If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
randee writes:
Heh, ever priced dye sublimation printer supplies? We used one of those printers at one of our experimental sites and although the quality was excellent the printer was temperamental and the supplies were extremely expensive. That's why I abandoned dye-sub. It did look like chemical prints, though--very noticeably superior to ink-jet, since there was no dithering. But it had no real advantage over conventional chemical prints in most respects. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
You are highly misinformed. Sure there is analog in a disk system, but the
analog, basically is to store 1 and 0's. Just with the right analog, and the right encoding, you get more bits stored than you have to write. Originally disk storage was no analog, just the changing of the magnetic poles. 1 == NS and 0 == no change in magnetic field. And there was a timing circuit to tell you where window was to look. As one of the Patent holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge. "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Calif Bill writes: Digital Photography is digital capture from the integrated circuit that makes up the lens capture system Is not analog. Digital photography is analog capture. ALL photography is analog capture. This is inevitable because all interfaces with the physical world are analog interfaces. Film captures images by undergoing a chemical change when light hits light-sensitive molecules in the emulsion. Electronic sensors capture images by accumulating an electrical charge when impinging light frees charge carriers in a photosite. In both cases, the result is analog. There's nothing digital about it. Digital is a concept, not a physical reality. Even "digital" storage systems are in fact analog systems operated according to certain rules that make them seem digital. There may be some ADC in the capture for intensity, but it still comes down to digital. No, it comes down to analog, and any photographer who doesn't understand this is destined for misunderstanding and disappointment. There's a reason why NASA has traditionally called them "electronic still cameras": the reason is that they are not digital. As to flat panel displays, there were rear projection screens, not a flat panel as we now consider them. No, they were actual flat panels. In fact, they were plasma displays, like today's flat-panel big-screen television sets. The first plasma flat-panel displays were created around 1964. The reason that very high resolution digital cameras were / are not used for hand held recreational photography is the time and power to write the flash memory card. The reason is that the reject rate for extremely high resolution, large-surface CCDs is too high. The CCD must be large to reduce noise, but a large, 30-megapixel CCD is simply not economical to produce today. The massive CCDs used in telescopes may cause several million dollars _each_ to produce. As to DLP for movies, you better go to one of the theaters than use DLP. Done. They have a long way to go. Reason all movie theaters do not use DLP is the question of who is going to pay for the equipment. A lot of directors don't like digital displays, with good reason. It's best not to look at them too closely, or you'll see why. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Calif Bill writes:
You are highly misinformed. No, I'm highly informed, particularly with respect to the information theory that underlies the concepts of analog and digital. As one of the Patent holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge. No doubt. One can have knowledge and write with it even without a patent. Conversely, one can have a patent but very little knowledge. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Magda writes:
Many years ago I saw a Japanese guy (with what looked to be his family) taking a pic of Beaubourg with a large format camera. I remember that because he is the only tourist I have ever seen carrying one of those cameras around. In the past decade I've seen perhaps half a dozen large-format cameras in Paris. I'd love to see the results they were getting with them. 6x6 is nice already, but an 8x10 of Provia or Velvia ... the mind boggles. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:48:18 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
You are highly misinformed. No, I'm highly informed, particularly with respect to the information theory that underlies the concepts of analog and digital. You miss-spelt "opinionated". -- Tim C. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Ellie C wrote:
I'm mystified by printing them at all. I have thousands of digital photos but I've probably only printed about a dozen. For me the best part of digital photography is you don't need photo albums and boxes to store lots of things yo never look at. I look through my digital photos frequently. I haven't opened an album of printed photos in years. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. My wife enjoys putting (archival quality) albums together, using prints, postcards, brochures, tickets, etc., from our trips so I've had ample opportunity to compare. And my impression is that the prints are far superior to anything that I can show on my video screen. And that's not even with high end equipment. The better of our two digital cameras is only a 3.2 mp model, so the pictures are 2048 x 1536, before any cropping. My monitor is a 17-inch, running at 1024 x 768, so even if a picture is shown full screen it requires throwing away half of the pixels. More commonly, in Photoshop elements, I'll "fit to screen" which means probably one out of three pixels is shown. With the slight cropping required to reach 8 x 10 format, I'm left with 192 ppi, or less. After the usual sharpening, levels adjustment, etc., I send the prints out to a shop that uses Kodak equipment and I'm consistently impressed by the results. The prints are true to the colors I see on my screen but are just crisper, sharper, more impressive -- and that includes both the 4 x 6s and 8 x 10s. Print at home? Mess with overpriced ink cartridges, clogged nozzles, fussy paper? I think not. -- Ron |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Not glass negatives...................
-- wf. Mxsmanic wrote: randee writes: But remember, if you want to scan negatives you are limited to film scanners (at least at any reasonable price for the home user). Back when I did a lot of contact printing of a negative collection I inherited, a film scanner would have been of no use. Why? You can scan any type of negative. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
A couple of people - the whole point of their travel is to take large
format landscape pictures. You name it, and somebody has it as a hobby. My sister knows a lot more people as she is into landscape photography more than I am. -- wf. PTRAVEL wrote: "randee" wrote in message ... All irrelevant if your primary darkroom focus is contact prints from large negatives. Of course, what's irrelevant is your comment, but never mind. How many people do you know who do large-format photography as a hobby and, since this is a travel group, take their large-format cameras with them when they travel? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Ever seen large format Kodachrome? Absolutely astounding!!! I have
never taken it, but I have seen the results. Problem is, I am not sure you can even get sheet Kodachrome any more, nor do I know what the current status is for processing it. -- wf. Mxsmanic wrote: Magda writes: Many years ago I saw a Japanese guy (with what looked to be his family) taking a pic of Beaubourg with a large format camera. I remember that because he is the only tourist I have ever seen carrying one of those cameras around. In the past decade I've seen perhaps half a dozen large-format cameras in Paris. I'd love to see the results they were getting with them. 6x6 is nice already, but an 8x10 of Provia or Velvia ... the mind boggles. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
holland america cruise holland america cruise line alaska cruise holland america holland america cruise ship | Islam Promote Peace | Cruises | 3 | July 31st, 2004 10:31 PM |
Seven Seas Voyager's 107-night first world cruise Jan. - April 2005. | Anchors Away Cruise Center | Cruises | 1 | April 2nd, 2004 12:39 AM |
High resolution digital world map for travel (1km resolution) | Michal Tina | Africa | 1 | February 29th, 2004 01:57 AM |
Digital world map for travel | c186282 | Africa | 0 | September 10th, 2003 01:38 AM |
Digital world map for travel | Colin | Africa | 0 | September 9th, 2003 08:28 PM |