Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:418482E4.7DE34413@aol.com...

> Go ahead. try to put a Leica lens on your little digital
> P&S. You'd just be wasting your money all all that good
> quality opitical resolution.

Actually, I had the idea of putting an F mount on a point and shoot, so I
could use it with my Nikkors.....It wouldn't be digital, but it might make a
pretty good camera.......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> In fact, David says that limiting resolution means nothing, and all that
> matters is MTF (contrast) at lower resolutions. I don't agree with him
> there; I think limiting resolution matters too because images do have
> high-contrast edges.

One might think that the high-frequency/low-MTF portion of film's response
curve contributed to improved edge rendition.

But this sounds quite iffy to me. The reason is that if you take the Fourier
transform of an edge or a square wave and _attenuate the higher frequency
components by 90%_, and then transform back, what you get is a signal that
looks not significantly different from a signal with no high frequency
components. The absolute magnitudes of the high-frequency terms in the
Fourier transform are quite small, but you can't attenuate them without
losing their effect on the shape of the signal.

Even worse, the high-frequency/low-MTF portion of film's response doesn't
extend very far in terms of octaves: it only extends two or three times the
50%MTF frequency. The high-frequency terms in the Fourier transform are, of
course, an infinite series, but the terms tend to be differ by multiples of
the fundamental frequency. So film chops that series in both amplitude and
extent.

Which is why I can't see any mechanism where that response would contribute
usefully to pictorial photography.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:n0b7o050grolkec8f3fbl7jed9clf34v7l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:59:19 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> >If digital photography isn't "light writing", every bit as much as film
> >photography, we have a real mystery on our hands as to what exactly these
> >digital appliances are really doing. <g>
>
> Creating digital files. Film is an analog medium which much
> higher resolving potential

Not per unit sensor area. Per unit sensor area, digital kills film. And the
grain noise is gross.

> and much higher image stability.

Film is archival until it meets with an accident: fire, flood, mildew,
sleeves held together with glue that breaks down in the summer heat. Parents
on a cleaning rampage.

Digital can actually be archived. It take work; multiple copies, checking
the data regularly, off-site storage (so the same accident doesn't take out
all copies). But at least it's possible.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <cm13tk$jpj$3@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> Film is archival until it meets with an accident: fire, flood, mildew,
> sleeves held together with glue that breaks down in the summer heat. Parents
> on a cleaning rampage.
>
> Digital can actually be archived. It take work; multiple copies, checking
> the data regularly, off-site storage (so the same accident doesn't take out
> all copies). But at least it's possible.

Ah I was waiting for a hapless soul to make mention of
those things, they apply to computers and compter equipment also.

Film however no one hits the delete key and makes it vanish. Or what happens
when you knoock over your laptop,...I drop negatives on the floor on ocassion
and have dropped my laptop,....the negatives fair far better.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:17:19 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>Film is archival until it meets with an accident: fire, flood, mildew,
>sleeves held together with glue that breaks down in the summer heat. Parents
>on a cleaning rampage.
>
>Digital can actually be archived.

Yeah and usually isn't. One of the many escalations I've
handled over the years was from a women who wanted my company to pay
for data recovery on her HDD. Seems that she had never backed up any
of the digital images on her system. She had bought a then
top-of-the-line 3MP camera and shot over 5000 images which were
transferred to her system. Her system was sold with a Iomega Zip
drive, a CD/RW drive and a floppy drive. In the two plus years that
she owned the computer she had never backed up a single file to a
removable media.

BTW, I'm not about to overlook the degradation of digital
media or the issues in dealing with long term storage. As I posted in
another thread I've recently upgraded my system with the addition of a
DVD/RW drive. I pulled up my archive of CD-R's and began the task of
copying them to my hard disk to transfer to DVD+R media. Many of the
disks were about 2~3 years old. They were created about the time I
purchased a decent film scanner and I scanned a lot of my slides in.
It follows that I still have most or all of the originals in storage.
Good thing as over a dozen of the CD's have images that were not
recoverable.

Also note that one of my concerns would be image format. What
file format will be common in 2034 ? Will a TIFF still be accessible
by the programs of the day ? Try opening a WordStar 1 file lately ? I
wonder what would happen if everyone migrated to another OS such as
Linux and all of those old Windows files extensions became
inaccessible ? I'm sure there will be data recovery services
available. For a LARGE fee.

Next, add in the constant upgrading to the computers and
softwares used to handle large amounts of digital images. Guess what
?! My darkroom was purchased in large part around 1993. There has been
no maintenance costs other than a $15 relay in one of my timers. It
will certainly be good for another 20 years.

It's like Greg stated, the only advantage to digital is the
convenience of availability. A poor trade for images of lower quality
and stability.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:53:54 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>If is is analogue. Why is there grainy salt and pepper marks all over
>pictures?

To much black light I guess ;>))

Just use a good film like TMX and most of those holes will
simply go away.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

jjs wrote:
> "BillyJoeJimBob" <bjjb@nowhere.antispam.com> wrote in message
> news😛ZCdnThVxcHSIh7cRVn-sQ@rcn.net...
>
>>[...]
>>Even if we were to consider the possibility that the authors were
>>speaking of RGB color, the term "emulsion layer" implies a single
>>layer (i.e. a single color channel), not three. There's no "three"
>>to multiply by in a single emulsion layer.
>
>
> NB: Modern B&W film emulsions are made up of more than one layer, so there
> is a multiplier.

In going back and re-examining the quote, it looks like the multiplier
possibility has more merit than I had originally thought. The authors
spoke of "a highly sensitive emulsion layer" and then finished the
sentence by referring to color film as a whole.

I agree that if we get about 8 million pixels in an emulsion layer that
color film will have approximate three times that many effective pixels
since the crystalline grain locations will not necessarily be coincident
between layers.

Now I'm a bit confused as to how the original text can be used to claim
24 million pixels in 135 format film. I had thought that the authors
were stating "ISO 400 135 format color film has 24 million pixels
because each pixel's effective area is 100 microns." In fact, they're
stating "each pixel's effective area is 100 microns because ISO 400
135 format color film has 24 million pixels." The two statements are
logical converses of each other and one does not imply the other.
Basically, the text is being used to show that 135 format color film
contains 24 million pixels because "these guys said so."

I've seen more than my share of peer-reviewed journal publications that
contain flat-out wrong information, so I can't use the quoted text as a
basis for conclusion.

I'm curious, since the effective pixels in the emulsion layers are not
spatially coincident, does this mean that film is more Bayer-like, more
Foveon-like, or more dithered-inkjet-like?

BJJB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> stated that:

><usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>news:7im7o0lhg67gtronlo602ara68dvist8rb@4ax.com...
>
>> Believe it or not, the way in which the human eye functions is much more
>> similar in nature to a digital camera than to a film camera. In fact,
>> it's even more like a digital camera that's cabled to a computer running
>> the kind of sophisticated pattern detection / feature extraction
>> software that the military types use to process satellite images.
>
>Lest the rest go astray on your statement: just because one can digitally
>simulate an analog device's _outcomes_ it does not mean the thing simulated
>is digital.

No, of course not. It's just the methods that are similar, not the exact
mechanism.

> Yes, you clearly understand that; I was stating it for some
>others.

I don't it'll make a difference to the guy claiming that image sensors
can't do multi-hour exposures, & that increased grain or reciprocity
failure don't count as 'quality loss' when you perform extreme exposures
on film, because he's a troll who's deliberately trying to turn this
dicussion into yet another film vs digital flameware.

[snip]
>the same physical space, we just might find that it is beyond the capability
>of our organics to be digital. Unitl we know that, I submit the eye's
>intelligence is analog. Are we okay with that?

Well, I certainly am. I'm saying that the mechanisms of a digital camera
are /analogous/ to those of the eye - I'm certainly not saying that the
eye is digital in any 1's & 0's sense of the term.

>> Conversely, the similarity between a film camera & an eye stops when you
>> reach the retina - [... snip good stuff...] And like a CMOS image sensor,
>> the eye does lots of the image
>> processing, such as feature-extraction & motion-detection, right there
>> in the retina.
>
>Well, FAPP CMOS is more discrete in its sensing than the eye.

Yes. Hence my analogy of a digital camera attached to an image
processing system. A CMOS sensor doesn't do anything as fancy as that
on-chip, (yet), but it does have the rudiments of that sort of
architecture, & as the state of the art continues to advance, the
complexity & power of the on-chip circuitry will lead to amazing
increases in functionality.
My personal prediction is that that complexity will show up first as
smart noise reduction or dynamic range enhancement, & that it'll
'evolve' towards (for example), digital binoculars with motion-detection
& edge-enhancement systems built right into the sensor.

> Oddly, the
>human eye is blind to parts of the contiguous range of colors depicted as
>"visual light". It does some amazing things to conjur up, for example, a red
>object in a dominantly green scene, and is blind to parts of the spectrum we
>conceive as violet(s), and cannot - regardless of training - differentiate
>certain tones when certain combinations of colors are shown. It is so
>complex that it never ceases to amaze that the human eye evolved.

Speaking from an engineering point of view, all those kludges &
compromises in the way the eye functions are excellent evidence that the
eye /did/ evolve, rather than being designed. 😉

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Digital cameras store analogue pictures too. A photograph is an analogue
image.

Method of storage is another subject so I have to agree that the human eye
operates very similiarly with a digital camera.

<usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:qb78o0t8ofa46deore5n107lafqqhcnau7@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> stated that:
>
> ><usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
> >news:7im7o0lhg67gtronlo602ara68dvist8rb@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Believe it or not, the way in which the human eye functions is much
more
> >> similar in nature to a digital camera than to a film camera. In fact,
> >> it's even more like a digital camera that's cabled to a computer
running
> >> the kind of sophisticated pattern detection / feature extraction
> >> software that the military types use to process satellite images.
> >
> >Lest the rest go astray on your statement: just because one can digitally
> >simulate an analog device's _outcomes_ it does not mean the thing
simulated
> >is digital.
>
> No, of course not. It's just the methods that are similar, not the exact
> mechanism.
>
> > Yes, you clearly understand that; I was stating it for some
> >others.
>
> I don't it'll make a difference to the guy claiming that image sensors
> can't do multi-hour exposures, & that increased grain or reciprocity
> failure don't count as 'quality loss' when you perform extreme exposures
> on film, because he's a troll who's deliberately trying to turn this
> dicussion into yet another film vs digital flameware.
>
> [snip]
> >the same physical space, we just might find that it is beyond the
capability
> >of our organics to be digital. Unitl we know that, I submit the eye's
> >intelligence is analog. Are we okay with that?
>
> Well, I certainly am. I'm saying that the mechanisms of a digital camera
> are /analogous/ to those of the eye - I'm certainly not saying that the
> eye is digital in any 1's & 0's sense of the term.
>
> >> Conversely, the similarity between a film camera & an eye stops when
you
> >> reach the retina - [... snip good stuff...] And like a CMOS image
sensor,
> >> the eye does lots of the image
> >> processing, such as feature-extraction & motion-detection, right there
> >> in the retina.
> >
> >Well, FAPP CMOS is more discrete in its sensing than the eye.
>
> Yes. Hence my analogy of a digital camera attached to an image
> processing system. A CMOS sensor doesn't do anything as fancy as that
> on-chip, (yet), but it does have the rudiments of that sort of
> architecture, & as the state of the art continues to advance, the
> complexity & power of the on-chip circuitry will lead to amazing
> increases in functionality.
> My personal prediction is that that complexity will show up first as
> smart noise reduction or dynamic range enhancement, & that it'll
> 'evolve' towards (for example), digital binoculars with motion-detection
> & edge-enhancement systems built right into the sensor.
>
> > Oddly, the
> >human eye is blind to parts of the contiguous range of colors depicted as
> >"visual light". It does some amazing things to conjur up, for example, a
red
> >object in a dominantly green scene, and is blind to parts of the spectrum
we
> >conceive as violet(s), and cannot - regardless of training -
differentiate
> >certain tones when certain combinations of colors are shown. It is so
> >complex that it never ceases to amaze that the human eye evolved.
>
> Speaking from an engineering point of view, all those kludges &
> compromises in the way the eye functions are excellent evidence that the
> eye /did/ evolve, rather than being designed. 😉
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <phc7o01obh4v4gpbh9pt6ghkroa1kffths@4ax.com>,
John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:27:40 GMT, Chris Brown
><cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>>>Suffice it to say that every photographic expert
>>>acknowledges what you reject...
>>
>>I'm sure they're happy to have you speak for them, but all I acknowledge is
>>hard, physical reality. If you and some others find said reality a bit
>>scary, feel free to continue ignoring it - perhaps it'll go away?
>
> So you are more of an authority than the experts at Kodak and
>RIT ?

It really is very simple. Even if we ignore the obvious bollocks about 35mm
film being some sort of pixelated medium, if the claims about 35mm image
quality and resolution made in this thread, appqarently endorsed by Kodak,
were valid, then we would all be able to make sharp, grainless prints from
35mm film with 4 times the area of a similar quality print from a 6MP DSLR,
such as an EOS 10D, or a Nikon D100. Since these cameras can make sharp,
grainless prints at A4, then we should expect similar quality from 35mm at
A2.

Yet in the world of harsh physical reality, A2 prints from 35mm are just
nasty. Ergo, 35mm does not have 4 times the "megapixels" of these digital
cameras, unless we're talking about a very different kind of "megapixel" in
each case, in which case the comparison is useless.

This really isn't a matter of opinion. The quote cited is in disagreement
with physical reality, therefore it is wrong. What you or I or anyone else
actually thinks about it is irrelevant. Reality is king.

If, by some chance, anyone actually is making A2 sized prints from 35mm that
have the same image quality as A4 prints from a 6MP DSLR, please do let the
rest of us mere mortals know how you're doing it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <26k952-5k8.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>In article <4182032A.D3B720F7@aol.com>,
>Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Show me a "multi hour" digital exposure.
>
>OK, I'll take one tonight and upload it. Have to be of something indoors and
>boring, I'm afraid, as there's too much light pollution where I live to do
>such a long exposure outside, and the weather's pretty nasty atm as well.

OK, I must admit, I'm having trouble with this. Anyone have any suggestions
for a light source that will result in a decent exposure over a couple of
hours, that I can easilly set up in an otherwise pitch-black room, and that
won't result in either no image being recorded, or massive overexposure, at
any sensible aperture?

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:28:28 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>
>If, by some chance, anyone actually is making A2 sized prints from 35mm that
>have the same image quality as A4 prints from a 6MP DSLR, please do let the
>rest of us mere mortals know how you're doing it.

OK. Just shoot TMX at EI32 and develop in Microdol-X straight.
Use a prime lens and a good tripod.

See, that was easy !

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <phc7o01obh4v4gpbh9pt6ghkroa1kffths@4ax.com>,
> John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:27:40 GMT, Chris Brown
>><cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Suffice it to say that every photographic expert
>>>>acknowledges what you reject...
>>>
>>>I'm sure they're happy to have you speak for them, but all I acknowledge is
>>>hard, physical reality. If you and some others find said reality a bit
>>>scary, feel free to continue ignoring it - perhaps it'll go away?
>>
>> So you are more of an authority than the experts at Kodak and
>>RIT ?
>
>
> It really is very simple. Even if we ignore the obvious bollocks about 35mm
> film being some sort of pixelated medium, if the claims about 35mm image
> quality and resolution made in this thread, appqarently endorsed by Kodak,
> were valid, then we would all be able to make sharp, grainless prints from
> 35mm film with 4 times the area of a similar quality print from a 6MP DSLR,
> such as an EOS 10D, or a Nikon D100. Since these cameras can make sharp,
> grainless prints at A4, then we should expect similar quality from 35mm at
> A2.
>
> Yet in the world of harsh physical reality, A2 prints from 35mm are just
> nasty. Ergo, 35mm does not have 4 times the "megapixels" of these digital
> cameras, unless we're talking about a very different kind of "megapixel" in
> each case, in which case the comparison is useless.
>
> This really isn't a matter of opinion. The quote cited is in disagreement
> with physical reality, therefore it is wrong. What you or I or anyone else
> actually thinks about it is irrelevant. Reality is king.
>
> If, by some chance, anyone actually is making A2 sized prints from 35mm that
> have the same image quality as A4 prints from a 6MP DSLR, please do let the
> rest of us mere mortals know how you're doing it.

Wouldn't that depend on the film? For example if you use Ilford Pan-F
in an ultra-fine grain developer at 25ASA then you should easily be able
to produce an A1 print from 35mm. However if your using Tri-X pushed to
EI 3200 in a fast developer then A6 could be pushing it.....

W

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gymmy Bob wrote:
> The colour depth storage method is not really understood. Somewhere deep in
> your brain the data is stored in a binary state. No good method to store
> data with multiple levels has been discovered or theorized yet so it may or
> may not be binary (two sate). One thing for sure is that the data must be in
> digital format of some kind and not analogue, whether binary, trinary,
> octal or hexadecimal in each cell, if these multi level cells are possible.
> Either way the levels will be finite and does not qualify as analogue medium
> or storage.

It's probably some form of chemical storage, where the brain makes and
stores a certain chemical in each memory cell, it wouldn't need to deal
with fixed bit storage media either, one cell might store 1 bit, the
cell next to it 43 bits, or 143bits. There also are forms of compression
that make JPEG look like a childish joke. Think about it, your brain
takes what I write here, and rather then storing an image of the words,
simply stores the words themselves. Kind of like OCR software, but much
more powerful. The most powerful computer man has made has about the
same capacity as the brain of a mouse. Well below that of a dog or a
cat, but improving in 1980 we had the computing power of a cockroach
brain......

W

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"The Wogster" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:UP8hd.5653$OD3.101243@news20.bellglobal.com...

> It's probably some form of chemical storage, where the brain makes and
> stores a certain chemical in each memory cell, it wouldn't need to deal
> with fixed bit storage media either, one cell might store 1 bit, the cell
> next to it 43 bits, or 143bits. There also are forms of compression that
> make JPEG look like a childish joke. [...]

I encourage your interest in such concepts and advise you to enhance your
understanding with some research, otherwise this conversation resembles some
of the off-beat, anti-scientific parlour games of two hundred years ago - or
earlier.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Gregory W Blank" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message
news:1uYgd.3567$RA4.967@trnddc06...
> In article <cm13tk$jpj$3@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > Film is archival until it meets with an accident: fire, flood, mildew,
> > sleeves held together with glue that breaks down in the summer heat.
Parents
> > on a cleaning rampage.
> >
> > Digital can actually be archived. It take work; multiple copies,
checking
> > the data regularly, off-site storage (so the same accident doesn't take
out
> > all copies). But at least it's possible.
>
> Ah I was waiting for a hapless soul to make mention of
> those things, they apply to computers and compter equipment also.
>
> Film however no one hits the delete key and makes it vanish. Or what
happens
> when you knoock over your laptop,...I drop negatives on the floor on
ocassion
> and have dropped my laptop,....the negatives fair far better.

The ones that make it back from the lab without scratches, incorrect
processing, kinks in the middle of 220 rolls from clamps in the lab
equipment.

I don't shoot a lot of film (scanning takes so much time), but I've seen all
of the above.

I don't gamble: I don't mind losing at bowling or Go because the other guys
are better/smarter, but I really hate it when I get screwed through no fault
of my own, like when I took a large batch of film to be processed, and the
store had changed labs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <cm1lqu$oj2$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> The ones that make it back from the lab without scratches, incorrect
> processing, kinks in the middle of 220 rolls from clamps in the lab
> equipment.
>
> I don't shoot a lot of film (scanning takes so much time), but I've seen all
> of the above.
>
> I don't gamble: I don't mind losing at bowling or Go because the other guys
> are better/smarter, but I really hate it when I get screwed through no fault
> of my own, like when I took a large batch of film to be processed, and the
> store had changed labs.

Sad but its the state of the industry in general, Photo equipment has always been
semi questionable in terms of quality mainly I guess because no one dies from
having a shoddy product. Now with all the industry looking to make a faster buck,
and worse having computer companies involved expect a greater decline in product
quality as digital become a norm.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:19:40 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>I don't shoot a lot of film (scanning takes so much time), but I've seen all
>of the above.

Not from a pro-lab I hope.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:19:40 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>I don't gamble: I don't mind losing at bowling or Go because the other guys
>are better/smarter, but I really hate it when I get screwed through no fault
>of my own, like when I took a large batch of film to be processed, and the
>store had changed labs.

Then I suggest you deal with pro labs. Labs that run very
tight tolerances and use machinery specifically designed to circumvent
difficulties.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:17:31 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>The rods and cones of the retina constitute a digital sensing plane

Unfortunately I don't really believe this is the case. Can you
show me something stating that the retina operates in a digital
fashion ? Particularly binary, trinary or whatever ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <C8mdnXh_D6FmOh7cRVn-sw@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> >A pixel is not a bit.
>
> I didn't say it was. Where did you learn to read? They failed you.
>
> >A pixel is a graphical dot consisting of 3D or 4D
> >information. While the physical placement is only 2D he third dimension is
> >resolution of colour.
>
> ... of one pixel.
>
> >If a pixel was one bit then it can only contain two colours, being
> >represented by on and off.
>
> Sometimes, that's how a pixel is.
>
> >For decent photographic representation a pixel would be represented by 24 or
> >32 bits of information. 32 bit pixels sometimes are 4D, with the fourth
> >dimension being transparency.
>
> ... of one pixel.
>
> >Bits and bytes are not involved in this thread previously. Only pixels vs.
> >grain of film. How we represent a pixel is another matter.
>
> No, I replied to someone who implied that the R, G, and B of the same
> 2-D location of film are three separate pixels.
>

Misunderstood. It takes three bytes of binary data to fully represent the
information in one pixel, (picture element), one byte for each of the primary
colors. In the case of a Bayer sensor, the pixel is the combination of four
separate 'sensels' under the bayer array. Nowhere did I say or imply anything
about 'separate pixels'.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Usually it takes 3 bytes per pixel, well in the "old days"...LOL

Most cameras produce 10 or 12 bits of resolution per colour now and this
takes at least 4 bytes.
Things are a changin'

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41842238.F972573F@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> > In message <C8mdnXh_D6FmOh7cRVn-sw@golden.net>,
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >
> > >A pixel is not a bit.
> >
> > I didn't say it was. Where did you learn to read? They failed you.
> >
> > >A pixel is a graphical dot consisting of 3D or 4D
> > >information. While the physical placement is only 2D he third dimension
is
> > >resolution of colour.
> >
> > ... of one pixel.
> >
> > >If a pixel was one bit then it can only contain two colours, being
> > >represented by on and off.
> >
> > Sometimes, that's how a pixel is.
> >
> > >For decent photographic representation a pixel would be represented by
24 or
> > >32 bits of information. 32 bit pixels sometimes are 4D, with the fourth
> > >dimension being transparency.
> >
> > ... of one pixel.
> >
> > >Bits and bytes are not involved in this thread previously. Only pixels
vs.
> > >grain of film. How we represent a pixel is another matter.
> >
> > No, I replied to someone who implied that the R, G, and B of the same
> > 2-D location of film are three separate pixels.
> >
>
> Misunderstood. It takes three bytes of binary data to fully represent the
> information in one pixel, (picture element), one byte for each of the
primary
> colors. In the case of a Bayer sensor, the pixel is the combination of
four
> separate 'sensels' under the bayer array. Nowhere did I say or imply
anything
> about 'separate pixels'.
>
> Colin
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In message <41842238.F972573F@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Misunderstood. It takes three bytes of binary data to fully represent the
>information in one pixel, (picture element), one byte for each of the primary
>colors. In the case of a Bayer sensor, the pixel is the combination of four
>separate 'sensels' under the bayer array. Nowhere did I say or imply anything
>about 'separate pixels'.

Tom Phillips wrote:

>> > Quote: "the pixel size of a highly sensitive emulsion layer is
>> > assumed to be 100 square micrometers on the basis of the fact
>> > that a color film with an ISO 400 sensitivity and 135 format
>> > contains 24 million pixels."

Then BillyJoeJimBob wrote:

>> Typical 135 format film measures 36x24 mm, for a total imaging area
>> of 864 square mm, or 864,000,000 square microns. Dividing this by
>> the quoted pixel size above yields 8,640,000 "pixels" on the 135
>> format film. I have no idea how the authors of that quote came up
>> with 24 million, which at first glance appears to be too large by
>> nearly a factor of three. Perhaps the authors assume some degree of
>> overlap between "pixels" on the emulsion layer?

Then you replied:

> Because with 8-bit depth, it takes 24 bits, or three bytes per pixel,
> not one as you assume in your calculations.

It looked like you were justifying the 24 megapixel statement, because
you didn't disagree with it.

Sorry if I mistunderstood, but I think I had a little help from you.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gregory W Blank wrote:

> In article <41836A8E.4404EBE1@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> > The storage medium is irrelevant.
>
> Oh really? Try storaging the the roughly 10,000 images, 35mm, 120
> 4x5, 8x10. I have on film at full digital equivalent resolution at the same
> cost I have invested in their storage.

The discussion is revolving around whether a digital file can be regarded as a
photographic image, *not* whether your 10,000 vari-sized images can be stored
at the same cost. However, your cost calculations should include the cost of
your film plus processing for those 10,000 images. It would indoubtedly cover
the cost of digital storage had the shots originally been taken digitally, with
scanning backs to equal your equivalent resolution. Which is academic, since
those shots probably cover many years' shooting.

Colin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <41842521.A1943CC7@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> The discussion is revolving around whether a digital file can be regarded as a
> photographic image, *not* whether your 10,000 vari-sized images can be stored
> at the same cost. However, your cost calculations should include the cost of
> your film plus processing for those 10,000 images. It would indoubtedly cover
> the cost of digital storage had the shots originally been taken digitally, with
> scanning backs to equal your equivalent resolution. Which is academic, since
> those shots probably cover many years' shooting.
>
> Colin

Thanks; but I don't need you to reitterate the discussion since you felt inclined
to snip the relavant parts in the first place.

You made a falicious statement which I felt inclined to dispute. Processing is
pennies on the dollar for B&W and color is not much more expensive compared
to the requirement of at least two drives and the time spent recopying those drives
as the OS's that can access the images age. The other consideration you miss is that
a scanning back won't make many of the images I have taken, the dynamic range they can
reproduce , shooting woodland interiors is just not feasble.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918