rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* square negs - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
* life after Windows.... - 9 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* JPEG to PDF... lost of qualty - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e3f620bd2e0fe5e4?hl=en
* Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right - 3 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
* Help in decision....... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/77e07a7ea4b44ccd?hl=en
* Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage - 4 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
* Chew On This - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae708263e2981622?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:02 am
From: George Kerby
On 4/2/09 9:29 AM, in article gr2i8g$n4n$1@news.motzarella.org, "Stormin
Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I can't imagine any way that I would have known
> that. It's not likely a well known bit of information.
>
> Do you think that almost forty years later, I might not
> remember, even if I knew back then?
So back then, you made proof sheets? I'm trying to understand why you
thought that my suggestion was not valid, that's all...
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:33 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
Looking for typed logos, etc, on the edge is an excellent
way to orient negatives. Completely valid.
Yes, I made proof sheets back then. I also did enlargements,
and cropping, dodging, burning, etc. My reply is that I
don't know if the logo is correct, or reversed. And no way I
would remember, so many years ago.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5FA67D4.264B4%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
So back then, you made proof sheets? I'm trying to
understand why you
thought that my suggestion was not valid, that's all...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 12:16 pm
From: Bob Larter
erilar wrote:
> In article <49d4c7d1$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> erilar wrote:
>>> In article <49d443c3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>>> Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Posting the same message 5 times is also trolling.
>> No, it isn't. And 5 times isn't even spamming.
>
> Well, whatever you call it, posting it 5 times to 4 groups is impolite.
So is contributing to an off-topic troll thread that's messing up 4
different newsgroups. I was hoping that if people realised that they
were helping a notorious troll mess up a bunch of groups, they might
stop doing it.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:54 am
From: "Keith Willshaw"
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t3t9t4pie45qgmtpdfbds3nkrlu75p71jh@4ax.com...
> William Black writes:
>
>> Servers for most organisations tend to be specified in a project study
>> written by the senior engineer or am engineering consultant hired in for
>> the task, usually a Chartered Engineer in the appropriate
>> specialisation.
>
> A chartered engineer (or even a Chartered Engineer)? This must be Europe
> you're talking about, where credentialism rules.
>
>> The idea that they haven't heard of UNIX is laughable.
>
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of people working in IT who haven't heard
> of
> UNIX. I regularly meet people in IT who think that there are no
> mainframes,
> even tough 75% of business data processing in the world is carried out by
> mainframes.
>
Most of the people senior enough to specify such systems were in
the business long before Windows was an option and probably
leaned their trade on mainframes and minicomputers. I know I did.
I rather miss Primos , it was rather a nice OS with better security
and scheduling than any Unix system.
Keith
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:59 am
From: "Keith Willshaw"
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8vs9t493mh952d0dprfvq8ekk8nt3sdoa4@4ax.com...
> Keith Willshaw writes:
>
>> I have written software to do this in C#.
>
> There isn't any way to write software to do this, unless it's software
> that
> can read minds.
>
The question was about validating the choices for an API
> A program creates a file in C:\Data\stuff.dat. Is this file correctly
> named
> and in the appropriate folder or not?
Given proper design its trivial to write a program that does this. Hell even
in VB
its less than 6 lines of code.
I thought you said you were a programmer ?
Keith
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 12:00 pm
From: "Keith Willshaw"
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70t9t4lrrhe4ddqh4vgcbtk1mn9gb6g6fn@4ax.com...
> Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> How stupid are you? It's trivial to write a routine to check for a
>> valid filename. That's why Windows and Mac OS both check for valid
>> filenames before creating a file.
>
> That's not what I asked. I asked how to check if the file name is
> correct.
> That is, how does the OS know that the file is being created in the right
> place with respect to its purpose?
>
> For example, how does the OS know when the application is creating a
> configuration file and check that it is being put in a standard location
> with
> a standard name?
>
It looks in the registry oh dim one
Sheesh
Keith
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 12:08 pm
From: Roger Hunt
In article <0X7Bl.250753$Dz4.118353@newsfe20.ams2>, Keith Willshaw
<keith@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes
>"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:70t9t4lrrhe4ddqh4vgcbtk1mn9gb6g6fn@4ax.com...
>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>
>>> How stupid are you? It's trivial to write a routine to check for a
>>> valid filename. That's why Windows and Mac OS both check for valid
>>> filenames before creating a file.
>>
>> That's not what I asked. I asked how to check if the file name is
>> correct.
>> That is, how does the OS know that the file is being created in the right
>> place with respect to its purpose?
>>
>> For example, how does the OS know when the application is creating a
>> configuration file and check that it is being put in a standard location
>> with
>> a standard name?
>
>It looks in the registry oh dim one
>
>Sheesh
>
Mmmmm - I had a sheesh night before last. Yummy
--
Roger Hunt
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:20 pm
From: Mxsmanic
William Black writes:
> The term 'Microcomputing' is one used for hardware by most engineers.
So?
Microcomputing is computing with little computers.
> If there's one thing Gates and M$ have never been it's a hardware
> inovators...
So?
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:21 pm
From: Mxsmanic
Keith Willshaw writes:
> It looks in the registry oh dim one
How will the registry tell the OS the purpose of a file being created by an
application? What about operating systems with no registry?
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:23 pm
From: Mxsmanic
William Black writes:
> Your statement seems to imply that in the USA, a country where, in many
> places, engineers need a license to open up shop, this is unknown.
I don't know of any such requirement for preparing an IT project plan.
> Anyone who doesn't employ an expert for system design gets everything
> they deserve.
Sure, but you don't have to have credentials to be an expert (something that
Europeans find hard to understand, more so than Americans).
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:25 pm
From: Mxsmanic
Keith Willshaw writes:
> Most of the people senior enough to specify such systems were in
> the business long before Windows was an option and probably
> leaned their trade on mainframes and minicomputers. I know I did.
I wish that were true. In recent years I've had to deal with absolutely
clueless newbies implementing projects of this type. You can imagine the
disasters that ensue.
> I rather miss Primos , it was rather a nice OS with better security
> and scheduling than any Unix system.
I never used Primos, but I doubt that it could compete with Multics for
security.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: JPEG to PDF... lost of qualty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e3f620bd2e0fe5e4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:19 am
From: ray
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:48:26 -0700, nospam wrote:
> In article <73kaujFv2ookU8@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Please excuse my ignorance, but why would one want to make a PDF from
>> an image file? Why not just use the image?
>
> one reason would be if they're writing a paper and want to include a few
> images.
Then why convert to PDF first? I would think they would simply include
the images in the document.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 12:32 pm
From: Ofnuts
T. Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to put jpeg files into PDF. There is a lost
> of quality. Why and how to retain the original
> jpeg quality when seen inside PDF?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Parker
The first question is the size in pixels of the pictures, and the actual
print size you are tying to achieve with them...
--
Bertrand
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 1:56 pm
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
John McWilliams wrote:
> T. Parker wrote:
>>
>> Btw... the following is the original jpeg taken from google
>> free book. See how clearly you can zoom in the word "simple"
>> in the middle at 1600% zoom level:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/110863838/original
>
> Both are horrid. You should not be making JPEGs out of text.
The text itself is meaningless new age gibberish, but the JPEG encoding
of it isn't all that bad and could be better with optimised quantisation
parameters. JPEG can encode line art surprisingly well if you choose the
encoding quantisation matrix optimally. It is a bit weak with the
default photographic image encoding.
The reconstructed image would be even better if Xerox didn't have an
obstructive patent on the mathematical identity
X + (-X) = 0
The OPs original question is answered by interpolation or anti aliassing
depending on which literature you want to search. It effectively rounds
the corners of smooth curves and keeps text more legible.
But the IrfanView solution isn't optimal if you actually know "a priori"
that your target image is black print on mostly white paper.
Various non-linear methods are capable of obtaining up to 3x super
resolution depending on the signal to noise ratio although most of them
have been optimised for astronomy where the sky is black with a few
bright spots and nebulae.
Regards,
Martin Brown
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:06 pm
From: "Matt Clara"
"T. Parker" <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb768a51-0724-4946-9abe-906f49930458@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to put jpeg files into PDF. There is a lost
> of quality. Why and how to retain the original
> jpeg quality when seen inside PDF?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Parker
>
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't check the help files even
once.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:06 pm
From: tomcas
T. Parker wrote:
> On Apr 2, 5:18 pm, Bigguy <big...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>T. Parker wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>
>>>I'm trying to put jpeg files into PDF. There is a lost
>>>of quality. Why and how to retain the original
>>>jpeg quality when seen inside PDF?
>>
>>>Thanks.
>>
>>>Parker
>>
>>There are settings for image quality in Adobe Acrobat.
>>Set for high quality images (Press quality). This makes the .pdf files
>>much larger of course.
>>
>>Guy
>
>
> Oh I figured it out. The Adobe reads the jpeg as original
> quality. I was trying this software IrfanView in which when
> you try to zoom the image, there is no pixelization,
> the resolution keeps getting bigger. Do you know what
> the process is called? Know how I can integrate it in
> Adobe so that when I tried to zoom in, instead of
> pixalization of the original image, the software would
> fill it producing solid text files (I got from goggle books)??
> Thanks.
>
> Parker
What you are describing sounds like a vector format such as windows
metafile. Being that it's vector based and not raster based there is no
pixelization at high zoom. It's a great format for inserting drawings
into office documents and has a very small file size.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:23 am
From: Twibil
On Apr 2, 8:10 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> You see the USA is not only not seen as the worlds number 1 but not
> particularly essential or needed my many parts of the world. Especially
> by the super powers.
My, your delusions are particularly colorful today!
Are you off your meds entirely or did you perhaps double up by
accident?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:53 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Atheist Chaplain added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
> my apologies, As I am not American I didn't know there was more
> than one. and the 50's was before I was born :-)
If you're not an American, you anarchist atheist fool, stay the Fuck
out of discussions of American freedoms, protections, and rights. As
I recall, you're what, a Canuck or Limey or what? Quote me the
equivalent document that is the same for your as our Consitution and
Bill of Rights is to us. Try, but you cannot as it does not exist.
So, go back with your Socialist loon pals like those assholes
painting themselves with theatrical blood to make it look like the
London police are beating them. You don't deserve to even engage in
comments about a truly free country with BY FAR, the most productive
economy the world has every know.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:58 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
> Well it is going to get less so now Obama is in.
>
> the question at G20 is can Obama repair the damage done by Bush
> (who was all but ignored at the last meeting) and is it worth
> including the US in any recovery plan.....
>
> You see the USA is not only not seen as the worlds number 1 but
> not particularly essential or needed my many parts of the world.
> Especially by the super powers.
>
And the Far Left Loon speaketh of which he not not. Hey, pay, take a
look at what the racist and Marxist Loon in the White House is
attempting to do - create a world regulatory agency based on the IMF,
allow our economy to be ruled from the European Socialist sphere, and
give up our currency to the IMF. Take a look at the stock market
today, right at the time when the president started to lie - again -
about his agenda - the market tanked. And, take a LONG look at what
the rest of the G20 Loons are saying. France and Germany told Obama -
and Brit PM Gordon Brown - to much off, and even the Chinks think
they can lecture the United States on capitalism. And, all of this
after less than 3 months of the Obamanation being in office. Sorry,
pal, but Hussein can no longer claim that he inherited an economic
mess - what has happened since January 20th is on HIS watch, as is
the new military action in Afganistan.
And, "man-caused disasters" instead of "terrorist attacks" and
"overseas contingency actions" instead of "war on terror"? Where on
God's Green Earth do you Far Left Loons even come up with such
nonsensical politcally correct euphemisms for the truth?!
--
Jerry, aka HP
"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help in decision.......
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/77e07a7ea4b44ccd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 11:20 am
From: fm1118@webtv.net
I can not make up my mind between a Nikon Coolpix P90 and a Canon SX10
IS.
It will be used for family, travel and wildlife
photography.........hence the need/want for the long zoom.
The specs for both are close, and the price favors the Canon.
Thanx in advance for any reasons or suggestions as to choosing one over
the other.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:15 pm
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
John McWilliams wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> dan c. wrote:
>>>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
>>>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
>>>>> compression that is generating the size difference.
>>>
>>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
>>> being equal.
>>
>> How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
>>
>> Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file
>> size.
>
> My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
> by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
> compression of the RAW data causes this?
Very likely. If it was truly pure uncompressed raw then it would be some
random header length + sensor sites*measured_bits_per_pixel/8 long every
time. Traditional raw files in the early days were one byte per sensor
pixel + header. These days some are 12bits per pixel and then losslessly
compressed because CPUs are a lot faster now.
It is possible to use lossless data compression on images (or even on
executables). You get back the identical binary image.
At the simplest level the previous line of the image is quite a good
predictor of the next one. PNG and some other formats exploit this
adjacent pixel image data redundancy and then do lossless compression
LZH or similar on the residuals.
Regards,
Martin Brown
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:16 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <gr2obo$cuo$3@reader.motzarella.org>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> writes
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> dan c. wrote:
>>>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
>>>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
>>>>> compression that is generating the size difference.
>>>
>>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
>>> being equal.
>> How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
>> Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file
>>size.
>
>My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
>by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
>compression of the RAW data causes this?
>
Yes - compression can be lossless.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:16 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <Oc2dneCgCbd4RU7UnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
>>claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
>
>Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
>usual) idiotic presentation.
>
>Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners scan
>beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or simply
>out of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting uncompressed
>file.
>
>Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13 -
>14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of the
>scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word
>ordering and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they
>might not be compressed out if they are not constant.
>
The mistake here is that you are talking about dynamic range of the
film, not of the resulting image. Some film, eg. Kodachrome, has a
dynamic range which can easily exceed 16 linear bits. The emulsion
itself does not have that dynamic range in sensitivity, but the
resulting image has. On the other hand, some film has the 12-13
equivalent bits of sensitivity compressed into a dynamic range of only
around 8-bits (eg. most C-41 negatives).
>Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
>further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
>does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100
>and higher films.
>
However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
scanners, especially with high contrast images.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:17 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <gr0k9k$5gv$1@reader.motzarella.org>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> writes
>dan c. wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and the
>>> 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the compression
>>> that is generating the size difference.
>
>This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
>being equal.
>
If the files are uncompressed then they will be the same size - even if
one of them is ONLY noise. What I said is CORRECT. It is the
compression that generates the file size difference
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chew On This
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae708263e2981622?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:45 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
Thought I'd try something different.
I put the XSi on a gorrilla pod and placed it in front of Mich, and then I
used a remote shutter release to trigger the shots.
I had the camera set to "A-DEP," letting the camera choose the DOF / shutter
speed.
With this configuration, I was able to spend more time lining up the shot,
and was able to trigger the release as soon as things felt right.
How did it work?
My daughter trimmed the cropped shot.
Chew On This:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw-cropped-small.jpg
(cropped image, quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw-cropped.jpg
(cropped image)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw-small.jpg (bw,
quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw.jpg (BW, full
size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-colour-small.jpg
(colour, quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-colour.jpg
(colour, full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis.cr2 (original RAW
image)
Can anyone suggest a better cropping?
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
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