensors; the sensor is in the dark (and cleared?) at all times except when the exposure is made. But it would be quite easy to build a DSLR around a sensor with characteristics similar to that in the PowerShot G5 were it to be deemed appropriate. You think? Well, if possible, then someday they certainly will do it. Marnie aka Doe This has been a very informative thread.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on >> 35mm negative. True. > >Not entirely. > >http://millimeter.com/ar/video_digital_desert/ I stand corrected! Thanks Rob. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: See: http://www.henninger.com/library/hdtvfilm24/ >The Fall of Film Production Thanks Rob, very interesting. The author predicts a chang-over period of 20 years. I'll stick with my original assertion that it won't be for at least a decade. It's a logical progression of movie production. If the shoe fits Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Don't know about 5 years, but the new Sony theaters around here are supposed to get their movies in digital via satellite. No more film... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote: > > > My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years. > > Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? > There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in > five years time. > > anders
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28 Oct 2003 at 7:26, Mark Roberts wrote: > There is indeed software for correcting chromatic aberration: Picture > Window Pro (http://www.dl-c.com/) There's a review of it at > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/chromatic.shtml (though the > "before" and "after" photos are swapped at one point!) Can also be corrected using the Panorama Tools Plugin which is free ware: http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote: > I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on > 35mm negative. True. Some music videos as well, even though they're only intended for tv viewing. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Robert Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Of course its a lens aberration. But I think she thought that it could >be corrected post capture. And what I replied was that I didn't think >that the software could do something like this. There is indeed software for correcting chromatic aberration: Picture Window Pro (http://www.dl-c.com/) There's a review of it at http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/chromatic.shtml (though the "before" and "after" photos are swapped at one point!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28 Oct 2003 at 11:54, Cotty wrote: > I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on > 35mm negative. True. Not entirely. http://millimeter.com/ar/video_digital_desert/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Cinema projection - WAS - Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Herb wrote: > in the US, there is wholesale replacement of film with digital projectors > for commercial movie theaters. yes, they will retain film for a while, but > not a long while, since the films wear out so quickly. after that, it will > be the boutique and art film theaters only that continue to use film. I find the first sentence very hard to believe. Even in the poxy, boxy multiplex booths the screen is rather large. As cinema film has an ASA of about 8 (eight), the resolution required for electronic projection would be well outside present capability. Not to mention colour saturation, or the lack of it.. On the other hand, modern cinema is generally designed for people with limited intellect and excess disposable income. mike
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28 Oct 2003 at 13:15, Alin Flaider wrote: > What resolution would that be? I am concerned as the best commercial > (not industrial) digital projectors are a measly 2 MPixels, and in > my experience it lacks not just (obviously) in definition but also > in dynamic range. > Could it be possible the movie audience might accept a similar drop > in projection quality!? See: http://www.henninger.com/library/hdtvfilm24/ The Fall of Film Production http://www.volksmovie.com/rants/archive/rogerebert.htm Start the Revolution without Digital Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
on 28.10.03 12:54, Cotty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on > 35mm negative. True. Exactly. They are converted to either positives for cinemas or digital At the later stage. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 28/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? >> There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in >> five years time. >in the US, there is wholesale replacement of film with digital projectors >for commercial movie theaters. yes, they will retain film for a while, but >not a long while, since the films wear out so quickly. after that, it will >be the boutique and art film theaters only that continue to use film. I have bad news. Motion pictures for cinema release are still shot on 35mm negative. True. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
can't tell except that it is at least as good as ordinary 70mm film. these projectors are part of million dollar systems. Herb - Original Message - From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:15 AM Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > What resolution would that be? I am concerned as the best commercial > (not industrial) digital projectors are a measly 2 MPixels, and in > my experience it lacks not just (obviously) in definition but also > in dynamic range. > Could it be possible the movie audience might accept a similar drop > in projection quality!? After all, I go to the theater for the ample > tones and details of the projected film image - a totally different > experience than the one I can get with a DVD and a home theater. And > I suspect I'm not alone.
Re: Film disappearing? Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
yes, but all film is being replaced by digital pretty quickly in theaters. Herb - Original Message - From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:47 AM Subject: OT: Film disappearing? Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > I thought 70 mm had displaced 35 mm to a large extent.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Herb wrote: HC> in the US, there is wholesale replacement of film with digital projectors HC> for commercial movie theaters. What resolution would that be? I am concerned as the best commercial (not industrial) digital projectors are a measly 2 MPixels, and in my experience it lacks not just (obviously) in definition but also in dynamic range. Could it be possible the movie audience might accept a similar drop in projection quality!? After all, I go to the theater for the ample tones and details of the projected film image - a totally different experience than the one I can get with a DVD and a home theater. And I suspect I'm not alone. Servus, Alin
OT: Film disappearing? Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
I thought 70 mm had displaced 35 mm to a large extent. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages "The Cement Company from HELL!" Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:37 PM Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > in the US, there is wholesale replacement of film with digital projectors > for commercial movie theaters. yes, they will retain film for a while, but > not a long while, since the films wear out so quickly. after that, it will > be the boutique and art film theaters only that continue to use film. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:59 AM > Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > > > > Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? > > There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in > > five years time. > >
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
in the US, there is wholesale replacement of film with digital projectors for commercial movie theaters. yes, they will retain film for a while, but not a long while, since the films wear out so quickly. after that, it will be the boutique and art film theaters only that continue to use film. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:59 AM Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? > There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in > five years time.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
that's interesting because the 5400's predecessor, the 5000, is specified to have a lag of 55 milliseconds when prefocused. Herb - Original Message - From: "alex wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:44 PM Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > Nikon 5400: > Shutter Release LAG *3 Using Viewfinder 0.1 > Shutter Release LAG *3 Using LCD Monitor 0.1 > > The lag that I think most consumers complain about is the AF and > exposure lag. That can add a second or two. I doubt that most > consumers prefocus their cameras in normal operation.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote: > My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years. Have you taken into account that 35 mm film is used in cinema as well? There will eventually be a shift to digital there as well, but hardly in five years time. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Robert Gonzalez wrote: > > 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. > > Cm'on don't you want to use your 15mm rectilinear in all its glory!! :) That one's reasonably important to me, because I do have a 15mm. For the time being I'd be happy to keep my trusty old K2 for the ultrawide stuff. > Ok, my apologies, I'm an Electrical Engineer who writes software, so my > perspective is heavily biased towards this little window on the world. ;) Good to see another EE on the list ;) I am more of a hardware guy who writes software on the side. > 1. I'd like to see alot of wireless stuff, like making the camera a > wireless TCP/IP node that I could download the images off of. How about making it a node which automatically uploads images into a settable location on a fileserver while you shoot? Just think - keep a server in the studio or even a laptop in the car if you're outdoors (parked in the shade!). How about letting it interface direct to a wireless-enabled ipod in your pocket? These are all very exciting possibilities. You could shoot RAW all day and never need to worry about storage. > 9. Some type of physical or electrical means of attaching a separate unit > to cool the CCD. This sucks up alot of power, so it would have to be > something external. Ideally they could stick a peltier chip behind the CCD > with an external power connector. this would allow much lower noise > pictures for special applications, like astrophotograpy or long exposures. Not such a bad idea, assuming that most of the noise is thermally generated. The problem with peltier chips is that they require a reasonable amount of power to operate so battery life would be quite short. > 10. Use the LCD for more useful stuff, like turning it into a PDA with the > little stylus on the side. Just kidding. ;) I just bought a digital camera with a built-in PDA. Oops - I mean a PDA with built-in camera. Quite handy little things despite the camera being only 640x480. I like the concept of the new Treo 600 but I guess you'd really want a handsfree kit or you wouldn't be able to take notes while talking. I seem to recall that someone ported Doom to a commonly-used digital camera operating system. But if I get a DSLR I'd be more interested in taking photos with it :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
- Original Message - From: "mishka" Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > i often find the absense of mirror in a TLR a huge help, > when shooting handheld. to me, a mirror in a dslr would be > about as useful as horsewhip in a car (it *can* be useful -- > occasionally ) > besides, who needs manual focus when you can have 2^32 AF zones? Try hand holding a C220 with the porrofinder attached. It's not all the lack of mirror, some of it is the more comfortable position that TLR's get held in. William Robb
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
It may be that CCD TV cameras can operate so fast because: 1. The res is not so high (800x600 or less) 2. It sends out the analog signal directly to the output without conversion (A to D conversion is slow if you want good quality) Since digital camcorders have to do a A/D conversion (lower res than a DSLR), it might be possible to put this functionality on a DSLR if they cut a corner on #1 or #2. I.e. less resolution, or lower quality. Just my $.02 worth rg John Francis wrote: When I last posted that live preview caused an increase in shutter lag I had a few people who doubted this. Here is the design book ... That just shows that some particular chip designs have this problem. It doesn't mean that it's an inherent problem if you use CCD sensors. As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. There may be other reasons (cost, power, ...) not to incorporate this capability in a sensor designed to be used in a DSLR. But inasmuch as there are proofs-by-example that it's possible, your assertion that it can't be done seems to be on shaky ground
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
i feel my FA 24-90 f 3.5-4.5, a highly regarded lens here, has too much chromatic abberation to be used more than necessary. this is on film and not on the *ist. i feel that my FA* 24 f2.0, an even more highly regarded lens here, has more than i feel is acceptable for a lens belonging to the FA* line. these are at working apertures above f8. both my FA 50 f2.8 macro and FA* 80-200 f2.8 have no detectable chromatic abberation at f2.8 to my eyes. my Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5 has about the same chromatic abberation as my FA* 24 f2.0 but is noticeably less sharp. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:28 PM Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > But what if the *istD turns up more chromatic aberrations, than say the 300D > does? What does that mean? Does it mean more Pentax lenses had chromatic > aberrations all along? And if it does mean that, isn't that rather disappointing?
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
i often find the absense of mirror in a TLR a huge help, when shooting handheld. to me, a mirror in a dslr would be about as useful as horsewhip in a car (it *can* be useful -- occasionally ) besides, who needs manual focus when you can have 2^32 AF zones? mishka All in all, it seems to me that the SLR concept is one of those things that ain't broke, so isn't really worth fixing. William Robb
RE: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Faster sensors Full Frame sensors Higher resolution sensors K mount compatable LOWER PRICE
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: > For a more down-to-earth example the Canon PowerShot cameras (from the > 3.3Mp G1 to the 5Mp G5) have effectively no shutter lag if pre-focussed, > and have a live LCD display at all times. If a 5Mp point-and-shoot can > do it, I have a hard time believing it would be impossible on a DSLR. Only when you aren't using the live LCD. From dpreview.com: Shutter Release LAG Using Viewfinder <0.1 Shutter Release LAG Using LCD Monitor 0.1 That is the same as the published lag for the Sony DSC-F717 that I own: Shutter Release LAG LCD monitor, pre-focused (shutter rel. half-pressed) 0.1 Shutter Release LAG EVF, pre-focused (shutter rel. half-pressed) 0.1 The lag on the *ist D is noticably shorter than the F717 when shooting in manual focus and manual exposure modes. alex
Obtaining film was: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Graywolf wrote: > My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years. > B&W will be hard to find in 10 years. And film will be pretty > much gone in 25 years. The only real hope is that the > internet makes it posible for someone to cater to a very > small world wide niche market. The good side of this? I will > probably not care in 25 years. ;) B&W is damn near impossible to find now (but won't be by Wednesday) as there has been a run on it here, apparently! Aside from that, slide film will be slow to depart. Damn sure I will not be going to digital, without my LX filled and latterly developed with slide film for the Christmas annual show. I like the inconvenience of the big screen going up Malcolm
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: > > > As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously > > possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of > > a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. > > On the other hand, CCD TV cameras are just 0.3 Mpix so it may be that a > larger sensor takes longer to read data from. HDTV cameras are up to 2Mpix, full-frame at 30 or 60Hz. For a more down-to-earth example the Canon PowerShot cameras (from the 3.3Mp G1 to the 5Mp G5) have effectively no shutter lag if pre-focussed, and have a live LCD display at all times. If a 5Mp point-and-shoot can do it, I have a hard time believing it would be impossible on a DSLR.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Previously written: What I find really interesting and hard to predict is how film will continue at this point. I agree that R&D money will be cut severely and that the number of available emulsions will plummet. In the end though, I think it will be profitable to produce film for quite a while, although the [rice may rise as it becomes a "niche" item mainly for specialized professionals and hobbyists. In the end, the availability and price of processing may be the limiting factor. This latter point may actually mean that B&W film may have a longer life then color since the latter can be home processed. The interesting question is will we notice big changes in 5, 10 or 25 years? I think you are starting to see the changes already. You can't go into a drugstore chain etc. without seeing a mini lab with digital capabilities. The real question is whether they can get enough people to print their digicam images for it to remain profitable for them. If not, you will find in 5-10 years, just when they have driven most of the independent labs out of business, that they will severely scale down what they offer. I agree that B&W will likely do better then color as it is relatively easy to do at home. The scanner manufacturers do need to work on the traditional B&W scanning capabilities of their scanners. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
i thought about this too and... nah... can't be. 2000x3000 pixels x 1.5 factor = 3000x4500, quite a bit less than a good scanner resolution (4000x6000), and i haven't seen much abberation there. can it be that the sensor has just surface, while the film emultion has some thickness, that averages the focusing errors for different wavelengths? mishka dont forget that the 1.5X "cropping factor" just magnifies the abberations over what you would see with the same resolution sensor "seeing" the whole lens circle. i.e. you are "zooming in" on the flaws with a APS sensor - J.C. O'Connell
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years. B&W will be hard to find in 10 years. And film will be pretty much gone in 25 years. The only real hope is that the internet makes it posible for someone to cater to a very small world wide niche market. The good side of this? I will probably not care in 25 years. ;) Steve Desjardins wrote: What I find really interesting and hard to predict is how film will continue at this point. I agree that R&D money will be cut severely and that the number of available emulsions will plummet. In the end though, I think it will be profitable to produce film for quite a while, although the [rice may rise as it becomes a "niche" item mainly for specialized professionals and hobbyists. In the end, the availability and price of processing may be the limiting factor. This latter point may actually mean that B&W film may have a longer life then color since the latter can be home processed. The interesting question is will we notice big changes in 5, 10 or 25 years? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> 3. I'd like a full frame sensor if it has the same pixel density as the > current APS sensor. You would then still have the "magnification > effect" with telephotos, just that you could achieve it by cropping. >That's what the current full-frame sensors in the Canon 1Ds & Kodak 14N are. I want it cheap too ;-) What I find really interesting and hard to predict is how film will continue at this point. I agree that R&D money will be cut severely and that the number of available emulsions will plummet. In the end though, I think it will be profitable to produce film for quite a while, although the [rice may rise as it becomes a "niche" item mainly for specialized professionals and hobbyists. In the end, the availability and price of processing may be the limiting factor. This latter point may actually mean that B&W film may have a longer life then color since the latter can be home processed. The interesting question is will we notice big changes in 5, 10 or 25 years? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: > As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously > possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of > a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. On the other hand, CCD TV cameras are just 0.3 Mpix so it may be that a larger sensor takes longer to read data from. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: > > When I last posted that live preview caused an increase in shutter > > lag I had a few people who doubted this. Here is the design book ... > > That just shows that some particular chip designs have this problem. > It doesn't mean that it's an inherent problem if you use CCD sensors. > > As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously > possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of > a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. I don't think that any manufacturers are building high resolution progressive scan CCDs with this characteristic though. > There may be other reasons (cost, power, ...) not to incorporate this > capability in a sensor designed to be used in a DSLR. But inasmuch > as there are proofs-by-example that it's possible, your assertion > that it can't be done seems to be on shaky ground I didn't say that it couldn't be done, I said that it isn't done at this point in time. The documented CCDs used for D-SLR markets don't have any high frame rate modes (or didn't when I last read the specifications). The ones used for P&S cameras can only do high frame rates (30fps or 60fps) when using a small percentage of the photosites on the CCD itself. alex
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> > When I last posted that live preview caused an increase in shutter > lag I had a few people who doubted this. Here is the design book ... That just shows that some particular chip designs have this problem. It doesn't mean that it's an inherent problem if you use CCD sensors. As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. There may be other reasons (cost, power, ...) not to incorporate this capability in a sensor designed to be used in a DSLR. But inasmuch as there are proofs-by-example that it's possible, your assertion that it can't be done seems to be on shaky ground
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > dont forget that the 1.5X "cropping factor" just magnifies > the abberations over what you would see with the same > resolution sensor "seeing" the whole lens circle. i.e. > you are "zooming in" on the flaws with a APS sensor Good catch. To make an 8x12 print from an APS sized sensor would be like making a 12x18 from 35mm, in terms of equivalent magnification. William Robb
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
JCO wrote: >dont forget that the 1.5X "cropping factor" just magnifies the abberations over what you would see with the same resolution sensor "seeing" the whole lens circle. i.e. you are "zooming in" on the flaws with a APS sensor Good point. And the best argument for a full framed sensor. Not holding my breath for that, though. ;-) Marnie aka Doe
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
>On page 11 we can see that there is a feature called "high speed sweep for preventing smear" that is used when taking full resolution pictures. Page 9 mentions that to get the low smear properties that you need to close the cameras mechanical shutter, perform a vertical register sweep, then open it again for the final exposure. If I understand this all correctly on a camera with live preview the following has to happen when you take a picture (assuming exposure and AF lock): * close the shutter * clear the ccd * open the shutter and turn on the ccd at the same time * take the exposure * close the shutter and turn off the CCD * read out the image >On a SLR the first two steps aren't necessary. >alex Hmmm, so essentially for DSLR preview you would taking a picture before you take a picture. Yes, it seems rather redundant. Okay, review is good enough. Thanks, Doe aka Marnie I bet someday the technology gets fast enough for it, though. But that would probably be years down the road.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
>The alternative is to go with interchangable lens rangfinder designs, which would be the digital equivalent of the Leica M cameras. Unfortunately, rangefinder designs are somewhat limited in what focal lengths are usable becuase of limitations in viewfinders. A zoom rangefinder is certainly possible, they are done all the time, but focal lengths are still limited to around 200mm (on the 35mm format) before there are too many optical deficiencies introduced, and the rangefinder optic becomes too cumbersome. Also, with this sort of design, you are looking at entirely new lenses that will transmit focal length information to the camera so that it can adjust the rangefinder focal length to match. >All in all, it seems to me that the SLR concept is one of those things that ain't broke, so isn't really worth fixing. >William Robb Aha. Thanks. Clarifies things. Marnie aka Doe
RE: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
dont forget that the 1.5X "cropping factor" just magnifies the abberations over what you would see with the same resolution sensor "seeing" the whole lens circle. i.e. you are "zooming in" on the flaws with a APS sensor J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Of course its a lens aberration. But I think she thought that it could be corrected post capture. And what I replied was that I didn't think that the software could do something like this. Although if you knew exactly the what the aberrations were for this particular lens sample, you might be able to do something. Hopefully the visibility of these types of aberrations in digital will force manufacturers to produce better lenses. :) How bad have these aberrations shown up on your starkist? William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. Interesting concept, although it would probably be relatively difficult to determine what is a chromatic aberration versus true adjacent color deltas. If you did a blind blend while preserving luminosity, it would eliminate some of it, at the cost of general color "softness" (I'm not sure what you call this). I had always though that chromatic aberation was a lens deficiency. Blaming a lens problem on digital capture seems like shooting the messenger. The answer is lenses that are better corrected for chromatic aberation, though this may mean compromising some other lens defect. William Robb
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Bob Walkden wrote: > > well, what with recent breakthroughs in nanotechnology you never know. > > If you want something that works, rain or shine, then we need to > combine the past with the present, and shrink it. > > A small waterwheel attached to the side of your camera could generate > plenty of power during a rainstorm; if the weather was dull and overcast > then the sails of the wheel could catch the slightest breeze, and generate > plenty of power that way. And of course in f/16 conditions the bright > sunshine would be collected on the sails which are, of couse, fitted > with teeny-weeny, but immensely efficient, solar panels. _Now_ we're talking! Or maybe like the old U-boat commanders' torch, with a ratcheting handle and flywheel connected to a generator. That would be fun to operate: "Excuse me, can I take your photo? Just got to squeeze this for a few minutes" Frank could have one attached to his bike. Someone made a solar powered 35mm compact some time ago. Not successful but, as you say, the technology just needs developing. > Finally, if the weather simply won't play ball, then you can use gravity. > The centre of your camera must include a yo-yo mechanism and some sort of > power exchange device, like a dynamo, attached to the yo-yo spindle > to capture Newton's favourite apple plucker. Roll on the true eternal motion machine. Get that one solved and everything else will be a doddle. > Sadly, though, that emergency back-up won't work in outer space. Plenty solar radiation there, though. Just don't get on the dark side of things. mike
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
- Original Message - From: "Robert Gonzalez" Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See > > 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really > > ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute > > the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I > > mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of > > their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping > > around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. > > > Interesting concept, although it would probably be relatively difficult > to determine what is a chromatic aberration versus true adjacent color > deltas. If you did a blind blend while preserving luminosity, it would > eliminate some of it, at the cost of general color "softness" (I'm not > sure what you call this). I had always though that chromatic aberation was a lens deficiency. Blaming a lens problem on digital capture seems like shooting the messenger. The answer is lenses that are better corrected for chromatic aberation, though this may mean compromising some other lens defect. William Robb
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Well I have 3 major problems with current DSLR's. 1. Price, needs to be 1/2 of current. 2. Price, needs to be 1/2 of item 1. 3. Price, needs to be 1/2 of item 2. When they meet those criteria I will difinately buy one, probably used. (just a little bit tongue in cheek) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been thinking about what improvements I'd like to see in DSLRs -- in the immature c**p technology -- before I am happy or happier. And, thus, more willing to spend bucko bucks on a DSLR. Trouble is, I am rather ignorant. But I think I'd like to see: 1. Canon solve it's exposure problems. (Not totally sure this is the problem, but it seems that is the problem, or maybe it's auto focus in low light, which is supposedly a problem with some of their film cameras as well.) 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so the lack of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by software, maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. Settings to change latitude. 4. Less artifacting. Well, most 6 mps seems to not artifact too much, but there seem to be some cases where they do. I am still sort of examining this one. 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. 6. Being able to use older lenses on a Pentax DSLR. The more and more that I have read this list, the more and more I think that would be a great idea. The main reason is that there are tons of cheaper manual lenses out there. More people would hop on the Pentax bandwagon (newbies) if they could pick up cheaper lenses for their new DSLR. However, I am not sure if the firmware would support it -- because the aperture is set from the camera and the right contacts are missing from the lens mount (this is what I have gathered from reading the list). Is an adapter ring down the line at all possible? Anyway, these are my ignorant ramblings. What improvements would you like to see? Marnie aka Doe Saying no digital at all in not allowed. :-) -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Was it something I said? 8-) I am optimistic that the present > "difficulties" will be dealt with. I am not sure they will be dealt > with in a manner beneficial (both financially and photographically) to > me. > > >mike > > Well, there is that. :-) > > No. Not necessarily you. Somehow I was worried this was coming across as > another b**tch about digital thread. When actually I find digital rather exciting. > It's just that so far I am somewhat disappointed. More disappointed than I > was expecting to be or more disappointed than I'd like to be. At least for > dropping big bucks -- thinking of my own potential future purchasing. Snap! > And I'm just curious what people want/wish for in DSLR improvements. > > Like maybe there are some I haven't thought of -- some I didn't list. It seems to be difficult to think of other things when the technology is not as good as an existing process for producing pictures. For me, the _major_ drawback to digital is the dependence on batteries, as I sometimes find myself in situations where a purely mechanical device is a better option. Can't see that one being solved. As my main reason for beginning to buy Pentax was interchangeability (though it is not my only reason for staying with it) I wish to keep that tradition up in my personal kit. I will not be buying anything that has reduced compatibility to that I enjoy at present. mike
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Someone posted: > > > > Someone made a solar powered 35mm compact some time ago. Not successful > > but, as you say, the technology just needs developing. I seem to remember that Ricoh had an SLR back in the 1980s that was solar- powered. All I know about it, I saw in the pages of Popular (or Modern?) Photography. It had a K-mount.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> > 1. It's good that those with some discretionary funds buy early, They > partially finance the better camera everyone else will buy in 3-5 years That already happened, of course. The original DSLRS (such as the Kodak) were horrendously expensive - I believe the high-end model was $25,000 Then came the second generation, exemplified by the Nikon D1. Cheaper, because much of the development cost was born by those earlier cameras. Now we're into the third generation, with street prices around $1500. (And, apparently, just at the start of the sub-$1000 fourth generation). It's just that different folks jump onto the train at different times. > 2. One interesting point is that many have indicated that they shoot a > lot more with a DSLR. This skews the "you must shoot a roll a week to > justify it economically" argument. Quite. That's why I didn't buy a $5,000 digital camera outfit, but am prepared to pay 1/3 of that amount. I calculated my payback cost based on the film & processing costs measured over the previous two years, and the *ist-D is justifiable. I'm sure I'll shoot more frames than I would have done on film, but that's not the basis I calculated with. > 3. I'd like a full frame sensor if it has the same pixel density as the > current APS sensor. You would then still have the "magnification > effect" with telephotos, just that you could achieve it by cropping. That's what the current full-frame sensors in the Canon 1Ds & Kodak 14N are.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
I just gotta comment: 1. It's good that those with some discretionary funds buy early, They partially finance the better camera everyone else will buy 3-5 years form now. Nonetheless, many purchasers of DSLRs (Canon or Pentax) seem very happy with them and the image quality, which is all that matters to an amateur like me. 2. One interesting point is that many have indicated that they shoot a lot more with a DSLR. This skews the "you must shoot a roll a week to justify it economically" argument. 3. I'd like a full frame sensor if it has the same pixel density as the current APS sensor. You would then still have the "magnification effect" with telephotos, just that you could achieve it by cropping. 4. As for handling, I guess I'll just have to wait until I can comment . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, Sunday, October 26, 2003, 3:47:49 PM, you wrote: > For me, the > _major_ drawback to digital is the dependence on batteries, as I > sometimes find myself in situations where a purely mechanical device is > a better option. Can't see that one being solved. well, what with recent breakthroughs in nanotechnology you never know. If you want something that works, rain or shine, then we need to combine the past with the present, and shrink it. A small waterwheel attached to the side of your camera could generate plenty of power during a rainstorm; if the weather was dull and overcast then the sails of the wheel could catch the slightest breeze, and generate plenty of power that way. And of course in f/16 conditions the bright sunshine would be collected on the sails which are, of couse, fitted with teeny-weeny, but immensely efficient, solar panels. Finally, if the weather simply won't play ball, then you can use gravity. The centre of your camera must include a yo-yo mechanism and some sort of power exchange device, like a dynamo, attached to the yo-yo spindle to capture Newton's favourite apple plucker. Sadly, though, that emergency back-up won't work in outer space. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 26/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Then a few minutes ago I happened to catch an item on BBC News 24 >about recharging mobile (cell) phone batteries by running them under >the tap (faucet). It seems that the boffins (scientists) in the back >room (laboratory) have found a way of harnessing power from water squirted >through tiny holes (subminituaristical aperturalized devices). So maybe my >waterwheel idea isn't quite as hare-brained (Homer Simpson) as it might >appear. Could be done while making the odd cup of teaearlgreyhot. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 26/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >to capture Newton's favourite apple plucker. hey watch who yer insultin there! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 26/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> >Except if Canon fixes its exposure problem it means the whole front on >> >digital technology moves forward. >> >> Can someone please tell me what this 'exposure problem' is? > >Having to use Canon lenses for making exposures. >You seem to have found a work around. Har! Actually I only have one Canon lens. As well as two Sigmas, a Tokina, and two Pentaxes in EOS. Three Pentaxes, two Tokinas in KA. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
> -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On 25/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Except if Canon fixes its exposure problem it means the > whole front on > >digital technology moves forward. > > Can someone please tell me what this 'exposure problem' is? I don't have any exposure problems either. On average I have about the same success ratio as I had with the MZ-S, which has a *very* good meter. I'm talking ambient metering here. Digital TTL flash metering is not as consistent, but it's a different sort of ttl (not true ttl) and I hear this complaint from a lot of Nikon and Canon dslr users employing various models. tv
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi! I am putting my reply in between the lines... On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:20:34 -0600 "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For me, the function of a digital camera, whether an SLR or otherwise, is to take advantage of the new photofinishing technology. Scanning film for digital printing is, to my mind, a fools endeavor. I suppose that in a sense of ultimate technological solution this is correct. I still maintain that buying a second hand Epson 2450 for $120 and scanning my negatives and slides, and finally, post processing them for digital printing later is way better __for me__ than anything else except perhaps trying to save money for *istD. Furthermore, I think that shelling out, say $500 for 5MP digicam is not really a solution. Just yesterday, my wife's co-worker came with her little 3MP digicam full of pictures she brought from Spain. Almost all of her attempts to shoot architecture failed miserably, partly because of the lens restrictions... The process of scanning negatives creates more problems than it solves. Please bear in mind that this is coming from someone who is pretty handy on the darkroom. I suppose it was the analog darkroom you meant ... I am yet to shoot my second TMAX so that I can try film processing myself... You know, I've been asked to bring two films so that chemicals, time, and effort would not be wasted... Virtually all new photo lab equipment is using digital printing technology. So far, I have found the combination of a good digital camera and digital to photo paper printing to be far superior to anything I have been able to get via scanned negatives or slides. The entire industry is going in this direction. This is the impression that seems to be coming onto us from all over the place. Kodak has indicated that they are cutting back on film R&D, and have, in fact, announced that their consumer and professional film divisions are being combined. It could be that for a short period of time then, consumer films of Kodak would become somewhat better because of involvement of professional division people ... But then of course, it will decline surely, and even may be not so slowly... Digital does look different from film, of this there is no doubt. Whether it is better or worse, I have no opinion. It's just different. I like it for some things, for others, I prefer film. I wish others had similar opinions. But then traffic would be much lighter on PDML . I tend to agree with Mr. Robb here. I do hope however that 35 mm b/w film will survive. For me, digital will most likely replace 35mm colour negative film for just about everything I shoot neg film for, and I expect I am in a very large demographic in this regard. If only digital of acceptable quality were more affordable... Then we would be experiencing explosion of that very demographic ... For most of my needs, the 6mp sensor is just fine, thank you very much, and I am quite pleased that the ist D suits me so well. On my level, I've been seeing wonderful, artful photographs made even with 3MP cameras. Indeed, first comes the photographer, next comes the lens, and then comes the camera. Ultimately, I am putting this message I've just answered to my knowledge base... Enjoy! (film while you can, and digital if you have it ) Boris _ "Антивирус Касперского Personal Pro + Антихакер по специальной цене $85" http://www.kaspersky.ru/offer/
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On 25/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Except if Canon fixes its exposure problem it means the whole front on >digital technology moves forward. Can someone please tell me what this 'exposure problem' is? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really > >> ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might > distribute > >> the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film > more. I > >> mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of > >> their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy > shopping > > >around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a > DSLR. > > >An area that certainly needs improvement. I would be _very_ unhappy to > >have bought a camera that showed the problem that has been highlighted > >on this list in the last few days. > > So would I be. > > However, I don't think anyone who has already bought a *istD, or a 300D or a > 60 or 30D is stupid. I think they just have more photographic discretionary > spending money than I do. I want to make that non-stupid part clear. > Me neither. What I think they have done is buy something that they have no way of knowing will fulfill the functions they require. Rather like I had to enter into a contract with my ISP _before_ they would answer any technical questions. No choice. Doesn't make me any happier with the outcome of my situation and I think there will be listers who are unhappy with the outcome of theirs. > >> 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software > > >could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so > the lack > > >of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot > > >negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by > software, > >> maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. > >> Settings to change latitude. > > >As above. Both of these areas show what I call a "consumer development" > >approach to product design. You make something that doesn't work quite > >as well as its predecessor and sell it. If the consumer complains, then > >it's an area to work on. If they don't. Anyone remember stainless > >steel disc brakes? People probably died from that little fiasco, yet it > >took years before manufacturers reverted to cast iron. > > I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's what happens with an emerging > technology. They release something and find out later where the real problems > are. There is only so much development time they can give something. Things also > evolve and get better. But I certainly wouldn't call it planned in any sense, > say of deliberately releasing less than they can do at that point in time. > > I think it *is* what they can do at that point in time. I think it _is_ deliberate. It is also, to some extent, understandable. Otherwise you get to the stage where you never release a product because you know you can just go one step further towards improving it. Rather like an ex-lister and his book 8-) With something like software, which is probably more complex than all the rest of the item put together, it is more understandable that less-than-perfection is released as the manufacturer knows that it is relatively easy to correct. However this may also lead to an attitude of relative complacency. > >> 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. > > >Why? It would lessen some of the problems you have highlighted above. > >It would also significantly reduce someone's profits. > > Well, if full frame would solve problems, then that would be good. > > I don't particularly *want* it, because I like shooting wildlife and I like > the way long glass is "magnified." > It is a relatively small attraction of present DSLRs for me, too. > Except, I think, possibly, that I am more optimistic than you. > > I see these things as solvable. And I think they will be solved. So I am very > serious about this question... (addressed to others now) Was it something I said? 8-) I am optimistic that the present "difficulties" will be dealt with. I am not sure they will be dealt with in a manner beneficial (both financially and photographically) to me. mike
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I've been thinking about what improvements I'd like to see in DSLRs -- in the >> immature c**p technology -- before I am happy or happier. And, thus, more >> willing to spend bucko bucks on a DSLR. >It's not crap technology, it's very expensive, cutting-edge technology. Of course it is. > >Trouble is, I am rather ignorant. But I think I'd like to see: > > >1. Canon solve it's exposure problems. (Not totally sure this is the problem, > >but it seems that is the problem, or maybe it's auto focus in low light, > >which is supposedly a problem with some of their film cameras as well.) >Not interested. I find Canon cameras unpleasant to use and will not be buying one in the forseeable future. Except if Canon fixes its exposure problem it means the whole front on digital technology moves forward. These companies R&D departments don't operate all that independently from each other. IE. An advance with one company usually means an advance with other companies as they "copy" each others' advancements. >> 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really >> ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute >> the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I >> mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of >> their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping > >around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. >An area that certainly needs improvement. I would be _very_ unhappy to >have bought a camera that showed the problem that has been highlighted >on this list in the last few days. So would I be. However, I don't think anyone who has already bought a *istD, or a 300D or a 60 or 30D is stupid. I think they just have more photographic discretionary spending money than I do. I want to make that non-stupid part clear. >> 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software > >could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so the lack > >of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot > >negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by software, >> maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. >> Settings to change latitude. >As above. Both of these areas show what I call a "consumer development" >approach to product design. You make something that doesn't work quite >as well as its predecessor and sell it. If the consumer complains, then >it's an area to work on. If they don't. Anyone remember stainless >steel disc brakes? People probably died from that little fiasco, yet it >took years before manufacturers reverted to cast iron. I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's what happens with an emerging technology. They release something and find out later where the real problems are. There is only so much development time they can give something. Things also evolve and get better. But I certainly wouldn't call it planned in any sense, say of deliberately releasing less than they can do at that point in time. I think it *is* what they can do at that point in time. >> 4. Less artifacting. Well, most 6 mps seems to not artifact too much, but >> there seem to be some cases where they do. I am still sort of examining this one. As above. >> 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. >Why? It would lessen some of the problems you have highlighted above. >It would also significantly reduce someone's profits. Well, if full frame would solve problems, then that would be good. I don't particularly *want* it, because I like shooting wildlife and I like the way long glass is "magnified." But mainly it's not something I think they will do soon, for lower end DSLRs (under $2,000-3,000) anyway. There is no compelling reason for them to do so. So it is not on my wish list. >> 6. Being able to use older lenses on a Pentax DSLR. The more and more that I >> have read this list, the more and more I think that would be a great idea. The >> main reason is that there are tons of cheaper manual lenses out there. More >> people would hop on the Pentax bandwagon (newbies) if they could pick up >> cheaper lenses for their new DSLR. However, I am not sure if the firmware would > >support it -- because the aperture is set from the camera and the right contacts >> are missing from the lens mount (this is what I have gathered from reading the >> list). Is an adapter ring down the line at all possible? >Agreed. It is the major thing that would persuade me to buy a DSLR. >Yes, I would pay significantly more for it. Yes, I will wait for it to >happen. Yes, I will stick with film (maybe even moving to LF) for now. >If I need digital, I will buy a p&s. I am not sure if it can be done technology-wise, but it certainly would be a selling poin
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I've been thinking about what improvements I'd like to see in DSLRs -- in the > immature c**p technology -- before I am happy or happier. And, thus, more > willing to spend bucko bucks on a DSLR. It's not crap technology, it's very expensive, cutting-edge technology. > Trouble is, I am rather ignorant. But I think I'd like to see: > > 1. Canon solve it's exposure problems. (Not totally sure this is the problem, > but it seems that is the problem, or maybe it's auto focus in low light, > which is supposedly a problem with some of their film cameras as well.) Not interested. I find Canon cameras unpleasant to use and will not be buying one in the forseeable future. > 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really > ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute > the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I > mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of > their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping > around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. An area that certainly needs improvement. I would be _very_ unhappy to have bought a camera that showed the problem that has been highlighted on this list in the last few days. > 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software > could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so the lack > of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot > negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by software, > maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. > Settings to change latitude. As above. Both of these areas show what I call a "consumer development" approach to product design. You make something that doesn't work quite as well as its predecessor and sell it. If the consumer complains, then it's an area to work on. If they don't. Anyone remember stainless steel disc brakes? People probably died from that little fiasco, yet it took years before manufacturers reverted to cast iron. > 4. Less artifacting. Well, most 6 mps seems to not artifact too much, but > there seem to be some cases where they do. I am still sort of examining this one. As above. > 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. Why? It would lessen some of the problems you have highlighted above. It would also significantly reduce someone's profits. > 6. Being able to use older lenses on a Pentax DSLR. The more and more that I > have read this list, the more and more I think that would be a great idea. The > main reason is that there are tons of cheaper manual lenses out there. More > people would hop on the Pentax bandwagon (newbies) if they could pick up > cheaper lenses for their new DSLR. However, I am not sure if the firmware would > support it -- because the aperture is set from the camera and the right contacts > are missing from the lens mount (this is what I have gathered from reading the > list). Is an adapter ring down the line at all possible? Agreed. It is the major thing that would persuade me to buy a DSLR. Yes, I would pay significantly more for it. Yes, I will wait for it to happen. Yes, I will stick with film (maybe even moving to LF) for now. If I need digital, I will buy a p&s. > Anyway, these are my ignorant ramblings. Odd, they are mine too. mike
What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
I've been thinking about what improvements I'd like to see in DSLRs -- in the immature c**p technology -- before I am happy or happier. And, thus, more willing to spend bucko bucks on a DSLR. Trouble is, I am rather ignorant. But I think I'd like to see: 1. Canon solve it's exposure problems. (Not totally sure this is the problem, but it seems that is the problem, or maybe it's auto focus in low light, which is supposedly a problem with some of their film cameras as well.) 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so the lack of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by software, maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. Settings to change latitude. 4. Less artifacting. Well, most 6 mps seems to not artifact too much, but there seem to be some cases where they do. I am still sort of examining this one. 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. 6. Being able to use older lenses on a Pentax DSLR. The more and more that I have read this list, the more and more I think that would be a great idea. The main reason is that there are tons of cheaper manual lenses out there. More people would hop on the Pentax bandwagon (newbies) if they could pick up cheaper lenses for their new DSLR. However, I am not sure if the firmware would support it -- because the aperture is set from the camera and the right contacts are missing from the lens mount (this is what I have gathered from reading the list). Is an adapter ring down the line at all possible? Anyway, these are my ignorant ramblings. What improvements would you like to see? Marnie aka Doe Saying no digital at all in not allowed. :-)
