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:41882479.54A6A153@aol.com...
>
>
> Harvey wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:41877374.C732FDC2@aol.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <e-ednez3WvGxdxvcRVn-rg@golden.net>,
>> >> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure
>> >> >it
>> >> >is
>> >> >accomplished in various ways.
>> >>
>> >> Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only
>> >> can
>> >> you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
>> >> think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
>> >> film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).
>> >
>> >
>> > The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.
>> >
>> > you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
>> > Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
>> > terms like "STUPID"?
>> >
>> > Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
>> > another "cummulative" digital exposure.
>> >
>> > A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
>> > extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
>> > retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
>> > as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.
>>
>> Hmmm.. and here's me thinking a CCD worked by having a photodiode
>> discharge
>> a capacitor; making cumulative multiple exposure at least possible even
>> if
>> not actually practical (yet).
>
> "Yet" is a big word.
>

Get a better dictionary - 'yet' is actually quite a small word in comparison
to some of them...

 

[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:41882BA2.3E7A81D3@aol.com...
>
>
> Dave Martindale wrote:
>>
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:
>>

[...]

>> And CCDs are quite capable of multiple exposures, as long as you leave
>> the charge in the CCD between exposures. Why do you think they are not
>> capable of this?

They *aren't* capable of doing this *as yet* - the charge leaks away quite
quickly on all [photographic] CCD sensors on the market - its one of the
many current limitations of CCD manufacture - pack too many sensors in, the
capacitors become small and the charge leaks away before you get time to
read it out.

Things are changing though - CCD image area sizes are getting larger - that
allows the charge capacitors to be bigger and hold the charge longer, making
true multiple exposure a possibility.

....

 

[Guest]

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

"Frank Pittel" <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:j7KdndMa9_-hvxrcRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
> In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:
> : On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:42:16 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> : wrote:
>
> : >> I have spent 1000s on a 80386 computer too and it sickens me to see
> it
> : >> rotting after all that monery I spent.
> : >
> : >I started out with a 386 too....But I upgraded it over the years....I
> am
> : >using an ancestor of that same machine even today, although I believe
> : >everything that was in that original machine has been replaced by now,
> so
> : >there is no part of it left......
>
> : My 486 bit the dust when I did the wonderful static zap to the
> : motherboard. Just got the whole thing working and one little tiny
> : spark and it never booted again. *** sigh ***
>
> : So now I'm running AMD64 3K w/1024 MB PC2700 !! Shortly the
> : 64bit versions of Linux are going to make another lunge ahead and I
> : just might finally migrate (I know Jean-David I know !) to SUSE Linux.
> : I've been trying the Fedora Core 3 Test 3 for AMD64 it really does run
> : better than XP Pro on my system.
>
>
> I'm still trying to get all my PCs migrated to Fedora Core 2. I've got one
> machine
> left and I'm afraid to even try. 🙂 I've got a lot running on it
> including my mail
> server. I first loaded Caldera on it when Caldera was first released and
> I've been
> adding software by downloading the source and compiling it. This includes
> the kernel.
>
> I just know that most of it isn't going to work when I scrub the drives
> and install
> Fedora. To make matters worse it's my main fileserver and as a result it
> does my
> backups. I can't be without this machine. I'm thinking of buying another
> pc and
> migrating all the services over to it and when I get everything off of it
> then I
> can reload the OS.
>
> If you ever read me tell someone that they shouldn't load all their
> network services
> onto a single machine it's because I've learned the hard way. 🙂
>

Reloading operating systems is always a loser.....The last time I did it, I
lost all of my "sent email files". this was over 8000 emails that
represented all of my thoughts and aspirations for the last ten
years.......Now I know where they are, and how to back them up, but I didn't
know then, and now it's too late......

 

[Guest]

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

"Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:k7Whd.254$8s3.157@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:w9ydneDfkeAGgBXcRVn-rg@golden.net...
>> Well you guys have apparently spent 1000s of dollars on obsolete cameras
>> that will soon not even have film available for.
>>
>> Bites huh?
>
> 'soon' ?? If you consider something like 100+ years 'soon' then your
> probably right. As good/bad as digital may/may not be, film is going to be
> around for at least the rest of our lifetimes. Sure it'll gradually become
> more of a niche market as far as home use goes, but professional use isn't
> going to be changing dramatically for a long, long, long time yet.
>
There are people who still take Daguerreotypes, so film will be with us a
while yet, to be sure.

 

[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:hAFhd.3622$KL4.1675@trnddc07...
> In article <OFChd.343756$MQ5.232671@attbi_s52>,
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > --
>> Don't forget the wash water in a film darkroom.....When I was doing it, I
>> used hellacious amounts of water....I know that they use a lot of water
>> to
>> make chips too, but at least it's a one time usage. Once the chip is
>> installed in the camera, the water usage stops. With film processing,
>> every
>> print you make is going to use a lot of wash water...
>
> Water for the most part is the most renewable resource despite what some
> people lead
> you to beleive. Water is the one truely transmutable substance (To borrow
> from Alchemic
> nominclature).

In theory, yes. But tell that to the people who live in Los Angeles,
California. It takes energy to get clean potable water. the same thing
applies to hydrogen run vehicles. Hydrogen is one of the commonest elements
in the Universe....It abounds in sea water. But it takes the same, (or more)
energy to separate it out of the water as you will get back by burning it in
your car, so there is no overall advantage to 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?)

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4187293D.91E889C7@aol.com...
>
>
> Gregory W Blank wrote:
>>
>> In article <OFChd.343756$MQ5.232671@attbi_s52>,
>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > --
>> > Don't forget the wash water in a film darkroom.....When I was doing it,
>> > I
>> > used hellacious amounts of water....I know that they use a lot of water
>> > to
>> > make chips too, but at least it's a one time usage. Once the chip is
>> > installed in the camera, the water usage stops. With film processing,
>> > every
>> > print you make is going to use a lot of wash water...
>>
>> Water for the most part is the most renewable resource despite what some
>> people lead
>> you to beleive. Water is the one truely transmutable substance (To borrow
>> from Alchemic
>> nominclature).
>
> I actually (gasp) bath in it and don't watch the meter ;-)

You would "watch the meter" if you lived where I do. My water/sewer bill
runs about $100 a month.......

 

[Guest]

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

Yeah like you billy bob.

In article <w9ydneDfkeAGgBXcRVn-rg@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> Well you guys have apparently spent 1000s of dollars on obsolete cameras
> that will soon not even have film available for.
>
> Bites huh?
--
LOL!!!

 

[Guest]

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

"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4187678d$0$10480$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41861de6$0$31912$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>>William Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:41858189$0$31906$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> <snippage>
>>>I'm not so sure that the electronic rangefinder from a cheap p&s would be
>>>of any use in helping to focus a Nikon lens attached in place of it's
>>>own.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you are quite correct on this point. I would be better off putting a
>> nikkor adapter on some other rangefinder camera. This is probably why I
>> never really pursued my idea any further than the original
>> concept........
>
> I just had another thought on the subject.
> Perhaps if a p&s uses the same method for AF that a SLR does, perhaps it
> could tell if your mount-hacked lens is in focus.

It probably could, but it wouldn't be able to do anything about it if it
wasn't. I would have just had to use it in complete manual mode, which is
what one usually has to do when using another manufacturer's lens on any
camera.....What someone should do, is design a camera that moves the whole
mount forward and backward when it focuses. That way, one could mount any
lens on the camera and still be able to auto focus it. Or use the reflex
mechanism to focus it if it was an SLR.

 

[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 <k7Whd.254$8s3.157@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
"Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:w9ydneDfkeAGgBXcRVn-rg@golden.net...
> > Well you guys have apparently spent 1000s of dollars on obsolete cameras
> > that will soon not even have film available for.
> >
> > Bites huh?
>
> 'soon' ?? If you consider something like 100+ years 'soon' then your
> probably right. As good/bad as digital may/may not be, film is going to be
> around for at least the rest of our lifetimes. Sure it'll gradually become
> more of a niche market as far as home use goes, but professional use isn't
> going to be changing dramatically for a long, long, long time yet.

It was wishful thinking on "his" part, more like Large Format envy
"his" little subminature POS digi cam just don't get it up.
--
LOL!!!

 

[Guest]

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

If anybody listens to Eastman Kodak, they predicted they would discontinue
making film cameras in 2004, and the did, and will stop producing 35mm film
in 2006?, I believe. There will be a few stragglers but they will all
eventally follow suit.

Funny thin is all you chemical film guys take your negs to a lab where they
digitally scan it and print the pictures using digital techniques and then
show everybody how there is no grain showing....LOL


"Udie Lafing" <SPAM_@UCE.GOV> wrote in message
news:SPAM_-EED2E9.21233102112004@news.verizon.net...
> In article <k7Whd.254$8s3.157@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
> "Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:w9ydneDfkeAGgBXcRVn-rg@golden.net...
> > > Well you guys have apparently spent 1000s of dollars on obsolete
cameras
> > > that will soon not even have film available for.
> > >
> > > Bites huh?
> >
> > 'soon' ?? If you consider something like 100+ years 'soon' then your
> > probably right. As good/bad as digital may/may not be, film is going to
be
> > around for at least the rest of our lifetimes. Sure it'll gradually
become
> > more of a niche market as far as home use goes, but professional use
isn't
> > going to be changing dramatically for a long, long, long time yet.
>
> It was wishful thinking on "his" part, more like Large Format envy
> "his" little subminature POS digi cam just don't get it up.
> --
> LOL!!!

 

[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:
>
> And film grain causes "inherently false data" that wasn't in the
> original scene. The image you get is just an approximation of the
> original scene. So, the question becomes, which approximation is a
> more accurate representation of what was really there? In many
> circumstances, current digital cameras deliver better images than film
> cameras with the same sensor area.

Other than the 6MP full-frame Contax, which I understand to be discontinued,
I'd think all current digital sensors deliver better images than film.

Here's a hand-held zoom lens shot on a Canon 300D at 35mm compared to a 35mm
prime lens on a tripod. Tech Pan scanned at 4000 dpi.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original

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 <ZM6dnSY2q9cBgxXcRVn-rQ@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> You mechanical camera guys are a little slow at this (like your cameras).
> Here let me point you to a post of one of your peers.

> "Digital generates photoelectrons, a voltage. There
> is no image, since photons are converted to electricity.
> The stored data file is then used to represent an
> image, but no actual image exists."

You remind of every bad sterotype affliated
with someone claiming to be a photographer
but lacking any real skill.

Try harder to keep your head out of your backside
next time then your opinion might be worth considering.

BTW I have both Digital and Films.
--
LOL!!!

 

[Guest]

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

So do I but I am now ashamed to tell people I paid good money on a chemical
film camera.

"Udie Lafing" <SPAM_@UCE.GOV> wrote in message
news:SPAM_-FC2C37.21294102112004@news.verizon.net...
be worth considering.
>
> BTW I have both Digital and Films.
> --
> LOL!!!

 

[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 <KVWhd.289198$wV.54764@attbi_s54>, weg9@comcast.net says...
> The last time I did it, I
> lost all of my "sent email files". this was over 8000 emails that
> represented all of my thoughts and aspirations for the last ten
> years.......

God does exist!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

 

[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 rec.photo.equipment.35mm Mike Russell <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellthis.net> wrote:
> Sander Vesik wrote:
> > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Mike Russell
> > <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellthis.net> wrote:
> >> Tom Phillips wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> The *point* is Nyquist doesn't pragmatically apply. Due to the
> >>> electronics involved, pixels can only get so small. You only
> >>> need a minimum of 3 photons to initiate exposure and photolysis
> >>> in silver halides.
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >
> > You are doubting the 3 photons figure? Why?
>
> Three things - first electronic detectors may detect a single photon.
> Second, TP is using the term Nyquist incorrectly. Third, a single pixel is
> not subject to Nyquist, only an arrray of pixels. All of these create an
> entertaining spectacle, and I just couldn't keep from LOL'ing.

A single sensor is subject to Nyquist just as an array is (in fact, in a
rather trivial way, in addition to being sucject to it in terms of farction
of sensor size).

Nyquist and 3 photons (or a single or 1000 photons) have of course nothing in
common at all.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

 

[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 <4186CCDE.3E972798@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Pragmatically silver halides don't suffer from nyquist.
>>Digital is inherently limited by it.
>
>
> You do seem very fond of repeating this particular hobby horse, almost as
> though saying "nyquist" at every opportunity will suddenly make the world
> realise that digital imaging has some critical flaw.
>
> In reality, all it means is that digitally produced images are essentially
> resolution-limited in terms of how large you can make an enlargement, as
> compared to images produced on film, where the image becomes unpleasantly
> grainy and soft way below its theoretical maximum resolving power. One has
> to ask, so what?

Besides the fact that the effects of Nyquist's theorum (uh, "suffer from
nyquist"? what the h***??) are a known quantity that can be expected,
planned for, and compensated for. Reciprocity failure grows worse over
the time of the exposure, and can be *generally* predictable for various
brands and formulations of film, but not enough so to be pre-compensated
for ("Hmmm, let's see, with Velvia 50, given a 15-minute exposure and
9300-degree ambient lighting, I can compensate for reciprocity by adding
1500 lumens of 4800-degree light over the length of the exposure..."
Uh, or not.

And in any case, it's an apples and oranges comparison: Nyquist defines
maximum sample resolution and is related to how "fine" a digital image
can be. Reciprocity relates to the color of film going out of whack.
There is no validity here.

 

[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 <418830B6.A1CF8112@aol.com>,
Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>Interpolated is artificial. That's what it means.
>To create (insert) image data using algorithms.
>This is what ALL one shot digital cameras do.
>It isn't data as orignally scanned.

Nope.

You are trying to defame interpolation by equating it to "artifacts",
but this is only a slimey semantic bait-and-switch trick. The worst
connotations to "artifact" or "artificial" do not apply to proper
interpolation.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
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?)

In message <KVWhd.289198$wV.54764@attbi_s54>,
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>Reloading operating systems is always a loser.....The last time I did it, I
>lost all of my "sent email files". this was over 8000 emails that
>represented all of my thoughts and aspirations for the last ten
>years.......Now I know where they are, and how to back them up, but I didn't
>know then, and now it's too late......

Sounds like you not only loaded an operating system, but reformatted the
hard drive, too. Those are two different things. I have *NEVER*
reformatted to refresh or upgrade an operating system. I have a
computer here that started out as Windows 3.1 and is running Win2k with
folders that are from 1994.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
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" <gblank@despamit.net> wrote in message
news:qMRhd.982$7W.49@trnddc08...
> In article <MPG.1bf1907bddfe36889897be@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK NO camera has a setting for Mercury Vapor lamps or
> > Sodium Vapor lamps, (both of which are used in lighting the
> > subjects I shoot) but even doing a "custom white balance"
> > on a digital is not as difficult, wastefull or time
> > consuming as changing film.
>
> Or do what a typical pro might and filter them, beats the
> hell out of white balancing.

I was about to say that<g>. White balancing works well within a much
narrower range than most people think. It is handy though.

Also, the Canon manual white balance procedure is so painful, that switching
backs on my Mamiya 645 Pro is faster.

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 message <cm91ef$j2a$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>I was about to say that<g>. White balancing works well within a much
>narrower range than most people think. It is handy though.
>
>Also, the Canon manual white balance procedure is so painful, that switching
>backs on my Mamiya 645 Pro is faster.

This is all for the JPEGGER. If you shoot RAW, there is no need to do
white balance until after the pictures are taken. If a bunch are taken
in the same light, you can WB them in batch.
--

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

 

[Larry]

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 <cm91ef$j2a$2@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com
says...
> Also, the Canon manual white balance procedure is so painful, that switching
> backs on my Mamiya 645 Pro is faster.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

Alas, and alack!... Ive not yet had the honor of using a
Canon Digital...

Im using a Sony 717, a Sony 828, and a couple of Fuji Zoom
digitals. (S5000 S7000)

The manual white balance on the Sony cameras is VERY quick
and easy.

I should have a new Canon and a couple of lenses by spring
though. Im just holding off to decide which lenses to get
(they will be Canon lenses) I learned early on in the film
SLR experience, LENSES are NOT a good place to save money.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Larry]

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 <4j5go0132ndqi56ms78pqpgq96qrg6g443@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm says...
> This is all for the JPEGGER. If you shoot RAW, there is no need to do
> white balance until after the pictures are taken. If a bunch are taken
> in the same light, you can WB them in batch.

No can do with the Sony cameras... the raw save takes 30 or
so seconds....

Thats what the Fuji S7000 is for.

So far I hvent been able to stall it while shooting RAW. I
can take about a shot every 2 seconds 'till the cards in it
are full.

The Sony can only be used in raw mode if I know for sure
I'll have time between shots.

Sony REALLY needs to work on their implementation of raw
(SRF) shooting.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[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 <MPG.1bf1e682f26e57fa9897ca@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>Sony REALLY needs to work on their implementation of raw
>(SRF) shooting.

They're not the only ones. My Canon 10D takes a long time to write its
RAWs, too, and is a pain sometimes. The 20D and 1DmkII are much faster.
My 20D will take 6 RAW shots in about a second, and then a new one
afterward every 1.75 seconds or so.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
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?)

Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> writes:

>What I said was "can't happen." Unless photodetectors can
>get as small as a silver halide molecule. Let me know when
>they do...

They don't need to. First, silver halide isn't present in the form of
individual molecules, but as crystals, so it's the size of the
crystals that matter. The crystals are quite small, much smaller than
CCD pixels are likely to get, but it's misleading to compare them. Film
can't resolve detail anywhere near as fine as the crystal size.

What matters is actual imaging performance. If you consider sensors of
the same size, the CCDs with 2-3 um pixel spacing used in many digicams
already, by actual measurements, resolve 150-200 lp/mm. Except for a
few special-purpose films (which are vanishing from the market), film
can't equal that. The digital sensors are *already* higher resolution.

What you say "can't happen" has already happened and you didn't notice.

Dave

 

[Guest]

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

Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> writes:

>Have you tried to buy a BETA tape or BETA VCR lately??? It
>was hands down a better recording medium than VHS, but the
>shorter tapes, and the overwhelming number of VHS
>manufacturers killed it as dead as can be.

It *wasn't* hands down better. Its image quality was better, but it did
not have enough recording time to tape a typical movie off network TV,
where the running length was 2 hours with commercials.

Given that the consumer initially bought VCRs to tape off the air (no
corner video rental place yet), and Betamax could not record movies
unattended but VHS could, this was a huge advantage for VHS, probably
more important than any quality difference.

Dave