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?)

In article <10ofkk2hejebka2@news.supernews.com>, jjs <jj@jj.jj> wrote:
>This whole thread is a waste of time.
>
>Look, Tom Phillips is not _discussing_ anything; he is making assertions
>based largely on ignorance and wishful thinking. He will never change his
>mind because he does not want to. He wants to make assertions, see his name
>in type and piss you all off to no end. And it is working.
>
>I say let him have his claim to one of the silliest things since "the earth
>is flat" and kill-file him and get on with life.

He does seem to be getting increasingly similar to that Preddy character,
only with a different hobby horse.

 

[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.darkroom William Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

: "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everything that was in that original machine has been replaced by now,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......

It can be a challenge to reload an OS. 🙂 There are times when it preferable to
start over. Proper layout of the OS and partitioning of the disks can make it
easier.

The idea is to have as much of the OS and OS only on isolated partitions. This way
in theory you can scrub those partitions and reload the new OS on those partitions
in such a way that you don't "upset" user data and other non-OS related software.
Unfortunatly that can be hard to do and unfortunatly it's hard to know how much of
the software is OS dependent.



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

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

It wasn't the image that was superior. It had Hi-fi sound encoding into the
FM instead of linear tracks.

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cma43c$qg1$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> 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

 

[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 <j7udnV9LHo2I_BTcRVn-rg@golden.net>, Gymmy Bob
<nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> It wasn't the image that was superior. It had Hi-fi sound encoding into the
> FM instead of linear tracks.

standard beta was slightly better than standard vhs (approximately 230
lines versus 220 if i recall). most people would not notice a
difference on a typical consumer tv set. on a better tv it might be
noticed.

the original beta casette had a short play time. vhs followed with a
longer play tape, and beta made its longer, etc. the final tally is
beta was 3hr and 5hr at the beta ii and iii speeds, and vhs was 2hr,
4hr and 6hr on sp, lp and elp speeds. there are even longer tapes
available but the tape is very thin and sometimes breaks.

many people use the 6 hour vhs speed, which to my eyes is totally
unwatchable, but that just goes to show you that people do *not* care
that much about quality. the beta 5hr speed is nowhere near as bad.

beta hifi had the audio fm modulated in between chroma and luma. vhs
hifi couldn't fit it there, so it had the audio on a deeper layer of
the tape. this was followed by super beta and super vhs, both of which
raised the quality of the video image.

jvc also licensed vhs to practically anyone, while sony was more
selective (fisher & sanyo come to mind - i can't think of any others at
the moment). thus, there were 'more' vhs units on retailers shelves and
more from which to choose.

another issue not often mentioned is that porn was readily available on
vhs, but not on beta, early on. as with many industries, porn drives
it.


> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:cma43c$qg1$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> > 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
>
>

 

[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 <10oi54ogu4i264e@news.supernews.com>,
jjs <killspam@no.no.com> wrote:
>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:tc2n52-i0i.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
>> In article <418826ED.6782F47C@aol.com>,
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>pragmatic example: a federal prosecutor asked my advice on
>>>using digital cameras for evidence photography. My advice
>>>was to use film,
>>
>> How incredibly surprising.
>
>I know you are being facetious. Traditional roll film can have, but not
>neccessarily does have more 'legal' credibility than a digital picture.

Indeed not. Most of the speed cameras in the UK these days are digital, and
of course, their photos are admissible in court, that being the whole
purpose of them in the first place.

 

[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" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:4gmn52-aji.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <10oi54ogu4i264e@news.supernews.com>,
> jjs <killspam@no.no.com> wrote:

>>I know you are being facetious. Traditional roll film can have, but not
>>neccessarily does have more 'legal' credibility than a digital picture.
>
> Indeed not. Most of the speed cameras in the UK these days are digital,
> and
> of course, their photos are admissible in court, that being the whole
> purpose of them in the first place.

Ah, that's the UK and a different case besides.

 

[Guest]

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

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> writes:

>Yes, I did format the drive. But, I had two identical hard drives, and I
>backed up everything the one drive had onto the other first. - But that
>wasn't good enough.

Depends on what you mean by "backed up". A drive image copy would have
gotten everything, but I don't think Windows comes with a tool for that.
A full backup, using the backup utility that comes with various Windows
versions, almost certainly would have also saved all the data though
restoring it might turn out to be a pain.

On the other hand, just copying folders isn't a backup, and doesn't get
everything, partly because Windows likes to hide things from you and
because it locks some files so attempts to copy them fail.

>It failed to backup my Outlook Express program properly.
>It lost the "sent" files.........It's like Bill Gates doesn't even know that
>your sent email files are all the things YOU wrote, and have some special
>significance to you......He considers them to be just like your deleted
>files.....The guy must be a real goon.....It's hard to believe he's worth
>all that money..........

It's unlikely that Bill Gates decided this personally. Perhaps the
Outlook designers figured that if your "sent" messages were precious to
you, you would have moved them into folders by discussion. There's
usually some provision to save a copy of outgoing mail in someplace more
permanent.

(I don't use Outlook Express; I use Eudora instead. It automatically
generates a "Fcc" for replies that places a copy of the outgoing
message in the same folder as the message being replied to. If I'm
writing a new message that isn't a reply, or replying to a message in
the generic inbox instead of a folder, this doesn't happen. If I
did want a copy, and forgot to add a Fcc manually, the sent message
remains in the Trash for that session - but gets deleted when I quit the
program. Maybe OE treats "sent" the same way.)

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?)

Fortunatly I'm not running windows and don't have those issues with backups!!


In rec.photo.darkroom Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
: "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> writes:

: >Yes, I did format the drive. But, I had two identical hard drives, and I
: >backed up everything the one drive had onto the other first. - But that
: >wasn't good enough.

: Depends on what you mean by "backed up". A drive image copy would have
: gotten everything, but I don't think Windows comes with a tool for that.
: A full backup, using the backup utility that comes with various Windows
: versions, almost certainly would have also saved all the data though
: restoring it might turn out to be a pain.

: On the other hand, just copying folders isn't a backup, and doesn't get
: everything, partly because Windows likes to hide things from you and
: because it locks some files so attempts to copy them fail.

: >It failed to backup my Outlook Express program properly.
: >It lost the "sent" files.........It's like Bill Gates doesn't even know that
: >your sent email files are all the things YOU wrote, and have some special
: >significance to you......He considers them to be just like your deleted
: >files.....The guy must be a real goon.....It's hard to believe he's worth
: >all that money..........

: It's unlikely that Bill Gates decided this personally. Perhaps the
: Outlook designers figured that if your "sent" messages were precious to
: you, you would have moved them into folders by discussion. There's
: usually some provision to save a copy of outgoing mail in someplace more
: permanent.

: (I don't use Outlook Express; I use Eudora instead. It automatically
: generates a "Fcc" for replies that places a copy of the outgoing
: message in the same folder as the message being replied to. If I'm
: writing a new message that isn't a reply, or replying to a message in
: the generic inbox instead of a folder, this doesn't happen. If I
: did want a copy, and forgot to add a Fcc manually, the sent message
: remains in the Trash for that session - but gets deleted when I quit the
: program. Maybe OE treats "sent" the same way.)

: Dave


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[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:41882074.20091371@aol.com...
>
>
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>> In message <4187715E.F5FE5026@aol.com>,
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Interpolation is inherently false data in bayer patterns.
>> >no way around it.
>>
>> Interpolation is merely a method to fill in a bitmap with missing
>> information.
>
> Yeah, it fills in missing data allright. It's "data" the
> digital sensor never captured...
>
>>That is not the same thing as creating false data. It is
>> merely a way of saying that there aren't enough data points for the data
>> storage resolution.
>
> it's artificial image data. Plain and simple.

PREDDY IS BACK !!

 

[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 <10oi54ogu4i264e@news.supernews.com>,
"jjs" <killspam@no.no.com> wrote:

>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:tc2n52-i0i.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
>> In article <418826ED.6782F47C@aol.com>,
>> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>pragmatic example: a federal prosecutor asked my advice on
>>>using digital cameras for evidence photography. My advice
>>>was to use film,
>>
>> How incredibly surprising.
>
>I know you are being facetious. Traditional roll film can have, but not
>neccessarily does have more 'legal' credibility than a digital picture.

Some of the newer digital cameras have some kind of encrypted checksum
that verifies the authenticity of the file. The new Canon 20D can do
this, but it is disabled by default.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
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 article <huidnUY7K_0PxhXcRVn-ug@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

> 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
>
Your a twit, and ever so close to being kill filed"MORON".
--
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?)

Udie Lafing wrote:
>
> In article <huidnUY7K_0PxhXcRVn-ug@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> Your a twit, and ever so close to being kill filed"MORON".

first, check out costco.
mine has three lines.
two are old optical printer.

the new line has two film scanners, and 4 reader terminals.
digital files, digital printer.

anyone who buys any sort of big volume printer like that
who did / does not buy the digital printer is on a dead end road.

> --
> 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 <JI-dncCL_669wRXcRVn-1w@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

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

Hey bet out there in WVA you can only get those in Walmart,...
One time use cameras don't count so don't be ashamed "Nit Wit".
--
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?)

On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> As those involved in B&W
> photography and printing know fine B&W printing is an art form producing a level of
> quality that digital can't match.

Unless they are also involved with fine B&W digital printing, they may
have no clue. B&W has often been a poor step-child in digital
photography. But don't be too sure that will always be the case. You
might find the following interesting reading:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml

As the market begins to saturate, there may be more demand for B&W digitals again.

Now when it comes down to prints on a wall, it would be interesting to
compare what a skilled practitioner can achieve with the current state of
the art. I suspect the best digital is better than you might think.

--
Erik

 

[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.darkroom E. Magnuson <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > As those involved in B&W
: > photography and printing know fine B&W printing is an art form producing a level of
: > quality that digital can't match.

: Unless they are also involved with fine B&W digital printing, they may
: have no clue. B&W has often been a poor step-child in digital
: photography. But don't be too sure that will always be the case. You
: might find the following interesting reading:

: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml

: As the market begins to saturate, there may be more demand for B&W digitals again.

: Now when it comes down to prints on a wall, it would be interesting to
: compare what a skilled practitioner can achieve with the current state of
: the art. I suspect the best digital is better than you might think.

I've seen the "best" digital B&W and while it's good it's not as good as traditional
B&W.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[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 <418868C4.9010709@but.us.chickens>,
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:

>
> Then you'll be like my dear neighbor, who has an old Victrola that she still
> listens to. She has the technology and can still do it, too. So just how many
> folks do you think there are that play old 78s? Or even people who still
> prefer (and still buy) vinyl LPs (like me)? Sure, it can be done; but face it,
> they're all practically obsolete technologies that have been utterly swamped
> by the current prevailing one. Wet photography's headed that way. That's all
> I'm saying.

At large maybe so, but there will be a core of people doing it the old fashion
way and that core will be bigger than the oil painting community,...Why no
comments so far on the obsolescence of that.

I can see where digital is taking photography, into areas where nothing can be believed.
your world (Not mine).
--
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

 

[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 <5nrgo099sbopje1orlarf3m0ka8e3hvvsj@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
wrote:

> In message <BcXhd.1050$7W.515@trnddc08>,
> Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <i77go0t5qt1arv9ljlbf4bnbo1g7h871kp@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Just have something true white in one of the images.
> >
> >No clue,.... you have no clue.
>
> Are you going to elaborate, or is that too complicated for you? I can
> guarantee that you are reading things into my statement, or
> characterizing it by situations which should be excepted, or just
> completely misunderstand the concept. Do you understand the concept of
> dialogue? Of course not; you just want to be right, like a gorilla
> beating its chest.

Hum? I why should expound on it now. I'll just leave you in the dark
its more fun.

Cheers!!
--
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

 

[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 <41895715.37A5@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

>check out costco.
> mine has three lines.
> two are old optical printer.
>
> the new line has two film scanners, and 4 reader terminals.
> digital files, digital printer.
>
> anyone who buys any sort of big volume printer like that
> who did / does not buy the digital printer is on a dead end road.

And you think those machines deliver prints not made on the
same light sensitive and chemically developed paper that the
old optical printer uses?
--
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?)

Udie Lafing wrote:
>
> In article <41895715.37A5@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >check out costco.
> > mine has three lines.
> > two are old optical printer.
> >
> > the new line has two film scanners, and 4 reader terminals.
> > digital files, digital printer.
> >
> > anyone who buys any sort of big volume printer like that
> > who did / does not buy the digital printer is on a dead end road.
>
> And you think those machines deliver prints not made on the
> same light sensitive and chemically developed paper that the
> old optical printer uses?

what ever made you think that?
you missed the point.

one system workd with either film or digital.
the other does not.

standard photo paper and process. (RA-4)

> --
> 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?)

"John P Sheehy" posted:
"...
The new Canon 20D can do
this, but it is disabled by default.
...."

Canon also offers the "Canon Data Verification Kit DVK-E2" It was
introduced at the PMA show this past spring. Doing an 'Exact Match' search
on that string results in something like 40 "hits" ... the first is
DPReview's write-up.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.asp

 

[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 message
news:cmbc36$4tu$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>Yes, I did format the drive. But, I had two identical hard drives, and I
>>backed up everything the one drive had onto the other first. - But that
>>wasn't good enough.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "backed up". A drive image copy would have
> gotten everything, but I don't think Windows comes with a tool for that.
> A full backup, using the backup utility that comes with various Windows
> versions, almost certainly would have also saved all the data though
> restoring it might turn out to be a pain.
>
> On the other hand, just copying folders isn't a backup, and doesn't get
> everything, partly because Windows likes to hide things from you and
> because it locks some files so attempts to copy them fail.

Boy, that's for sure.....There are folders in my machine that don't even
show up when I click on stuff on my desktop.....they only seem to appear
when I search for them using the find function.....Now, when I find
something, I have to write it down the hard way in a little notebook that I
keep next to my machine. Makes it nice and hard on my 69 year old brain. It
is also impossible to copy and paste stuff that appears in those little
windows messages that pop up while I'm working.....No, I think you are
wrong....Bill Gates is in charge. He is the AH. - Definitely........

 

[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 <41899CEB.1D1E@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

> Udie Lafing wrote:
> >
> > In article <41895715.37A5@cox.net>, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >check out costco.
> > > mine has three lines.
> > > two are old optical printer.
> > >
> > > the new line has two film scanners, and 4 reader terminals.
> > > digital files, digital printer.
> > >
> > > anyone who buys any sort of big volume printer like that
> > > who did / does not buy the digital printer is on a dead end road.
> >
> > And you think those machines deliver prints not made on the
> > same light sensitive and chemically developed paper that the
> > old optical printer uses?
>
> what ever made you think that?
> you missed the point.

Nope its simple math, I got it. If the machines
are relatively costing the same then the digital
capabilty is a no brainer,....because they use the
same RA paper.

> one system workd with either film or digital.
> the other does not.
>
> standard photo paper and process. (RA-4)

What I want is a home version that I can
plug my laptop into and print my negative
films from optically and still get an RA print.
--
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?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
>It wasn't the image that was superior. It had Hi-fi sound encoding into the
>FM instead of linear tracks.

Both formats had low-fi linear sound to begin with. Then Betamax added
a couple of FM carriers between the luminance carrier and the colour to
get hifi sound - something that VHS could not duplicate because it
didn't have the same recording bandwidth and used a lower luminance
carrier. Then the VHS people figured out how to record audio *deeper*
in the oxide. It took two extra heads to do it (the Beta Hifi method
did not), but it worked.

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?)

On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> In rec.photo.darkroom E. Magnuson <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>: > quality that digital can't match.

> I've seen the "best" digital B&W and while it's good it's not as good as traditional
> B&W.

Like anything else, it has strengths and weaknesses. However, most
digital B&W is either converted from color cameras or scanned. There
is not a lot of experience with a 100% digital B&W toolchain -- which
was the point of the link. Perhaps "can't match" is true - today. But
how do you know that you've seen the best unless you've seen it all?
It would be more openminded to say that "you've yet to see any as
good." It's still evolving rapidly compared to silver-based printing.

--
Erik

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"E. Magnuson" <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fgsid.2490$6w6.843@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> > In rec.photo.darkroom E. Magnuson <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >: On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> >: > quality that digital can't match.
>
> > I've seen the "best" digital B&W and while it's good it's not as good as
traditional
> > B&W.
>
> Like anything else, it has strengths and weaknesses. However, most
> digital B&W is either converted from color cameras or scanned. There
> is not a lot of experience with a 100% digital B&W toolchain

"100% digital B&W toolchain" is an oxymoron even if some digital dullard has
created such a thing.
me

> -- which
> was the point of the link. Perhaps "can't match" is true - today. But
> how do you know that you've seen the best unless you've seen it all?
> It would be more openminded to say that "you've yet to see any as
> good." It's still evolving rapidly compared to silver-based printing.
>
> --
> Erik