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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___/\__
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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]
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:
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/
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!)
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 28/10/03, [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
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,
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
Hi,
Bobolini wrote:
You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery g
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
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
You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery g
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
Kenneth Williams (RIP), Carry on Caesar, IIRC.
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
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
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
Hi,
John Francis wrote:
You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery g
Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
Kenneth Williams (RIP), Carry on Caesar, IIRC.
Cleo.
Rambling Sid Rumpo
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years. BW 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
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
Previously written:
What I find really interesting and hard to predict is how film will
continue at this point. I agree that RD 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,
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
Graywolf wrote:
My prediction? Color film will be hard to find in 5 years.
BW 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
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
Faster sensors
Full Frame sensors
Higher resolution sensors
K mount compatable
LOWER PRICE
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 g)
besides, who needs manual focus when you can have 2^32 AF zones?
mishka
All in all, it seems to me
-
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
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
- 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 g
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
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
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
||=|
-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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
- 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
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
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.
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
[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.
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
79 matches
Mail list logo
