A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Backpacking and Budget travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Storage of photos whilst travelling?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old November 22nd, 2003, 12:07 AM
Jeremy Henderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

On 21/11/03 8:11 pm, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Jeremy writes:

Indeed, but that particular observation doesn't prove your blanket
statement that "film is higher resolution than digital", does it?


No. Some things are self-evident.


Are you resorting to religious argument now?

In order to prove your case you would have to compare different films
with digital, which you haven't done.


I'm not out to prove anything.


Luckily - because you haven't

Others can decide for themselves. They
can look at the photos I've posted if they want to see good examples of
film (albeit not at full resolution).


Quite so, but they cannot, on that basis, make any deduction except that it
is possible to make good images using film. I'm not sure anyone was doubting
that.

On the other hand, I have provided a reference to a comparison that
suggests that in many plausible situations film has lower resolution
than digital.


I expect people to decide for themselves, and not just on the basis of a
Web page. Then again, some people believe whatever a salesperson tells
them, so perhaps I'm giving the average person too much credit.


People cannot rationally "decide for themselves" without seeing evidence.

More arm-waving. When you have something to say other than "general
rules" and blanket statements unsupported by anything resembling
proof, then please post again.


What reasons do you think there are for shooting film, if not image
quality?


I can think of many. For example - I am shortly going on a trip to Nigeria.
Since I haven't been before, and I've heard a lot of horror stories about
it, I am unwilling to take my expensive digital camera, so I'll be taking
disposables. For another example - I have friends who don't like using a
computer. We have great evenings looking at slides of trips we have made
together, projected on a screen.

You see, there are many ways of looking at things other than yours. Make
your decision as you wish, but please do the rest of us the courtesy of not
assuming that our decisions are based on ignorance.

J.

  #122  
Old November 22nd, 2003, 02:45 AM
Miguel Cruz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
Then why, when Jeremy asked you to do so, did you say "Sure, see:"
followed by URLs of some photos presumably scanned from film?


So that others can judge for themselves.


Judge what?

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

  #123  
Old November 22nd, 2003, 07:52 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Miguel Cruz writes:

Judge what?


The image quality obtained with film.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #124  
Old November 22nd, 2003, 07:56 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Jeremy Henderson writes:

Are you resorting to religious argument now?


No. I simply assume that most photographers have at least a vague idea
how film and digital capture work (although I've noticed that this is an
increasingly dangerous assumption), and so there is no need to explain
to them why film would have higher resolution. It would be like
explaining to them why an f/2.8 lens is more versatile than a f/8 lens.

Quite so, but they cannot, on that basis, make any deduction except that it
is possible to make good images using film. I'm not sure anyone was doubting
that.


Some people have never seen good images from film, and so they
incorrectly assume that film cannot produce good images. Poor scans and
poor prints are legion.

People cannot rationally "decide for themselves" without seeing evidence.


I've provided that.

You see, there are many ways of looking at things other than yours.


Yes, I know that. I try to see everything.

Make your decision as you wish, but please do the rest of us
the courtesy of not assuming that our decisions are based on ignorance.


When I see ignorance, I try to provide enlightenment. I don't take
ignorance for granted, but I don't pretend it's not there when I see it,
either.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #126  
Old November 22nd, 2003, 11:29 AM
Miguel Cruz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
Judge what?


The image quality obtained with film.


Pretty context-free; where was the side-by-side with a digital image of the
same scene?

It's like saying "stones are heavy".

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/
  #127  
Old November 24th, 2003, 02:37 PM
Tim Challenger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:50:30 +0000, Reid wrote:

Following up to bigbrian


As far as cost is concerned its a total no brainer.


only at the low quality end. Full frame SLRs are still
prohibitively expensive


Yes a decent digital SLR costs a bloody fortune. At least as an initial
outlay - which is enough to put a lot of people off.

As an aside, there was a snippet in a recent New Scientist that mentioned
the Mt. Palomar Observatory. It has a video done by Patrick Moore back in
the '80s saying that the telescope used a CCD device for capturing images -
0.5 Mega pixels. Amazing. I wonder what it used nowadays, and other
telescopes for hat matter, as none of them have used film for years.

Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
fx fast-show jazz club voice Nice /fx

That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.
  #128  
Old November 24th, 2003, 08:31 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Tim Challenger writes:

Aha, I just visited their website. It's effectively a 161 megapix jobby.
fx fast-show jazz club voice Nice /fx


But it is made from 112 individual CCDs, making each CCD only about 1.5
megapixels.

That would get you some serious hard-disk space problems, I'd have thought.


Apparently some images are 8000 megapixels in size, when certain
scanning modes of the imaging device are used.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Travelling with a baby in SE Asia Alfred Molon Asia 2 February 25th, 2004 08:10 AM
Earthwatch archaeological dig in Thailand - PHOTOS JS Asia 2 January 20th, 2004 07:01 AM
WWII Air Recon Photos Website Da Parrot-chick Air travel 0 January 18th, 2004 09:26 AM
Travelling alone to Goa JD Asia 2 September 30th, 2003 01:42 AM
Best airline for travelling with under 5s Aaron Aardvark Australia & New Zealand 13 September 29th, 2003 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.