Digital photography, changing the world

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.

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.

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.

writes:

Depending on how much you are willing to pay for a scanner.

If you can afford to shoot 8x10 sheet film, you must have a fairly large
piggy bank.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.