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
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, i
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
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
--
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.
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
___/\
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 l
>
> 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 LC
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 PROTECTE
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
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 the
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
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 Boo
retty 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)
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
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 produ
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, HD
>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
> >
> > You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery
>
> Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
Kenneth Williams (RIP), "Carry on Caesar", IIRC.
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 dev
Hi,
Bobolini wrote:
>
> You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
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 time
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, Pla
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
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.
>
>
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 poi
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/
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 aberrati
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://me
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 c
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
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
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 comme
er 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
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 Im
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 jus
om: "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, the
.
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
3 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 secon
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
-
htt
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
- 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
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 re
-
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 Pent
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
Faster sensors
Full Frame sensors
Higher resolution sensors
K mount compatable
LOWER PRICE
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 believin
>
> 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 ca
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,
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 t
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 pro
> 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
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.
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
>
> 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 o
- 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 "s
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.
>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
>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 possib
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
--
bject: 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,
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
>
- 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
di
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
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.
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 Mo
>
> 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
Th
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 m
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 breakth
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
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
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
> -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
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,
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
||=|
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
[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 technol
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 technol
78 matches
Mail list logo
