rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Rechargable batteries - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b45617abfbf5918?hl=en
* I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/039ba0e9c2e42cfb?hl=en
* Slideshow question - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7096cb56447df3eb?hl=en
* Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough - 8 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
* Help with Photoshop Elements... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4d4d11bb6cb7e88?hl=en
* Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
* Photo editing software that mimic in-camera processing - is there any
available? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7881ad409dd0d159?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rechargable batteries
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b45617abfbf5918?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 8:51 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
Been using Duracell NiMH, 2650 miliamp rating. Use them in
my mini mag, and digital camera. Problem is.... that if I
don't put fresh ones in my camera every morning, that the
camera either doesn't work, or fails after very few
pictures.
Do Energizer (or some other brand) work better?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:14 am
From: Marvin
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Been using Duracell NiMH, 2650 miliamp rating. Use them in
> my mini mag, and digital camera. Problem is.... that if I
> don't put fresh ones in my camera every morning, that the
> camera either doesn't work, or fails after very few
> pictures.
>
> Do Energizer (or some other brand) work better?
>
How old are the batteries. They don't last forever. After
many recharges, they act as you describe.
I'm now using Imedion NiMH batteries that I bought from
thomasdistributing.com. They loose their charge much more
slowly than the older type of NiMH batteries. They can go
for months on the shelf before they have to be recharged.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:16 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
I don't remember how old. At least a year. I've got a bunch
of the Duracell 2650, which I rotate in random order. It's
very possible they are just used up, and not holding a
charge.
How would I test them for capacity and such?
I've heard the Eneloops are good for long term storage. But,
for storage batteries I use alkalines. Thanks for the
thoughtful reply.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Cxaul.2789$%u5.938@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
How old are the batteries. They don't last forever. After
many recharges, they act as you describe.
I'm now using Imedion NiMH batteries that I bought from
thomasdistributing.com. They loose their charge much more
slowly than the older type of NiMH batteries. They can go
for months on the shelf before they have to be recharged.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 10:34 am
From: George Kerby
On 3/12/09 11:16 AM, in article gpbchm$bl2$1@news.motzarella.org, "Stormin
Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't remember how old. At least a year. I've got a bunch
> of the Duracell 2650, which I rotate in random order. It's
> very possible they are just used up, and not holding a
> charge.
>
> How would I test them for capacity and such?
>
> I've heard the Eneloops are good for long term storage. But,
> for storage batteries I use alkalines. Thanks for the
> thoughtful reply.
Try Delkin from Thomas Distributing. Only 2300, but will retain charge much
longer, and have a nice warranty.
Thomas is tops in batteries. Nice guy, too.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:38 am
From: tnom@mucks.net
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:51:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Been using Duracell NiMH, 2650 miliamp rating. Use them in
>my mini mag, and digital camera. Problem is.... that if I
>don't put fresh ones in my camera every morning, that the
>camera either doesn't work, or fails after very few
>pictures.
>
>Do Energizer (or some other brand) work better?
What camera?
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:58 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
In article <Cxaul.2789$%u5.938@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> wrote:
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> Been using Duracell NiMH, 2650 miliamp rating. Use them in
>> my mini mag, and digital camera. Problem is.... that if I
>> don't put fresh ones in my camera every morning, that the
>> camera either doesn't work, or fails after very few
>> pictures.
>>
>> Do Energizer (or some other brand) work better?
>>
>How old are the batteries. They don't last forever. After
>many recharges, they act as you describe.
>
>I'm now using Imedion NiMH batteries that I bought from
>thomasdistributing.com. They loose their charge much more
>slowly than the older type of NiMH batteries. They can go
>for months on the shelf before they have to be recharged.
Old batteries don't need a lot of cycle use to be bad.
I have not found NiMh to be long lived.
greg
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:56 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
I caught a typo:
"Holds charge better than any other rechargeable over time,
even when sitting idol in a device. "
Buddha batteries? But.... it passed the spell checker!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5DEB1E9.247A7%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
On 3/12/09 11:16 AM, in article
gpbchm$bl2$1@news.motzarella.org, "Stormin
Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't remember how old. At least a year. I've got a
> bunch
> of the Duracell 2650, which I rotate in random order. It's
> very possible they are just used up, and not holding a
> charge.
>
> How would I test them for capacity and such?
>
> I've heard the Eneloops are good for long term storage.
> But,
> for storage batteries I use alkalines. Thanks for the
> thoughtful reply.
Try Delkin from Thomas Distributing. Only 2300, but will
retain charge much
longer, and have a nice warranty.
Thomas is tops in batteries. Nice guy, too.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 12:03 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
I did have a look. That's a fair price for batteries. Now,
some thinking. Nice to have stuff that works. Got to look at
my finances, and see if I can justify the money.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5DEB1E9.247A7%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
Try Delkin from Thomas Distributing. Only 2300, but will
retain charge much
longer, and have a nice warranty.
Thomas is tops in batteries. Nice guy, too.
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 12:04 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
Panasonic Lumix, LS-70. Takes two AA cells.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
news:gllir41vnt0chbp28idornbf4mnr5kq33v@4ax.com...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:51:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
>my mini mag, and digital camera. Problem is.... that if I
>Do Energizer (or some other brand) work better?
What camera?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/039ba0e9c2e42cfb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 8:56 am
From: "David Ruether"
"Darrell A. Larose" <ad607@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:gpb31k$3o1$1@aioe.org...
>I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory)
>base and a warm tone. Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>
> Darrell Larose
> Photo Technician
As a printer who enjoyed brilliance and sharpness in prints,
I detested that "bubbly-surfaced" black-and-white-free paper
that made everything look like the prints had aged badly - and
I could never figure out why anyone would want to use it...! 8^)
--DR
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:22 am
From: George Kerby
On 3/12/09 10:56 AM, in article gpbbc4$hgf$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu, "David
Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Darrell A. Larose" <ad607@ncf.ca> wrote in message
> news:gpb31k$3o1$1@aioe.org...
>
>> I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it
>> was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory)
>> base and a warm tone. Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>>
>> Darrell Larose
>> Photo Technician
>
> As a printer who enjoyed brilliance and sharpness in prints,
> I detested that "bubbly-surfaced" black-and-white-free paper
> that made everything look like the prints had aged badly - and
> I could never figure out why anyone would want to use it...! 8^)
> --DR
>
>
That's why there is more than vanilla...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Slideshow question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7096cb56447df3eb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:02 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Mark Roberts wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Mark Roberts wrote:
>> []
>>> There is. You place your image into the PowerPoint "slide" as a
>>> background image. When you run the presentation it displays as full
>>> screen, though you'll have black areas left/right or top/bottom if
>>> your image doesn't match the aspect ratio of the screen (but that's
>>> preferable to either cropping or stretching, IMO).
>>
>> That's an excellent suggestion, Mark. Only one snag with my
>> PowerPoint 2000 - the image is resized to fill the 4:3 aspect ratio
>> of the slide, so the image aspect ratio is lost. I guess your PP is
>> a more recent version, or is there an option I've missed?
>
> Actually, my home computer has PowerPoint 1997!
> But it behaves exactly as you describe - I didn't notice at first
> because I used an image that was 3:4 aspect ratio to begin with *and*
> (thankfully) PowerPoint doesn't do any further stretching when you
> display the finished presentation on a widescreen monitor.
>
> So the solution in PowerPoint, it seems, is for you to do your own
> cropping & resizing to get your image into a 3:4 aspect ratio and
> *then* use it as a background image.
>
>> BTW: I did write my own very simple SlideShow program:
>> http://www.satsignal.eu/software/imaging.html#SlideShow
>
> Interesting. I'll have a look.
In Powerpoint 2003 and 2007 one can just "insert picture" then drag it
around however one wants to and resize however one wants to--to resize while
not changing aspect ratio use one of the corner buttons to resize rather
than one in the center of an edge. No need to make it a background.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:58 am
From: "David J Taylor"
J. Clarke wrote:
[]
> In Powerpoint 2003 and 2007 one can just "insert picture" then drag it
> around however one wants to and resize however one wants to--to
> resize while not changing aspect ratio use one of the corner buttons
> to resize rather than one in the center of an edge. No need to make
> it a background.
Same in earlier versions, but it would be neater if you could even avoid
the resizing and positioning.
I'm surprised someone hasn't come along and told us how Open Office can,
of course, do this and far more. Even if it can, it makes a right mess of
importing TIFF files, getting them far too dark. Check before using.
Cheers,
David
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:35 am
From: "J. Clarke"
David J Taylor wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> []
>> In Powerpoint 2003 and 2007 one can just "insert picture" then drag
>> it around however one wants to and resize however one wants to--to
>> resize while not changing aspect ratio use one of the corner buttons
>> to resize rather than one in the center of an edge. No need to make
>> it a background.
>
> Same in earlier versions, but it would be neater if you could even
> avoid the resizing and positioning.
Best bet, of course, is to size to the resolution of the monitor you're
going to be using, if you have that information. But someone on the road
doing presentations with client-provided projectors doesn't usually have
that luxury.
> I'm surprised someone hasn't come along and told us how Open Office
> can, of course, do this and far more. Even if it can, it makes a
> right mess of importing TIFF files, getting them far too dark. Check
> before using.
Just for hohos tried it with OpenOffice and it works pretty much the same
way that Powerpoint does, with JPEGs anyway.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:52 am
From: Marty Fremen
Mark Thomas <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> T.Adler wrote:
> (the usual Keoeeit abuse)
>
> Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
> aware of his background.
Nevertheless what he said about the impact of the OM1 is correct. Whilst
Olympus were not unknown in photography circles, this was their first
venture into SLRs and their compact SLR system took the world by storm and
ended up being copied by every other SLR manufacturer.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:54 am
From: Get lost
In two years, the bare entry level 1.5 crops will be 15 megapixels. FF
will be at least 18. Olympus will be further back. Which is a shame,
since their lenses are most able to handle more pixels, especially at
the edge because of their high correction and proper design.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 9:56 am
From: "Michael Benveniste"
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> A 48MP 24x36mm sensor works out to about 120 lp/mm. The Rayleigh
>> diffraction limit for 50% MTF at f/8 is about 86 lp/mm for 550nm light.
>> For red light at 120 lp/mm, you need to open up to f/4.5 or so.
>
> Is you math's wrong somewhere? The standard approximation for MTF50 is
> 800/(f number), which gives 100 lp/mm for f/8. Hmm. Same ballpark, I
> guess.
I think my math is OK, but my source is debatable. I've been using
a constant of 0.38 as described here:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
Puts gives 94 lp/mm for f/8 and 555nm, so the "same ballpark" may cover
it.
> In real life, f/16 produces lovely sharp images on the 5D, so f/8 should
> produce similar lovely sharp images on a 4 times as dense sensor, i.e.
> 48MP.
The majority of subjects do not require pixel-level sharpness. I
think that's Mr. Watanabe's point.
>> In practice, people like Erwin Puts found that even 100 lp/mm was very
>> difficult to achieve even under laboratory conditions. Eventually, focus
>> accuracy and vibration become the gating factors rather than the
>> sensor or lens.
>
> On the other hand, Zeiss claims to have achieved over 200 lp/mm on film
> with a production lens and a real (not test chart) subject. (Although on a
> discontinued film.)
The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
but not really for "most applications most customers need."
> If you think of things in terms of total image resolution, the large
> format folks regularly produce a lot more than 48MP, so I think Erwin Puts
> is getting it quite wrong (his difficulties are probably due to the low
> MTF of his sensor (film) at 100 lp/mm).
Mr. Puts was using slow black and white film in 35mm format, which
should have been able to easily reach that 100 lp/mm mark.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/Film/page35.html
Paraphrasing a bit, there's no substitute for square millimeters. :-).
48MP on 4x5" film works out to about 31 lp/mm, which is a lot easier
to achieve. One is typically not worried about handheld induced
camera shake nor mirror slap with a large format camera either.
> Decide how big you want to print and what resolution you need to retain
> the impression of detail at your customers' closest viewing distance, and
> that'll give you your required MP count. Can your customers tell the
> difference between 240 ppi and 300 ppi at 10"?
Virtually all of photography, including depth of field calculations,
are based on the acuity and field of vision of the Mark I eyeball.
But you're actually asking a two-part question.
1. Can the customers can detect the difference?
2. Whether they can detect it or not, are they
willing to pay more for the higher resolution?
I call this second issue the "Monster Cable" question. But thinking
about 4/3rds again, it may be that Mr. Watanabe isn't all that
concerned about the pro market.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 10:21 am
From: SMS
Bruce wrote:
> Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <K4Ztl.8588$jZ1.1386@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>
>>> To get true wide angle on a 4:3 camera requires a Olympus 7-14 f4 Zuiko
>>> lens at about $1700, versus about $650 for a Canon or $850 for a Nikon
>>> wide angle zoom.
>> But the 7-14 is of extremely high quality, much better than comparable
>> Canon or Nikon lenses. Also the telecentric design delivers better
>> results.
>
>
> That lens might be superb, but it may never get the chance to deliver
> images of more than 12 MP because of the limitations of Four Thirds.
It's a good lens because to deliver similar results with the smaller
sensor it has to be. That's one advantage of a larger sensor.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 10:25 am
From: SMS
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> My old Miranda still works perfectly bought it in the late 60's.
> Interestingly I had to get it cleaned about a year ago. No one would
> touch it because of its age, until I found a guy working in an antique
> shop with antique cameras, who did a great job.
I still use my Olympus XA!
It's just too bad that Olympus didn't leverage their existing SLR base
and continue with the same mount, rather than coming out with 4:3.
If you look at 4:3 as a competitor, size-wise, to ZLRs, rather than a
competitor, quality-wise, to digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or
Sony, there is definitely a value proposition for 4:3. You can get the
tremendous advantages of an SLR over a P&S at about the same size as a
ZLR, you just can't get the quality of an APS-C or full frame D-SLR.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 10:47 am
From: Bruce
Marty Fremen <Marty@fremen.invalid> wrote:
>Mark Thomas <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> T.Adler wrote:
>> (the usual Keoeeit abuse)
>>
>> Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
>> aware of his background.
>
>Nevertheless what he said about the impact of the OM1 is correct. Whilst
>Olympus were not unknown in photography circles, this was their first
>venture into SLRs and their compact SLR system took the world by storm and
>ended up being copied by every other SLR manufacturer.
Far too much hype there. Olympus made two SLRs before the OM Series.
There was the Pen F/FT series of 35mm half frame SLRs, whose lenses had
already earned Olympus quite a reputation by the time the OM-1 appeared.
Then there was the Olympus FTL, a 35mm full frame SLR with the M42 screw
mount.
But yes, the small OM-1 SLR was indeed something new. It was originally
called the M-1 and the system of cameras, lenses and accessories was
known as the M System. Not surprisingly, Leica were not happy about
this and threatened legal action.
So, after some cameras and lenses had already been sold with the M-1 and
M System designations, Olympus changed the name of the system to OM, and
the camera became the OM-1. The few remaining M-1 cameras and M lenses
are collector's items.
There is no doubt that the OM-1 inspired small SLRs from other
manufacturers - the Pentax ME and MX, and the Nikon FE and FM. But
Olympus never managed to challenge Nikon for the professional market.
Yes, a few pros used the Olympus outfits that had been given to them
free of charge, but very few actually bought them with their own money.
The OM System was more popular with enthusiastic amateurs.
Here in the UK, the iconic fashion photographer David Bailey was
employed by Olympus UK to advertise the OM System. But he never used
the OM System for his own work. He used, and still uses Hasselblad gear.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:45 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <BAbul.26015$ZP4.22766@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
> If you look at 4:3 as a competitor, size-wise, to ZLRs, rather than a
> competitor, quality-wise, to digital SLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or
> Sony, there is definitely a value proposition for 4:3. You can get the
> tremendous advantages of an SLR over a P&S at about the same size as a
> ZLR, you just can't get the quality of an APS-C or full frame D-SLR.
There is not much size difference between a 4/3 sensor and an APS-C
sensor.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:49 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> In real life, f/16 produces lovely sharp images on the 5D, so f/8 should
>> produce similar lovely sharp images on a 4 times as dense sensor, i.e.
>> 48MP.
You've changed the subject below, so I'll reiterate it here. The experience
here is that moving from 12 to 21MP, I'm not having significant difficulties
getting sharp images. I wasn't expecting IS (on the 70-200/4.0 IS) to work,
but it coughs up lovely sharp images. The 17-40/4.0 used to be OK at f/16 on
the 5D, but is mush on the 5DII, but with work, I'm getting sharp images
with the 12-24.
So I expect that the 12-24 won't fly on a 48MP camera, but that the new 17
and 24TSEs, the 50/1.4 (stopped down), and the 70-200/4.0 IS will. Maybe
I'll need to use more of a tripod more of the time. But 5D to 5DII was a
1.3x increase in resolution, and 21 to 48MP will be a 1.5 or 1.6x increase
in resolution.
It's a bit of an irritation to replace the old TSE with the new, but if the
CA is held down and its sharper and contrastier and covers a wider shift
range
> The majority of subjects do not require pixel-level sharpness. I
> think that's Mr. Watanabe's point.
Hmm. I can't think of any that don't<g>. It's not the subject that requires
or doesn't require resolution, it's the application.
His point is that most people don't make 13x19 and
larger prints, and that in fact, most consumers don't even make 5x7 prints.
So even 12MP doesn't really make any sense.
>> On the other hand, Zeiss claims to have achieved over 200 lp/mm on film
>> with a production lens and a real (not test chart) subject. (Although on
>> a discontinued film.)
>
> The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
> MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
> but not really for "most applications most customers need."
The image in question was of a clock tower, and they argued that it was nice
to resolve the numbers on the clock. That's pictorial photography...
>> If you think of things in terms of total image resolution, the large
>> format folks regularly produce a lot more than 48MP, so I think Erwin
>> Puts is getting it quite wrong (his difficulties are probably due to the
>> low MTF of his sensor (film) at 100 lp/mm).
>
> Mr. Puts was using slow black and white film in 35mm format, which
> should have been able to easily reach that 100 lp/mm mark.
> http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/Film/page35.html
A lot of that is straw man arguing there.
But I'm surprised he had so much trouble. TMX100 claims to be well over 50%
MTF at 100 lp/mm. Shoot at f/8 (MTF50 at 100 lp/mm), and he should have been
home free to at least 15% contrast on the film, at least in the center.
> Paraphrasing a bit, there's no substitute for square millimeters. :-).
> 48MP on 4x5" film works out to about 31 lp/mm, which is a lot easier
> to achieve.
Especially since
48MP would be 5656 x 8484 pixels, or 118 lp/mm. But you really only work at
70% of that theoretical resolution with a Bayer sensor, so that's 83 lp/mm.
> One is typically not worried about handheld induced
> camera shake nor mirror slap with a large format camera either.
Hmm. I wasn't "worried about" camera shake or mirror slap in the last
hundred or so photos I took: they were all taken on a tripod with the
mirror locked up.
>> Decide how big you want to print and what resolution you need to retain
>> the impression of detail at your customers' closest viewing distance, and
>> that'll give you your required MP count. Can your customers tell the
>> difference between 240 ppi and 300 ppi at 10"?
>
> Virtually all of photography, including depth of field calculations,
> are based on the acuity and field of vision of the Mark I eyeball.
> But you're actually asking a two-part question.
>
> 1. Can the customers can detect the difference?
> 2. Whether they can detect it or not, are they
> willing to pay more for the higher resolution?
>
> I call this second issue the "Monster Cable" question.
I actually use Monster Cables (actually some other brand of outrageously
expensive gold plated hardware cables). Not because they sound better, but
because cheaper cables are so shoddily made that they fail during
performance.
> But thinking
> about 4/3rds again, it may be that Mr. Watanabe isn't all that
> concerned about the pro market.
Exactly. Interestingly, I have acquaintances in the SF area who do fine art
work with the G1. But these are old 35mm blokes who don't mind a bit of grit
in their images.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with Photoshop Elements...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4d4d11bb6cb7e88?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 10:38 am
From: Pat
On Mar 12, 9:26 am, "Roy G" <roy.gibs...@virgin.net> wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:687ed58d-8dc1-4973-a898-f55f3a420f77@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 9:10 pm, samadams_2...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I have a drawing of a face that is looking not directly forward off
> > the page, but at a 45 degree angle from directly forward and directly
> > to the side. I would like to be able to change this face to looking
> > directly to the side (ie: right of the page), but am not a very good
> > artist. I see that photoshop has a "perspective tool", so I was
> > wondering if I could use this to accomplish this task. If not, is
> > there another photoshop tool that would accomplish this? Any advice,
> > and step-by-step instructions would be greatly appreciated.
>
> > Thanks
> > Sam
>
> I have a picture of my grandfather standing behind a cow, so I can't
> see his face. Can someone help me remove the cow so I can see what he
> looked like?
>
> What you need is the digital imaging software which they use on CSI.
>
> Roy G
You mean the software that takes the old security tape and allows you
to zoom in on a clipboard across the football field and read whats on
it? Yeah, that would be slick.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 10:59 am
From: Jürgen Exner
Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
speed dial.
Put the camera into mode P, S or M and the main dial will select the
shutter speed (the camera will automatically adjust aperture in P and
S).
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo editing software that mimic in-camera processing - is there any
available?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7881ad409dd0d159?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 12 2009 11:16 am
From: Pat
On Mar 10, 8:40 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if anyone can help me on this issue. In digital cameras, the
> images collected by the sensor are manipulated by the built-in
> software (the camera engineor processor) to develop a final image.
> What I am getting is whether this process can be done (or likely re-
> done) "outside" the camera afterward by image manipulation in a photo
> editing software. When you take a picture, you can take the image in
> manual mode (any combination of f/stop and speed, as long as it is not
> too extreme and becoming difficult to manipulate) and select the f/
> stop and the speed.
>
> My question is whether there is a photo editing software in the market
> today which can guide the user on changing the variation of the f/stop
> and speed as it is done in the camera as you automatically set the
> image when you take a picture. The EXIF data can tell you what f/stop
> and speed that were fired. Using these data, the software then can be
> manipulated by changing the speed and the f/stop of its combination.
> Example, the EXIF data indicated that the image was taken with F=
> 5.600 and speed of 1/100 sec = 0.010 sec.
> Instead of graduating scales or scale 1 to plus or minus 200 when we
> manipulate the editing sofware, is there software that show the F/stop
> and speed and as you adjust the image, you do it by , say, typing the
> F=5.610 and speed is changed to 0.012 sec. Is there such a software?
>
> What I am aiming is about using a camera manually, and play around
> with combination of f/stop and speed outside. Perhaps this is
> typically common, but I have never seen a software with that method of
> adjusting the image. It would even mid boggling if the software can
> also reduce light or add light on portion of the image, so that you
> can play around with contrast and sensitivity. I am sure that this is
> done, as I have seen my old paintshop software, in which I can add a
> beam of light artificially at one, two or many corner... just like
> adding studio light in a real studio. Or even better, the software
> can start doing sharpening/focusing in the image like the way Nikon
> does the 51 point focusing or more. It this can be done, is there any
> need to get a fancy camera with all the gizmo, if you can just shoot
> the old fashion way (in the old days, an ASA 100 film usually has a
> small piece of paper with instruction to take shots at F/5.6 and speed
> of 1/100 on cloudy day and increase the speed to 1/200 on sunny day or
> something lake that)?. Then, everything else will be done in the
> computer at home. Is this too far fetched? That's the way I used to
> take photos with my dad's old german camera over 40 years ago and you
> do not play much with f/stop and speed combinations (except as shown
> in the film box instruction). You just want to make sure that you
> focus correctly.
>
> Just want to hear any of your comments. Thanks.
The technology to take a picture after it occurs already exists. It's
just take someone to make a few camera mods.
Take any shutterless camera -- such as a video camera. It is always
recording info. Say you lag the writing by whatever instant you want,
say 1/10th of a second. You look through the viewfinder and push the
"shutter" button to take the picture. Instead of recording what you
see it would be no more difficult to record the image from 1/10th of a
second before. Bam. You have an image from before you pressed the
shutter button. In fact, such an option would be very helpful in
sports photography. Way too many people take a picture of the "big
hit" as it is happening which translated into after it has happened by
the time you react what you see. If you could go back in time 1/10th
or 1/25 of a second they might get better pictures.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment