On 22 Feb 2006 at 6:01, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> I had a DVD die on my recently from fungus between layers.
> With the life expectancy of DVD/CD's at 5-7 years we stand to lose a
> substantial part of our history, not to mention photo work. It seems
> the photography has become a victim of the disp
Adam Maas wrote:
Deterioration in storage has been an issue for negatives and slides
since they appeared on the scene.
True, but you have better chances to turn a deteriorate negative into an
acceptable print than recovering the contents of a deteriorated cd,
without using special technical
Same here.
This discussion has gone round and round here before. Digital images
will live forever if you:
1- archive regularly to multiple archive volumes
2- transition to new media as it comes available.
3- verify existing archives on a regular basis.
I use paired hard drives with scripted
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, a digital file can be written out to film.
Do you know the process?
I mean, in a pinch you could print and shoot.\
There's a few options. You can make a Digital Neg (Print with pigment to
trancpar
This one time, at band camp, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, a digital file can be written out to film.
Do you know the process?
I mean, in a pinch you could print and shoot.
> But if you had fungus troubles with the DVD, you'd likely have fungus
> on/in the negs.
All the negs, and t
Kevin Waterson wrote:
I had a DVD die on my recently from fungus between layers.
With the life expectancy of DVD/CD's at 5-7 years we stand to lose a
substantial part of our history, not to mention photo work. It seems
the photography has become a victim of the disposable society.
This led me to
I've never lost a CD or DVD due to any cause whatsoever, and I have some that
are approaching ten years old. On the other hand, I've misplaced, scratched or
otherwise damaged countless negatives since then. And of course there's no
really good method for moving a digital image to film.
Paul
---
I had a DVD die on my recently from fungus between layers.
With the life expectancy of DVD/CD's at 5-7 years we stand to lose a
substantial part of our history, not to mention photo work. It seems
the photography has become a victim of the disposable society.
This led me to think, can we get a dig
I had a DVD die on my recently from fungus between layers.
With the life expectancy of DVD/CD's at 5-7 years we stand to lose a
substantial part of our history, not to mention photo work. It seems
the photography has become a victim of the disposable society.
This led me to think, can we get a dig
> Right on! Another comparable phenomenon was when the first transistor amps
> arrived
> Incidentally, you cannot nowadays find anyone who admit to be among those who
> claimed the first generation (or the three first generations) of CD players or
> transistor amps sounded better than what they
> D1, 1D, who the hell can keep track of all that.
I remember giving Beseler a little jab in print when they came out with the
latest version of the 23C enlarger. It was called the 23CIII VC. I just
wondered if they had anything in particular against the number "24."
Simplicity is usually good,
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston"
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
Why would you expect the 60 and 1ds to be similar?
Aren't they similar pixel count?
Similar? Six million pixels vs. eleven million?
D1, 1D, who th
Stay tunned? How do you do that?
Len
---
> -Original Message-
> From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 4:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Vs: Comparing digital to film
>
>
> Hello all, Brother Aaron would li
Peter wrote:
> I agree. I'm afraid that the manufacturers may not
> produce a better quality scanner in the near future.
> This may cut into the digital camera sales(???) When
> was the last film scanner upgrade by Nikon? The
> turn-over is not as high as with DSLR's.
I'm not THAT cynical. Ther
"replaced". They were plentiful back when it happened
Pål
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: Comparing digital to film
> What I find interest
Pål wrote:
"No, but it can make 67 look better. Like better
scanners and better
printers. Digital capture at present match the
resolution limit of
paraphernalia like printers and scanners while film do
not (it is beyond)."
I agree. I'm afraid that the manufacturers may not
produce a better qual
What I find interesting is the constant process we have whereby a new
type of product comes out which is supposedly superior to the old
technology in every way. Then later they are forced to improve the new
technology because they realise it isnt.
CDs were supposed to sound better than vinyl, now
With results coming off an Agfa D-Lab, I can see the difference
between 67 and 35mm in a 4X5 print. I think perhaps a better way to
put it, is the results are not objectionable up to a certain size with
35mm.
Bruce
Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 6:11:15 AM, you wrote:
>snip<
PJ> I would just lik
Mike,
There is one big difference to me. Funny that it doesn't nearly
affect me from a 35mm perspective. If 1DS and follow ons are as good
or better than 67 then the value of my 67 gear starts to drop
dramatically. No one would want to buy it. I personally do see value
in the digital workflow
Many people buy magazines as "buyer's guides". Content is driven by what
is selling. Overall 35mm film SLR sales are flat to declining a bit (the
numbers in that other thread are rather meaningless). Digital is the hot
area. It's no different in the shows: if a maker didn't have some new
digita
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 27. tammikuuta 2003 23:09
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
>The only "interpolation" going on is to pull out the color channel.
Film photography will die long before actual superiority of digital
imaging is achieved by the simple expedient of announcing it's death
over and over and over.
At 09:58 AM 1/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I was looking through the March Shutterbug and they have clearly
declared victory for digital.
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Comparing digital to film
> I was looking through the March Shutterbug and they have clearly
> declared victory for digital. Most of the articles were about digital
> equipment/techniques, including o
Look I use a scanner so I can do my own printing. For my purposes the scanned
images are perfectly adequate. But I've worked with medium format, large
format (4x5),
and 35mm wet prints up to 11x14. My scanner creates 9mp scans and I know
it doesn't
wring out all of the detail in a 35mm negativ
I was looking through the March Shutterbug and they have clearly
declared victory for digital. Most of the articles were about digital
equipment/techniques, including one about a photographer who switched
from MF to digital. I suppose this is inevitable since digital is new
and there's a lot more
Mark wrote:
> I find it absolutely baffling that anyone gets so worked up over this.
> Weird.
Maybe because some of us would love to see a real assesment of the various mediums
qualities instead of pompous conclusion based on an individual below par scanner and
printer. I'm not remotely intere
As far as I understand, Canon developed this CMOS chip. They gloued 2 D60 chips
to double the pixel count on the 1Ds
Jeff.
Alin Flaider wrote:
Mike wrote:
Why would you expect the 60 and 1ds to be similar?
Aren't they similar pixel count?
MJ> Similar? Six million pixels vs. eleven milli
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: Comparing digital to film
> > The argument that digital A is equal to film B because resolution of C and D
> >
Alim wrote:
>His point of view? The digital is still in the infancy...
Pentax is of the same opinion. They believe they are extremely early by releasing a
DSLR this year. I feel confident that we will laugh about todays DSLR's in, say, five
years time.
Pål
David wrote:
> A very interesting concept. How does the software do this if the grain
> pattern of film is essentially random? Descreening processes tend to
> require a regular dot pattern.
I don't remember how it was done. He did write an essay about it; I believe it might
have been in one
gear up a mountain.
> -Original Message-
> From: David A. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 January 2003 05:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Comparing digital to film
>
> > > My next question is: If the same or similar
> interpolat
Bill wrote:
WR> My next question is: If the same or similar interpolations to reduce the
WR> noise from the distance between pixels in a digital camera were used to
WR> reduce the grain noise in a scan from film, would this tend to level the
WR> playing field?
This is what a respected photogra
Mike wrote:
>>> Why would you expect the 60 and 1ds to be similar?
>>
>> Aren't they similar pixel count?
MJ> Similar? Six million pixels vs. eleven million?
It's the same pixel density and it's very likely the same chip,
only twice as big in 1Ds.
Servus, Alin
Pål Jensen wrote:
> > My next question is: If the same or similar interpolations to reduce the
> > noise from the distance between pixels in a digital camera were used to
> > reduce the grain noise in a scan from film, would this tend to level the
> > playing field?
>
> Yep. Galen Rowell used thi
- Original Message -
From: "tom"
Subject: RE: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
> Why would you expect the 60 and 1ds to be similar?
Aren't they similar pixel count?
William Robb
Ryan,
Thanks for sharing. I do some landscape, but mostly it has been
portrait/wedding stuff the last year or so. It is common for my
clients to order 16x20's or slightly larger. I have seen lots of
examples and heard from many who are doing work more like yours, but
not from those who are doin
Ryan wrote:
> I suppose I should say that my real issue is with folks who are
> continuing to take pot shots at digital cameras based on conjecture and
> complete lack of personal experience.
Hmmm.It is more like some claim digital is better than film without the evidence.
>Or think the
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Ryan,
I'm genuinely curious. There are not too many people out there with a
1DS along with a 67. What do you do with this equipment? There is
some serious money involved here. I would really be interested to
hear what you do and what type of equipment you use.
I do land
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
My only claim has been that I'm getting better results on my 1Ds than
with film in the 67, with the sole exception of APX25 in 1:100 Rod.
YMMV!
Mine
t?
Thanks,
Bruce
Monday, January 27, 2003, 2:53:52 PM, you wrote:
RKB> William Robb wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
>> Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The 14/32m
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Mine certainly does.
> FWIW, I have looked at the Canon D60 (I expect similar to
> the 1Ds)
Why would you expect the 60 and 1ds to be similar?
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
> My only claim has been that I'm getting better results on my 1Ds than
> with film in the 67, with the sole exception of APX25 in 1:100 Rod.
>
> YMMV!
Mine c
So where do RGB sensors fit into this? Chips read each color independently.
If the sensor is R and the next is G and the next B, doesn't that mean that the
distance between red sensor is at least twice their diameter? So at most, you sample
the red light on only 1/3 of the chip... unless you a
Alin Flaider wrote:
I'm afraid there's no hard evidence as of 100% fill factor. This is
rather a target figure for all manufacturers and it only takes a bit
of wishful thinking to jump to conclusions. The sad fact is that the
active part of the pixels only gets around 30% of the light.
M
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 27 Jan 2003 at 16:13, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
The only "interpolation" going on is to pull out the color channel.
Information isn't lost.
If you are shooting a scene illuminated by a red light source only one in 4
pixels will register an illumination value, information
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
The 14/32mb argument is a different one, IMHO. And in my experience
with the 1Ds, there's no way it's pulling in less information than
scann
On 27 Jan 2003 at 16:13, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> The only "interpolation" going on is to pull out the color channel.
> Information isn't lost.
If you are shooting a scene illuminated by a red light source only one in 4
pixels will register an illumination value, information is lost (except in t
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
> The 14/32mb argument is a different one, IMHO. And in my experience
> with the 1Ds, there's no way it's pulling in less information than
> scanned 35mm
I'm afraid there's no hard evidence as of 100% fill factor. This is
rather a target figure for all manufacturers and it only takes a bit
of wishful thinking to jump to conclusions. The sad fact is that the
active part of the pixels only gets around 30% of the light.
Microlenses, traps fo
esti-
Lähettäjä: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 27. tammikuuta 2003 21:02
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
No, not really. The huge majority of area on a ccd is sensitive to
incoming light, even more
Hello all, Brother Aaron would like to announce he
will provide a scan, with cheap film, and cheap
lenses, that the 67 will still rule. It will be ready
soon. Stay tunned.
__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen"
Subject: Re: Comparing digital to film
> William wrote:
>
> > My next question is: If the same or similar interpolations to reduce the
> > noise from the distance between pixels in a digital camera were used to
> >
On 27 Jan 2003 at 14:06, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> This is getting like the misinformation about edge fall off because the
> wells are too deep that we had last year. Where's that argument now? I
> still stand behind my yield statement.
>
> "Oh no, the sky is falling, and the camera is making up
William wrote:
> My next question is: If the same or similar interpolations to reduce the
> noise from the distance between pixels in a digital camera were used to
> reduce the grain noise in a scan from film, would this tend to level the
> playing field?
Yep. Galen Rowell used this for huge exh
s <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 27. tammikuuta 2003 19:11
Aihe: Re: Vs: Comparing digital to film
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
Nah - pixels have a threshold like film. And between one pixel and another pixel there is a gap, like film, only
I doubt it. Grain is most apparent in even tones, like sky areas. With
digital sensors adjacent sensors will have the same readings so it's
reasonable to assume that the gap has the same information. With film,
and the differences from spot to spot (the area to sample has to be
decided upon) it
It probably would.
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> - Original Message -
> From: "Raimo Korhonen"
> Subject: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
>
>
> > Suboptical distance? You must be kidding ;-) This
> kind of distances oc
Ryan wrote:
RKB> That gap is a suboptical distance- no information is "lost" between pixels.
Well, that very gap is bigger than the active area of the pixel and
very much responsible for the noise, and of course for loosing
information. As for "suboptical"... err, were you guys discussin
- Original Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen"
Subject: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
> Suboptical distance? You must be kidding ;-) This kind of distances occur
in microscopy, not in digital cameras. Why do you think the cameras
interpolate across the gaps?
This w
-
Lähettäjä: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 27. tammikuuta 2003 19:11
Aihe: Re: Vs: Comparing digital to film
>Raimo Korhonen wrote:
>> Nah - pixels have a threshold like film. And between one pixel and another pixel
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 27. tammikuuta 2003 11:51
Aihe: Re: Comparing digit
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This brings up a point which I've been wondering about lately.
A digital camera pixel is continuous tone. It measures the _intensity_
of the light that falls on it.
As I understand it, a single film "grain" or dye cloud or whatever it is,
is
> -Original Message-
> From: David A. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Comparing digital to film
>
>
> William Robb wrote:
>
> > One of the things I keep reading WRT how good
William Robb wrote:
> One of the things I keep reading WRT how good digital capture is relates
> to the lack of grain in the digital capture. I do have a problem
> understanding this. It seems to me that in order to have a "grain" free
> image, the capture would have to be a continuous tone device
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Pretend I'm from Missouri
So, they just butt right up to each other?
I've always envisioned an array, something akin to a CRT in reverse, where
the pixels are set in a screen of sorts.
William Robb<
they are in an array whose exact configura
On 26 Jan 2003 at 13:22, William Robb wrote:
> One of the things I keep reading WRT how good digital capture is relates to the
> lack of grain in the digital capture Specifically, what sort of image
> processing is being done to the image from the digital capture device to smooth
> out the spa
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
Subject: Comparing digital to film
>
> nothing. there isn't any reason because there aren't any gaps. pixels are
> not points, they are areas, just like film grains are.
Pretend I'm from Missouri
So, the
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Specifically, what sort of image processing is being done to the image
from
the digital capture device to smooth out the spaces between the pixels?
William Robb<
nothing. there isn't any reason because there aren't any gaps. pixels are
not point
Pixel smearing.
At 01:22 PM 1/26/2003 -0600, you wrote:
One of the things I keep reading WRT how good digital capture is relates to
the lack of grain in the digital capture.
I do have a problem understanding this.
It seems to me that in order to have a "grain" free image, the capture would
have t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Specifically, what sort of image processing is being done to the image from
> the digital capture device to smooth out the spaces between the pixels?
This info is just manufactured. If the capture sensor reads red next to me,
and I read red here, color everything i
digital cameras all have built in filters to sharpen,
noise reduction etc, nothing that you can't turn
around and do to a 35mm scan. Remember that th digitl
images are all processed in some way, a way tha can be
aplied to 35mm if they'd tell us exactly what they're
doing.
--- Bruce Rubenstein <[E
71 matches
Mail list logo
