rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Chew On This - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae708263e2981622?hl=en
* Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right - 6 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
* life after Windows.... - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage - 7 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
* JPEG to PDF... lost of qualty - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e3f620bd2e0fe5e4?hl=en
* square negs - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
* Color more difficult than B/W - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8a1c5817babb7ebb?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chew On This
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae708263e2981622?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
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
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 5:49 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-04-02 14:45:46 -0700, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> said:
> 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
Sorry Dudley, this one does not quite work.
The DOF issues are still a factor here. Way too shallow.
Your point of focus is Mich's paw, leaving his face and ears
unrecoverably out of focus.
This might be a technique which could work for you, however the focus
and DOF issues should be overcome first.
I know that your rationale is, you are presenting the image from your
point of view, but the focus issue is too distracting.
Keep at it.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 6:21 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009040217495844303-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-02 14:45:46 -0700, "Dudley Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> said:
>
>> 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
>
> Sorry Dudley, this one does not quite work.
>
> The DOF issues are still a factor here. Way too shallow.
>
> Your point of focus is Mich's paw, leaving his face and ears unrecoverably
> out of focus.
>
> This might be a technique which could work for you, however the focus and
> DOF issues should be overcome first.
>
> I know that your rationale is, you are presenting the image from your
> point of view, but the focus issue is too distracting.
>
> Keep at it.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>
Thanks, SD, I had hoped that, by using the A-DEP mode, the DOF issue might
be minimized, since the camera is supposed to keep the area covered by the
sensor points in focus. Either I didn't get the points over the area I
wanted in focus, or the A-DEP feature doesn't work that well when the
subject is fairly close to the camera.
I'll have to play around with it a bit to extend the DOF.
I checked out an on-line DOF calculator and ran some numbers through it. It
seems that my style of photography is going to be tough to meld with the DOF
characteristics of most lenses. I frame the best when the subject is close,
but the DOF gets really restrictive then. In order to get a better DOF, I
should theoretically move the subject farther away and zoom in. When in
tight, even the smaller apertures seem to have a tight DOF. Kind of a
chicken and egg thing.
I'll just have to keep juggling the numbers till I find a sweet spot / lens
combo that works.
Thanks, once again, for the feedback.
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
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 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 2:59 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BE19861B128DReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> 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
What is sort of interesting is that Canada's "rightwing" Prime Minister is
touting government stimulation.
Whatever happened to the Right's faith in the market?
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:43 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 2, 11:53 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
>
> If you're not an American, you anarchist atheist fool, stay the Fuck
> out of discussions of American freedoms, protections, and rights.
Of course, if we follow your train of logic to it's obvious -and
tragic- conclusion then it's obvious that *you* will no longer be
expressing any opinions about anyone or anything who's not American,
right?
After all; what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
> "If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
> Florida billboard
"If you or any members of your family have suffered from the cancers,
sterility, or serious birth defects that frequently result from the
poisons we've recently added to the environment, thank the idiots who
try to pretend that responsibility is a left-wing plot."
~Pete
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:48 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:210da692-99f0-4a2d-896b-cc7c9c0fc518@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 11:53 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
>
> If you're not an American, you anarchist atheist fool, stay the Fuck
> out of discussions of American freedoms, protections, and rights.
Of course, if we follow your train of logic to it's obvious -and
tragic- conclusion then it's obvious that *you* will no longer be
expressing any opinions about anyone or anything who's not American,
right?
After all; what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
> "If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
> Florida billboard
"If you or any members of your family have suffered from the cancers,
sterility, or serious birth defects that frequently result from the
poisons we've recently added to the environment, thank the idiots who
try to pretend that responsibility is a left-wing plot."
~Pete
"Freedom of speech" only applies to Americans?
Take Care,
Dudley
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 5:00 pm
From: "Atheist Chaplain"
"Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
news:89cBl.19730$Db2.16618@edtnps83...
>
> "Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:210da692-99f0-4a2d-896b-cc7c9c0fc518@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 11:53 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>> If you're not an American, you anarchist atheist fool, stay the Fuck
>> out of discussions of American freedoms, protections, and rights.
>
> Of course, if we follow your train of logic to it's obvious -and
> tragic- conclusion then it's obvious that *you* will no longer be
> expressing any opinions about anyone or anything who's not American,
> right?
>
> After all; what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...
>
>> "If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
>> Florida billboard
>
> "If you or any members of your family have suffered from the cancers,
> sterility, or serious birth defects that frequently result from the
> poisons we've recently added to the environment, thank the idiots who
> try to pretend that responsibility is a left-wing plot."
>
> ~Pete
>
>
> "Freedom of speech" only applies to Americans?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
thanks for replying to the obvious retarded fool for me Dudley, I didn't see
its delusional xenophobic ranting before as I have most .gmail posters
blacklisted (spam etc)
And while you are correct in your logic that if I am not allowed to express
an opinion about America, "Twibil" should also be excluded about expressing
an opinion about something he is not, but I'm sure "Twibil" is too stupid to
actually see the irony in that, unless of course "Twibil" IS an Anarchist
and an Atheist, there is of course no doubt to anyone that "Twibil" is a
fool though, so comments on that subject by "Twibil" should carry some
weight :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 5:46 pm
From: Fred@horizons.com
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:53:28 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>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.
Neither YOU nor the USA own the Internet, asshole.
> As
>I recall, you're what, a Canuck or Limey or what?
WOW what a fucking bigot you are... Where's YOUR family from? France? Germany?
>Quote me the
>equivalent document that is the same for your as our Consitution and
>Bill of Rights is to us.
Canada has a Bill of Rights that exceeds yours by a wide margin, they have a
Right to Life, you DON'T! You still have the death penalty, like only a handful
of backwards countries.
>Try, but you cannot as it does not exist.
Go back to school you stupid fuck brain. Look it up on the net you incompetent
idiot.
>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.
England has the right to protest... you don't??
>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.
Why has Canada performed BETTER than the USA in the current financial
situation???
Idiot! Go read a newspaper!!
Fuck you are one dumb bastard!!!!!
FUCK OFF YOU BIGOT REDNECK SHITBRAIN!!!!!!!
No one wants you here.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 5:53 pm
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
> unless of course "Twibil" IS an Anarchist
Careful there. If you listen closely, you will realize that the right in the
US are very much anarchists: they object to government doing anything (other
than wars), and are trying to destroy it. This is the very definition of
anarchist.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 3:10 pm
From: William Black
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:23:05 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.
Sophistry.
>> 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).
You mean you think YOU can do it but YOU don't have any qualifications.
Who ever employed you to design large systems, and when?
--
William Black
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 3:11 pm
From: William Black
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:20:27 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> William Black writes:
>
>> The term 'Microcomputing' is one used for hardware by most engineers.
>
> So?
>
> Microcomputing is computing with little computers.
Nope.
Dead wrong.
>
>> If there's one thing Gates and M$ have never been it's a hardware
>> inovators...
>
> So?
You implied that they did
--
William Black
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 3:19 pm
From: Alan Browne
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> 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
I don't buy that.
> itself does not have that dynamic range in sensitivity, but the
> resulting image has.
At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near black
(0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and Nikon
scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
> 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.
I said "most" not "all".
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:32 pm
From: Scott W
On Apr 2, 7:21 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed, & the file size will increase
> with increases in detail or noise.
>
And on at least some cameras the camera takes this into account when
estimating how many more shots can fit on a memory card, go from iso
100 to 1600 and the number of shot left will show less. A quick
test on my 350D shows 407 left at iso 100 but only 352 left at iso
1600.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:41 pm
From: Scott W
On Apr 2, 12:19 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
> might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near black
> (0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and Nikon
> scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
If you are scanning a negative then the dead black areas is where the
scanner over exposed the negative, once it is clips to the max value
there is no more shadow detail posible.
I use a Minolta, which has pretty brain dead software to it tends to
over expose negatives all the time. I had to scan as a positive and
then invert the image and play with the curves and color to get it to
look right. VueScan is a bit better but even there it is not prefect.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:48 pm
From: Scott W
On Mar 30, 1:04 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
> lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
> information is useless junk. When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
> and 48 bits, it generates huge files. But much of this is worthless
> (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. What the
> scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
> that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
> A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
> clouds, even the info for the garbage. For proof of this from a
> digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
> one at 3200 ISO. Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
> image and save them. Take a look at the file size. The grainy, high
> ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
> information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
> image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
> noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.
I don't know why this matters so much to you, but for what it is worth
I think you are correct.
It was a shock when I started scanning film that I could not compress
the images nearly as small as I could from my digital. With too much
compressing the noise in the sky went from annoying random noise to
disastrous jpeg artifacts. This was at a time when hard disk space
was not cheap and so it did matter, now who cares how large a scanned
image file is.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 5:49 pm
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I said "most" not "all".
Here, Provia 100F very much is "most films". It's available, processing is
available, it scans well, and it isn't going away. A lot of the film nuts
base their arguments on discontinued films, discontinued film scanners, and
"drum scans" that cost $40 per frame if you can find a scanning servive, and
will be messed up by the operator more often than not. But using Provia 100F
as the basis for a film argument is completely valid.
Every time I try another film I wish I had used Provia. In 6x7, it's
amazingly wonderful; near LF quality 12x16s and gorgeous 16x20s are like
falling off a log. Velvia 50 is grainier, Velvia 100F is so high contrast as
to be unusable (it's nice when it flies, though), and getting decent color
pop from C41 is rare.
But Provia 100F with real world images rarely, if ever, shows detail
significantly* beyond what a Nikon 9000 will get. This "desktop scanners
don't get everything from film" mantra is almost always film types trying to
insist, for example, that 35mm is better than 12MP FF digital, when it's not
even close.
*: Whatever you do, the Nikon 9000 will produce much nicer images from 39x52
mm of film (645 cropped to 2:3) than any technology will get from 24x36mm of
the same film.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 6:01 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article
<e064e179-139c-41f2-b090-33dc7e403138@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> writes
>
>And on at least some cameras the camera takes this into account when
>estimating how many more shots can fit on a memory card, go from iso
>100 to 1600 and the number of shot left will show less. A quick
>test on my 350D shows 407 left at iso 100 but only 352 left at iso
>1600.
>
The 5D is similar.
My point is that this is not an intrinsic consequence of the
higher/lower ISO, but of the "compressability" of noise.
--
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)
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 6:06 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <K76dnWC9F9lCpEjUnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>
>At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
>might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near
>black (0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and
>Nikon scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
>
If its "dead black" then it certainly exceeds the scanner's dynamic
range. It is "dead black" with the much older 10-bit LS-20 scanner. By
your "analysis" this shows that there is no more than 10-bits of dynamic
range at scan time.
You are misinterpreting (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) the
evidence!
--
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: 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 4:12 pm
From: "T. Parker"
On Apr 3, 4:56 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> 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 text came from
It's a free book that is written by Nobel Committee member Bjorn
Nordenstrom. All 368 pages are browseable. Check it out
and see if you would call it new age gibberish again. It's
cutting edge research.
>
> 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.
But how come CS Photoshop that costs thousands more can't
duplicate the smoothness produced by shareware IrFanview? All other
software produced the ragged edge text. But then in zooming,
isn't it that you simply magnify the image meaning whatever
is there in the original pixel is simply made bigger? IrFanview
could be doing something else to it extra like smoothing
the ragged edged that others don't. Maybe there is a function
inside Photoshop that can do the trick too? Also the IrFanview
output I shared is saved in jpeg from original screen capture
in bmp so it looks blur but the original capture is clearer.
To other posters questions why I'd love to put them in
jpeg. Well. In the world of e-book. PDF is the gem, so
naturally you want to put hundreds of pages of jpegs in
a neat single PDF file.
Parker
>
> 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
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:13 pm
From: Mark Thomas
T. Parker wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:47 pm, Mark Thomas <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> T. Parker wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 7:59 pm, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>> T. Parker wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> If it's as you report
>>>> it's called "a miracle"
>>>> BugBear
>>> Here's a screen capture of the difference.
>>> The following is from original jpeg zoomed to 1600% in
>>> Adobe Reader or Photoshop.
>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/110861624/original
>>> The following is from the program IrFanView.
>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/110861650/original
>>> The image is much smoother here. What feature is that
>>> called. Aliasing? Anyone?
>>> Also in movies, there is always shown a photo not clear
>>> and they did something that can bring out the image of
>>> the person. Maybe it has the same feature as the above
>>> Irfanview stunt?
>>> Parker
>> Interpolation.
>>
>> The ragged sample you posted has obviously used a very low quality
>> algorithm, like linear or nearest neighbour - how did you enlarge it
>> exactly?.. Whereas Irfanview used something like Lanczos (I'm
>> guessing?) which is a very intelligent interpolation algorithm.
>>
>
> The ragged sample was enlarged using Adobe Reader,
> even Adobe Acrobat doesn't show any improvement,
> nor Photoshop, Windows Photo Gallery, etc. Only
> IrFanView shows it much better. What other viewers
> use Lanczos? How come Adobe Reader doesn't use
> it when it deails with texts and reading material. The
> original jpeg in the pictures came off a page in google
> books. Even at slight zooming, the text using IrFanview
> is much clearer. Do you know how I can turn off the
> feature in IrFanview, the Lanczos thing?
>
> Parker
Why would you want to?
Adobe reader is a *reader* - it is not really designed for enlarging
stuff on screen, so it uses a crude algorithm. IrfanView, just like
Photoshop or any other decent image *editor* will use more sophisticated
methods to actually enlarge images (although, they may still use crude
methods if you are simply 'zooming', ie not changing the file).
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:26 pm
From: "T. Parker"
On Apr 3, 7:13 am, Mark Thomas <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> T. Parker wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 9:47 pm, Mark Thomas <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> T. Parker wrote:
> >>> On Apr 2, 7:59 pm, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> >>>> T. Parker wrote:
> >>>>> 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?
> >>>> If it's as you report
> >>>> it's called "a miracle"
> >>>> BugBear
> >>> Here's a screen capture of the difference.
> >>> The following is from original jpeg zoomed to 1600% in
> >>> Adobe Reader or Photoshop.
> >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/110861624/original
> >>> The following is from the program IrFanView.
> >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/110861650/original
> >>> The image is much smoother here. What feature is that
> >>> called. Aliasing? Anyone?
> >>> Also in movies, there is always shown a photo not clear
> >>> and they did something that can bring out the image of
> >>> the person. Maybe it has the same feature as the above
> >>> Irfanview stunt?
> >>> Parker
> >> Interpolation.
>
> >> The ragged sample you posted has obviously used a very low quality
> >> algorithm, like linear or nearest neighbour - how did you enlarge it
> >> exactly?.. Whereas Irfanview used something like Lanczos (I'm
> >> guessing?) which is a very intelligent interpolation algorithm.
>
> > The ragged sample was enlarged using Adobe Reader,
> > even Adobe Acrobat doesn't show any improvement,
> > nor Photoshop, Windows Photo Gallery, etc. Only
> > IrFanView shows it much better. What other viewers
> > use Lanczos? How come Adobe Reader doesn't use
> > it when it deails with texts and reading material. The
> > original jpeg in the pictures came off a page in google
> > books. Even at slight zooming, the text using IrFanview
> > is much clearer. Do you know how I can turn off the
> > feature in IrFanview, the Lanczos thing?
>
> > Parker
>
> Why would you want to?
>
> Adobe reader is a *reader* - it is not really designed for enlarging
> stuff on screen, so it uses a crude algorithm. IrfanView, just like
> Photoshop or any other decent image *editor* will use more sophisticated
> methods to actually enlarge images (although, they may still use crude
> methods if you are simply 'zooming', ie not changing the file).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Know how to use Photoshop to do the same thing IrFanview
does? I notice that in zooming using IrFanview, it is slower,
so many hard disc activity like maybe it's changing the file.
I wonder how to initiate it using photoshop to remove
the ragged edged. Anyone?
Parker
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 6:05 pm
From: "Matt Clara"
"Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
news:5N9Bl.131826$RJ7.85313@newsfe18.iad...
> "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.
>
I open the image and select Print and then choose to print to PDF. Go into
the printer setup, and then Properties, and select Edit to the right of the
Default Settings row, when that dialogue opens, choose Image, and turn off
all compression. It will likely INCREASE the size of your image file.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 6:23 pm
From: Chris Malcolm
T. Parker <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:
> But how come CS Photoshop that costs thousands more can't
> duplicate the smoothness produced by shareware IrFanview?
Because in that respect it's inferior to Irfanview. The idea that the
most expensive software is the best is a very profitable idea, which
is why so many salesmen work hard to convince their victims of it. But
in some cases even completely free software can give superior results
to anything you can buy at any price. But for obvious reasons no
salesman will ever admit that :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 4:26 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/2/09 1:33 PM, in article gr30ib$n9r$1@news.motzarella.org, "Stormin
Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
No Chris, it isn't reversed. It is as it should be when one is looking at it
correctly (dull side to the paper/scanner and shiny side up-like
automobiles). I guess I spent so many days in the darkroom that it is
imprinted on my brain.
Hey, I wasn't as bad as a co-worker who ate his lunch by the light of the
amber safelight.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Color more difficult than B/W
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8a1c5817babb7ebb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 2 2009 7:27 pm
From: "Mr.T"
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:VKudnXnUZYkT6UnUnZ2dnUVZ8jpi4p2d@posted.plusnet...
> In particular some scenes suit the old "high contrast" trick,
> which looks APALLING in colour!
> As taken:
>
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/contrast/colour_thistle.jpg
> Art?
>
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/contrast/bw_hc_thistle.jpg
Certainly B&W is easier to work with in the darkroom, but I'm amazed how
many people think simply desaturating a boring color picture can turn it
into "art"!
Quality B&W pics are usually envisaged, shot, and printed as such in the
first place. And printing quality B&W from digital files is more difficult
IMO.
MrT.
==============================================================================
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