Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Coffee - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dfd281ffc7e01bdc?hl=en
* ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c74cad4ac255f35?hl=en
* Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis - 8 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
* Pandigital Video Formats - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a4bd26fb3555536b?hl=en
* Webcam vs DSLR Target Field of View - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0a7b8fbb27d6247?hl=en
* Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
* Old Canon Lenses - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3326f6a583b4e980?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Coffee
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dfd281ffc7e01bdc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:58 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:qjlav4pomva6eqmojmsfj2ndt4ceinnv25@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:24:05 GMT, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> I've re-uploaded it. I think it just got corrupted during transfer.
>> Sometimes, my screen reader plays havoc with other apps, so it takes a
>> couple of trys to get it right.
>>
>> Hopefully it works this time.
>
> Nope, it's still a no-show as is the new "Those were the days".
>

Hmmm, my system is giving me a rough time tonight, so I think I'll just give
up for the moment, and try again tomorrow.

Thanks for checking it out for me, Asaar.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 3:59 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery

Hi Dudley, your site's running very slowly. The "coffee" photo didn't
even come up.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c74cad4ac255f35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 12:47 am
From: "Fred"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pdidneTb-YxgnmjUnZ2dnUVZ_h9i4p2d@giganews.com...
> Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in
> news:jb09v49aeql3e7vijm33ulahte7dclfau6@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
>> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>>
>>>nuff sed
>>
>> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
>> really into photography, why not have both?
>>
> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
> use a DSLR each and every time.
>
>
Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into photography",
just pretending to be!

If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time,
then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more
savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the
situation warrants it.

If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of
40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.

QED

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 1:07 am
From: Robert Spanjaard

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote:

>> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way
>> to use a DSLR each and every time.
>
> Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into
> photography", just pretending to be!
>
> If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the
> time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that
> the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete
> cameras when the situation warrants it.
>
> If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset
> of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.

And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious'
photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the
best known example of such a small system.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 3:02 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in
> news:jb09v49aeql3e7vijm33ulahte7dclfau6@4ax.com:

>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
>> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>>
>>>nuff sed
>>
>> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
>> really into photography, why not have both?
>>
> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
> use a DSLR each and every time.

Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:19 am
From: Bob Larter

Gary Edstrom wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:24:44 -0700, "NBC" <cbnbc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> More Megapixels=Better Digital Zoom
>>
>> Some P&S cameras have 10x to 24x optical zooms that you can add 4x
>> digital zoom too.
>>
>> Its nice to be able to analyze and frame a 40x or more stabilized image
>> in a bright 3 inch screen.
>>
>> Give me More Megapixels!
>
> There is a limit as to what can be achieved with technology in smaller
> and smaller sensors. It has to do with the laws of physics,
> diffraction, and the particle nature of light. The smaller the pixel
> sensor, the poorer a job it is going to do, even if perfectly
> manufactured, and no amount of technology can change that.
>
> It's like with telescopes: There is no limit to how much magnification
> you can achieve, but beyond a certain point, all you are doing is making
> a small fuzzy image into a large fuzzy image. This applies to even
> perfectly manufactured optics.

Nicely put.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 2:08 am
From: Hughes

On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <129bee1c-04ff-4f9d-bb6e-9b525c242...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
> > > > conversion!
> > > > Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
>
> > > "24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
> > > depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
> > > red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
>
> > Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
>
> it has a 12 bit a/d converter, or 36 bit rgb. higher end nikon and
> canon dslrs have a 14 bit a/d converter.
>

Ic. So the webcam has 8-bit for each RGB or

256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 Million Colors. That's good enough.

Canon 1000D (12 bit) has 4096 x 4096 x 4096 or

68.7 Billion colors.

I wonder how easy it is to detect between the 8-bit
16 million colors versus the 12-bit 68.7 billion colors
in a portrait picture.. Hmm..

> > After downloading a sample Canon 1000D picture, Irfanview
> > reports it as 24 bit per pixel too.
>
> was it jpeg?

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 2:32 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Hughes wrote:
[]
> Ic. So the webcam has 8-bit for each RGB or
>
> 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 Million Colors. That's good enough.
>
> Canon 1000D (12 bit) has 4096 x 4096 x 4096 or
>
> 68.7 Billion colors.
>
> I wonder how easy it is to detect between the 8-bit
> 16 million colors versus the 12-bit 68.7 billion colors
> in a portrait picture.. Hmm..
>
> H

You need to check exactly how many bits the Webcam has - the number of
bits /before/ the A-D convertor.

In a portrait, I think it would be very easy to detect quantisation in the
skin-tones in a linear 8-bit RGB image - remember that in digital cameras
the data is gamma-corrected, so that the lower bits represent steps which
are much less that 1/256 of the total signal.

David

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:13 am
From: Bob Larter

Hughes wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:38 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hughes wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, 9:07 am, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote in news:da9020ae-37aa-4583-87e3-
>>>> a03ec4bdf...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.
>>>>> 4" aperture Telephoto 1000mm focal length f/10
>>>>> webcam 1/4 inch CMOS 640 X 480 Sensor
>>>> I think I'm going to be sick. Now that cheap large sensors are here, even
>>>> the astronomical community isn't stupid enough to use 1/4" sensors with 8-
>>>> bit conversion for ANY images.
>>> I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
>>> conversion!
>>> Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
>> "24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
>> depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
>> red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
>>
>
> Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.

You'd be wrong then. ;^)

> After downloading a sample Canon 1000D picture, Irfanview
> reports it as 24 bit per pixel too.

That'll be a JPEG. I'm talking about RAW images (.CR2).

> Reading further. I think the 8 bit is the tonal range of the
> entire image.. meaning the brightness of all pixels
> only vary by 256 or the dynamic range.

In a JPEG, yes, but not a RAW image.

> The 24 bit in each pixel is just the Bayer result
> which seems to differ from the 8 bit A/D converter
> which belongs to the entire sensor and not the
> 8 bit in each color RGB.

DSLRs use either a 12 bit or 14 bit A2D converter.

> Or maybe the 8 bit A/D converter really belongs to
> each color RGB, can any sensor expert confirm?

As I've already said, webcams use (at most) an 8 bit A2D converter, but
DSLRs use either a 12 or 14 bit A2D converter.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:15 am
From: Bob Larter

nospam wrote:
> In article
> <129bee1c-04ff-4f9d-bb6e-9b525c242551@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
>>>> conversion!
>>>> Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
>>> "24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
>>> depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
>>> red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
>> Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
>
> it has a 12 bit a/d converter, or 36 bit rgb. higher end nikon and
> canon dslrs have a 14 bit a/d converter.

Exactly.

>> After downloading a sample Canon 1000D picture, Irfanview
>> reports it as 24 bit per pixel too.
>
> was it jpeg?

$5 says it was - ie; 8 bit only.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:24 am
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> []
>> Ic. So the webcam has 8-bit for each RGB or
>>
>> 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 Million Colors. That's good enough.
>>
>> Canon 1000D (12 bit) has 4096 x 4096 x 4096 or
>>
>> 68.7 Billion colors.
>>
>> I wonder how easy it is to detect between the 8-bit
>> 16 million colors versus the 12-bit 68.7 billion colors
>> in a portrait picture.. Hmm..
>>
>> H
>
> You need to check exactly how many bits the Webcam has - the number of
> bits /before/ the A-D convertor.

Hrm. There's no such creature as "the number of bits" until it hits the
A2D converter. ;^)

> In a portrait, I think it would be very easy to detect quantisation in
> the skin-tones in a linear 8-bit RGB image - remember that in digital
> cameras the data is gamma-corrected, so that the lower bits represent
> steps which are much less that 1/256 of the total signal.

Indeed.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:23 am
From: Bob Larter

Hughes wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>> <129bee1c-04ff-4f9d-bb6e-9b525c242...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
>>>>> conversion!
>>>>> Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
>>>> "24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
>>>> depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
>>>> red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
>>> Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
>> it has a 12 bit a/d converter, or 36 bit rgb. higher end nikon and
>> canon dslrs have a 14 bit a/d converter.
>>
>
> Ic. So the webcam has 8-bit for each RGB or
>
> 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 Million Colors. That's good enough.
>
> Canon 1000D (12 bit) has 4096 x 4096 x 4096 or
>
> 68.7 Billion colors.
>
> I wonder how easy it is to detect between the 8-bit
> 16 million colors versus the 12-bit 68.7 billion colors
> in a portrait picture.. Hmm..

It all depends on how you process the images. Shooting in RAW, I can
often pull brilliant images out of seemingly ruined low-light shots.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:34 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Bob Larter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> You need to check exactly how many bits the Webcam has - the number
>> of bits /before/ the A-D convertor.
>
> Hrm. There's no such creature as "the number of bits" until it hits
> the A2D converter. ;^)

Thanks, Bob. Arrgh! Of course. Now what did I mean to write......

Check to how many bits whe video is digitised, before it is converted to
JPEG where gamma correction may have taken place.

Cheers,
David

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 5:44 am
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> You need to check exactly how many bits the Webcam has - the number
>>> of bits /before/ the A-D convertor.
>>
>> Hrm. There's no such creature as "the number of bits" until it hits
>> the A2D converter. ;^)
>
> Thanks, Bob. Arrgh! Of course. Now what did I mean to write......
>
> Check to how many bits whe video is digitised, before it is converted to
> JPEG where gamma correction may have taken place.

That's better. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pandigital Video Formats
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a4bd26fb3555536b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 2:42 am
From: "83LowRider"

"Talal" wrote

> Yesterday I bought a Pandigital frame. I tried to load video files, but
> the frame always complains that the file format is not supported. The
> user's manual has that .AVI files are supported, yet there are no further
> details. The frame did not come with PC software and no PC documentation,
> but a very thin user's guide. Thanks.

Google the free app GSpot... drag any video file into the GSpot box and
it will tell you what kind of codec is used in the avi. Some 'players' will
not handle xvid, while divx is the more recognized. Find a file that works
in the frame, and take notice of the codec using GSpot.. Compare it to
the codec used in the non-working file.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:20 am
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Talal wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Yesterday I bought a Pandigital frame. I tried to load video files,
>> but the frame always complains that the file format is not supported.
>> The user's manual has that .AVI files are supported, yet there are no
>> further details. The frame did not come with PC software and no PC
>> documentation, but a very thin user's guide. Thanks.
>>
>> Talal
>
> AVI is a "container" format - what matters is what's inside.

True.

> Try
> converting to a non-compressed AVI format.

Well, it's a more complex problem than that. All AVI formats other than
RGB are compressed in one way or another. The OP needs to find out what
CODECs the frame supports (should be in the manual), & to convert to one
of them. MJPEG is a likely choice.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:26 am
From: Bob Larter

83LowRider wrote:
> "Talal" wrote
>
>> Yesterday I bought a Pandigital frame. I tried to load video files, but
>> the frame always complains that the file format is not supported. The
>> user's manual has that .AVI files are supported, yet there are no further
>> details. The frame did not come with PC software and no PC documentation,
>> but a very thin user's guide. Thanks.
>
>
> Google the free app GSpot... drag any video file into the GSpot box and
> it will tell you what kind of codec is used in the avi. Some 'players' will
> not handle xvid, while divx is the more recognized. Find a file that works
> in the frame, and take notice of the codec using GSpot.. Compare it to
> the codec used in the non-working file.

Good advice, LowRider. As I said in an earlier post. MJPEG might be a
good choice.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:29 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Bob Larter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Try
>> converting to a non-compressed AVI format.
>
> Well, it's a more complex problem than that. All AVI formats other
> than RGB are compressed in one way or another. The OP needs to find
> out what CODECs the frame supports (should be in the manual), & to
> convert to one of them. MJPEG is a likely choice.

I was trying to keep it simple, and hoping that an RGB non-compressed AVI
file would work.

"Should be in the manual" is true, but will it be? I mean, sometimes the
"manual" is about a single sheet of paper!

Cheers,
David

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:35 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:53:20 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Talal"
<titani@airmail.net> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Yesterday I bought a Pandigital frame. I tried to load video files, but the
>frame always complains that the file format is not supported. The user's
>manual has that .AVI files are supported, yet there are no further details.
>The frame did not come with PC software and no PC documentation, but a very
>thin user's guide. Thanks.

And if you look in the Technical Specifications table you should find
it says Motion JPEG (AVI).

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:56 am
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> Try
>>> converting to a non-compressed AVI format.
>>
>> Well, it's a more complex problem than that. All AVI formats other
>> than RGB are compressed in one way or another. The OP needs to find
>> out what CODECs the frame supports (should be in the manual), & to
>> convert to one of them. MJPEG is a likely choice.
>
> I was trying to keep it simple, and hoping that an RGB non-compressed
> AVI file would work.

There's only one or two non-compressed formats, & they're incredibly bulky.

> "Should be in the manual" is true, but will it be? I mean, sometimes
> the "manual" is about a single sheet of paper!

Very true.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:56 am
From: Bob Larter

me@mine.net wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:53:20 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Talal"
> <titani@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Yesterday I bought a Pandigital frame. I tried to load video files, but the
>> frame always complains that the file format is not supported. The user's
>> manual has that .AVI files are supported, yet there are no further details.
>> The frame did not come with PC software and no PC documentation, but a very
>> thin user's guide. Thanks.
>
> And if you look in the Technical Specifications table you should find
> it says Motion JPEG (AVI).

That'd be my guess too.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Webcam vs DSLR Target Field of View
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0a7b8fbb27d6247?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:10 am
From: Bob Larter

Hughes wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:31 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hughes wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 11:06 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hughes wrote:
>>>>> Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/111769165/original
>>>> I don't believe you. I think that photo was taken of a half-toned colour
>>>> image.
>>> What? It was taken at a distance of 3.8 meters from the target
>>> brochure with size of 7" horizontal, 5" vertical. Only the central
>>> portion can be seen using the 1/2" 640x480 webcam sensor,
>>> a Canon 1000D with 3888 x 2592 resolution can show
>>> image 6 times larger.
>>> I don't understand why you said you don't believe me and
>>> you believe the picture was taken of a half-toned colour
>>> image. You mean I print the scanned portion and take
>>> picture of it 1X at 5 inches away? No. It was at 3.8 meters
>>> away as indicated. The resolution is great because it was
>>> a 4" aperture, telephoto used was the 4" Russian Rubinar
>>> showned at:
>> Why on earth did you take a photo of a half-toned colour image?
>> For a better test, try photographing some text from the same brochure,
>> or something equally sharp.
>>
>
> I was trying to picture the colors via webcam to
> see how DSLR greater color fidelity can wipe it
> off the floor.

If you want to see that, photograph something natural, like a person, or
a flower.

> Anyway. I'm looking for resolution charts where
> I can download and print in laser (or inkjet) and
> use the lines per mm telephoto tests.

If you print a chart, it'll be cleaner if you use a laser, rather than
an inkjet.

> If you know
> where I can download it, let me know.

I'll see what I can find.
<Googles>
Here you go:
<http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html>
Download the PDF version of the test chart & laser print it.

> Or do I
> have to buy the charts completely printed by
> a more superior machine and not home inkjet
> or laser.. hmm.

You can, but it'll cost you plenty of money! A laser printed version
should be fine for your purposes.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:17 am
From: lastico

Hi,

What's the highest megapixels possible in APS-C
DSLRs before noise makes the quality bad... 20
Megapixels? 40 Megapixels? There will come
a time when the pixel sizes will match the point
& shoot department. Will DSLRs go back to 35mm
lens? What's the roadmaps for Nikon, Canon, Sony
in years, decades ahead?? What new technology
will produce 50 megapixels DSLR with lightweight
lens like the EFs. Or will DSLRs reach a certain
limit like 30 megapixels where the manufacturers
would no longer push it above but maintain it for
decades or centuries to come?? Or will new
pixel technology resistance to noise produce 120 Megapixels or even 1
Gigapixels and beyond?

lastico

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old Canon Lenses
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3326f6a583b4e980?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:02 am
From: pkd@removethis.iinet.net.au (PeterD)

Thank you Bob.

In article <49f54406$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>PeterD wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have come accross my old Canon EOS 1000, probably an early 90s model.
>>
>> What is has with it is a 35-70mm lens and 70-210mm lens both auto focus and
>> are EF lens.
>>
>> Can these be used with the modern Canon DSLRs?
>
>Yes, they'll work fine.
>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 4:02 am
From: pkd@removethis.iinet.net.au (PeterD)

Many thanks

In article <260420092229076910%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article
><49f50ec3$0$12580$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, PeterD
><pkd@removethis.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> I have come accross my old Canon EOS 1000, probably an early 90s model.
>>
>> What is has with it is a 35-70mm lens and 70-210mm lens both auto focus and
>> are EF lens.
>>
>> Can these be used with the modern Canon DSLRs? If so will look at selling
>> them or grabing an old 30 or 40D.
>
>canon autofocus lenses should work fine on a canon dslr. it's the old
>manual focus canon fd lenses that are paperweights.