y Film versus Digital Cameras
Film versus Digital Cameras
by Robert Monaghan

Related Local Links:
Beating the 50 lpmm Limit
Film Resolution (lpmm) Pages
How Much Quality Do You Need?
Resolution Issues
Scanners and Resolution

Related Links:
6 MP 24mm x 36mm chip
CMOS vs. CCD sensors [12/2002]
Defocused Lenses Improve DOF by Tenfold (6/2003)
Digimarc Image Degradation (Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
Digital Camera Preview Pages
Digital Back vs. Film
Digital - Devil's Handmaiden
Digital's Dirty Little Secret
Digital One Use Storage (like film)
Film Scanners Pages [7/2001]
Film vs. Digital (Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
Foveon X3 Sensor Images
Fungus Eats CDROM [7/2001]
Fungus eats CDROM Disks (really)
Kodak on antialiasing filters
Lenslets create Credit Card Thickness Lenses (6/2003)
Lifespan of Digital Files by Julian Jackson
Low Cost Medium Format Digital (scanning) [12/2002]
Megapixel Myth (Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
R.P.Digital FAQ...
Scan Tips Pages [7/2001]
Scanning Faq [7/2001]
Should You Buy A Digital Camera? (Ken Rockwell) [9/2002]
Slave Flash Trigger for Digicams
Sony Memory Stick Incompatible with Older Designs [12/2002]
Vertical 3D Chips

National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
Erwin Puts, noted Leica lens tester and author, noted in PN014 of his APEMC newsletter (dated 18 Aug 2002) that National Geographic rates the Nikon D1X images for 1/2 page images, while film (slides) are still useful for a double page spread, a 4:1 difference at their quality standards. Mr. Puts notes that this corresponds with his own tests, confirming National Geographic's standards. While slides can often achieve resolutions of 100-120 lpmm (at least, with Leica lenses ;-), most digital cameras run in the 30 to 40 lpmm resolution range. This difference is inherent in digital cameras which require anti-aliasing filters (which are low pass filters) to reduce the high frequency data which contains fine contrast and high resolution data from the lens.

Why it Matters

Why should we care if people are misled into believing that today's prosumer digital cameras (3 megapixels) provide better quality than film? The short answer is that many 35mm shooters are "upgrading" to digital cameras in the mistaken belief that they are getting a higher quality digital image and other benefits. As one consequence, sales of medium format cameras have dropped by circa 10% in an already small niche market.

The second consequence is economic. Many people are spending a great deal of money on digital cameras, computers, software, and printers in the hope of "saving" money over film based cameras. Unless you are doing a huge volume of photographs, you probably won't recover the depreciation losses from going digital over the lower cost of film at typical amateur shooting volumes.

The final reason is skills related. Being a good digital photographer involves an entire skill set of mainly computer and software related skills that aren't part of traditional photography. These skill sets have a steep learning curve, and assume much mastery of underlying computer skills also unrelated to traditional photography.

Yet we all only have so much time for doing photography. Will it be spent in front of a computer, constantly learning new software and hardware issues, or will it be spent behind a camera and lens? Will your photography get better from studying computer manuals, or from studying the images of great photographers and other artistic sources?

Why Is Digital So Hot?
Posting on Photo Sales Stats notes.. But get this, even though Digital Camera sales form only 4.0% of All Cameras Sold (including single use) their value is 40% that of all cameras sold. Amazing, eh?

Where Digital Comes Out Ahead

Most digital camera fans are unable to list the real areas in which digital cameras are superior to film cameras for some uses.

Question: What is the major photographic benefit from using digital cameras?

  1. near zero cost to make photos
  2. convenience of making photos
  3. greater depth of field in photos

If you said enhanced depth of field over larger format film based cameras, you are right. The small size of film sensors corresponds to smaller film formats, and gives similar DOF benefits. The chip diagonals for common sensors run from 6-8mm (webcams) up to 14-20mm or so. Recall that a 50mm lens for 35mm film has (2 stops) more effective DOF than a 75mm lens on a medium format TLR. By similar ratios, digital cameras can have even larger DOF than most 35mm users are used to seeing. On the other hand, if you want to isolate a subject from its surroundings, that huge DOF can be a serious problem!

Film Vs. Digital Statistics - 400% as Many Film Prints...
Digital will capture 78 billion images in 2002, but only 1/3 will be printed
Film will capture and print circa 100 billion images in 2002 (stable for some years)
Source: Image Bible, IDC Corp, per BJP PROFESSIONAL NEWS 11/19/02

The biggest selling point of digital cameras is convenience. You can get a digital image quickly and conveniently, without the need to develop film and scan an image. You can print out a color image from many color printers quickly, without the need to maintain or have a color darkroom. You can preview your shots in the field, and delete any that you don't want and retake those you do want. But this instant feedback isn't new. Many of us have used polaroid film backs on medium format cameras for decades.


Some of these problems are generic to all current digicams. Others are "fixed" in some degree in the high end cameras, esp. with larger sensors (24x36mm) and SLR camera mounts.

Why Is 16 Megapixels As Good a Resolution as Digicams Can Get?
Mr. Mead said that because of fundamental size limits in the wavelengths of light, it is unlikely that future digital sensors will gain much additional resolution. [Mr. Mead is head of Foveon 16 MP Chip Designer] N.Y.Times article

Digital Chip Surprises

The above quote from Carver Mead, the developer of the 16 megapixel Foveon CMOS chip, will probably surprise many digital camera fans. Chips can't get much smaller. At smaller than today's 0.18 micron technology, small errors or faults on the chip can result in low yields and high costs. The sensors become too small to intercept enough light to produce a noise free signal. So chips are running into physical limits.

Foveon's 16MP chip uses 0.18 micron technology, versus 0.35 to 0.5 micron features for their current 3.1 and 6 MP chip competitors. But we are near the end of what current CMOS technology can do, now and in the foreseeable future. The flip side is that at 16MP, the results will be good enough for most current disposable camera and point and shoot users. So there may also not be much market pressure for higher density chips, just like there aren't many large format users today either.

Foveon's 16MP chip is also 22 by 22 millimeters square(!), which is a problem for rectangular format fans such as 35mm SLR's familiar 2:3 ratios. Simple geometry suggests the 22x22mm chip will only image 56% of the 24x36mm format provided by conventional 35mm SLRs. Using your 35mm SLR lenses would result in a chip-based cropping of the 2x3 rectangle to a 1:1 square - surprise! Your wide angle lenses will become much less wide too after this digital cropping. Things will be worse on medium format, with the 22x22mm chip only imaging 16% of the format area. So a very wide and heavy 40mm Hasselblad lens will act like a 100mm short telephoto lens. Too bad for us wide angle fan(atics)!

Foveon's 22x22mm square chip has 16.8 million sensors, representing 4,096 x 4,096 sensors on a square grid. Given 4,096 sensors on each 22mm axis, you must have circa 186+ sensors per linear millimeter (i.e., 4096/22=186+). You need two rows of sensors to image a line (black/white). So 186 sensors per millimeter corresponds to 93 lpmm (186/2). The sensor can only achieve such maximum resolution if you were to optimally and carefully align the lines with the image grid. In practice, the alignment would be more or less random, and you would only get about half the maximum resolution or about 45 lpmm (cf. Nyquist sampling limits).

Strange as it may seem, the big problem with most optical systems for digital sensors is they are too good. Lenses have aerial resolutions that can run as high as 300 to 600+ lpmm. A low pass filter setup is used to reduce this high frequency response so it doesn't cause problems (such as aliasing). You may also have an infrared filter in front of your sensor, so it isn't adversely affected by invisible IR radiation to which many silicon based sensors are very sensitive.

Kodak's 11 Megapixel Chip Ups Ante
    Kodak DCS 14n Digital SLR features include:
  • KAI-110000CM CMOS device
  • Mfger is Fill Factory (Belgium)
  • 11 million pixels (10.8 million in final image)
  • 4032 x 2688 array
  • maximum capture rate - 3 frames/sec
  • chip is full frame 25mm x 37mm
  • 9 uM pixel size
  • dynamic range 66 dB
  • IR cutoff filter on sensor surface
  • microlenses provide enhanced sensitivity
Source: BJP Digital News - 11 November 2002

Another interesting problem with using existing 35mm SLR lenses designed for film use is that digital sensors are not flat. Instead, the digital sensor's active site is inside a sensor "well" or cavity. The walls of this cavity keep light from the side from easily reaching the sensor below. The ideal lens for digital sensors would provide a parallel bundle of rays (rather than converging) from the rear of the lens onto the sensors. Light from very wide angle lenses in particular come in at a severe angle to the chip surface from many points on the lens. This light can be blocked, providing yet another problem when trying to use current 35mm SLR lenses on digital sensors.

This problem is currently masked by the small chip size of most sensors (e.g., 22 by 22 mm for the Foveon 16MP chip). The chip is only seeing the center of the image circle, often after passing through additional optics plus the front filters (IR, low pass..) on the digital chip surface. We should mention that filters behind the lens cause focus shifts (equal to 1/3rd their thickness, usually) (see Filter FAQ). Other problems like flare can be made worse by rear mounted filters too.

Medium format users would be cropping to the same 22mm x 22mm chip size. So even if we could get such a 16MP chip in a 6x6cm digital back, we would get only 1/6th of the image, and at less than optimal resolution. You can add optics to focus the 56x56mm image onto a 22x22mm square. But besides the cost, you also have to expect rather lower total resolution. The resolution of your optics onto the 22x22mm square is already marginally low, and doesn't get full benefit from the chip's potential resolution. Since the big advantage of medium format is larger film area, using a small chip defeats this expectation. You might as well use 35mm SLR optics and save the weight and cost, since the chip size and optics are the limiting factors.

My bet is that the 16MP and larger chips will be made as small as technology limits (chiefly noise) will allow, and the lenses will be sized to match. Fortunately for users, small lenses such as those used for microfilm cameras can have very high resolutions at relatively low cost (e.g., 250 to 350+ lpmm). It is much easier to improve a small lens and minimize aberrations than in a large one. On the other hand, diffraction becomes a big problem with small lenses very quickly (e.g., past f/2.8).

So I would predict very small, lightweight, and fast optics. I think fixed wider angle lenses will be popular, while "zooming" will be done digitally using interpolation. The lenses will be fast because the smaller size of the sensors will make it hard to avoid noise unless you have a lot of signal (light). Sheets of microlenses looking like bug eyes will help focus light from the entire chip surface onto the limited light sensitive area of the chips (e.g., 30% of chip area).

I am not saying 24x36mm or even 56x56mm (6x6cm) or larger chips won't ever be made. I am betting that those larger chips will be custom production runs, for a very limited (in chip maker terms) market of 35mm and larger camera users. The really low cost mass produced chips will not be aimed at the relative handful of us owning 35mm SLRs. The current Foveon 16MP CMOS chip maker (National Semiconductor) CEO is even talking about millions of cheap 16MP sensor chips added to portable videophones and other gizmos including disposable 16 MP cameras (actually, recycleable is a better description).

Now do you think that you are going to lug around that medium format camera and lenses, or your ten pound bag of 35mm SLR bodies and heavy zoom lenses and tripods, or a six ounce $100 16 Megapixel recycle-able camera? Remember, both will deliver the same 16MP resolution. The tiny lens on the disposable camera may even have lower distortion than those oldie Zeiss or Nikon optics which weigh much more. After all, you can use digital technology to map the distortions on the lens and then correct for them in software (but not in film). Do you really think you will carry around all that obsolete glass, or just use the 16MP sensor in your video digicam or videophone and upload directly to your server and home printer?

My bet is that another ten years will have most current 35mm and larger film format cameras seem as heavy and unappealing as a wooden Kodak 5x7" view camera.

But the bright lining in this digital cloud is that film is likely to remain the high quality choice in the future as it is today. The 16MP chip developer, Carver Mead, is quoted as saying that it is unlikely that digital chips will gain much additional resolution and may already be pushing the limits. So to get more resolution, they will have to make bigger chips, but that will cost much more due to lower chip yields and limited market demands. Digital camera chips are really only affordable when they are mass produced, and that requires a mass market. Few users today have a need for quality beyond 35mm, as lagging medium format and large format market shares show. So folks who want a high quality image and larger prints will need to turn to film to supply that quality for at least the foreseeable future.

Chip Benefits

Some digital camera sensors may have extended light sensitivity ranges over some films, including into the infrared and ultraviolet range. However, the glass (or plastic) lenses usually used with most digital cameras will often limit this IR and especially UV response range. You can select films which have extended IR (or UV) film sensitivity too. Most digital cameras block this capability, to prevent the camera from being fooled by infrared light. So if you want to do IR photography you may be lots better off just using IR film in a regular camera.

Most films are limited to a dynamic range of 7 or 8 stops in practice, for a light range of 1:128 or 1:256. Silicon sensors are capable of much greater dynamic ranges. However, most prosumer digital cameras limit the range of response to a rather narrow range for best picture quality. Under challenging conditions of lighting or subject matter, you may have to reshoot after deleting the bad shot seen on the tiny camera back mounted LCD screen. Many cameras have only a limited ASA or film speed rating range in which this response range can be shifted.

By contrast, you can select film speeds from ASA 0.6 to 32,000. Film reciprocity makes it possible to adjust exposures (and filtering) for longer exposures, up to some hours long for moonlit landscape photos. You can't do this with digital sensors, unless you intend to cool them in liquid nitrogen. The sensors build up noise quickly, so good images can only be achieved for a limited range of short time durations. So certain kinds of long exposure time photography can not be done with digital cameras due to these sensor noise accumulation problems.

Silicon sensors are very much more efficient with low level light than film (however, a 10X or 1,000% faster fine grain film is in the offing, see below). Here again, most digital cameras limit the range of film speed equivalents to only one or two film speeds. Most modest cost consumer digital cameras have a fixed film speed. So what could be a benefit of digital cameras is lost against the ability of film users to pick a range of film sensitivities up to 6,400 ASA and beyond. Making this worse are the new print films with multiple light sensitivity ranges from 100 ASA to 1,000 ASA/ISO ratings in the same film.

Because of their dynamic range, silicon sensors should have a wider latitude of exposure in theory than film. Unfortunately, in practice most digital consumer cameras have an optimal lighting range for getting good pictures that is not very large. By contrast, color print and black and white films have a rather wide range of exposure latitude over which it is possible to get an acceptable print out of the film. Even slide films have a one or more stop range of over or under exposure.

Most consumer digital cameras respond poorly to under or overexposure. Most models seem to work best with a limited range of light (e.g., sunny f/16 daylight conditions). The flash units on lower end digicams are often automatically triggered to supplement even relatively bright light levels. The higher end and more costly digital cameras provide more of the potential range of silicon sensor benefits to the user. But even here, the film user can choose from a wider range of ASA film speeds and often greater latitude in under or over-exposures too.

Digital camera users often proclaim that they can make as many exact digital copies as they wish. That's important, since the rapid obsolescence of storage and computer and digital camera technology means a new generation of each is out every 12 to 18 months. Many digital users ignore the costs of these upgrades. They also ignore the time and labor it takes to organize, backup and convert their images to the latest formats and storage systems. Backups are particularly critical since destructive viruses can potentially destroy your entire online digital photo collection.

If you maintained your digital photos online, this practice would help backup your images automatically via the file server backups. But most web sites are limited to 10 megabytes storage, or 100 megabytes at best, with charges often related to the number of stored megabytes. For high resolution image scans (e.g., TIFF), it won't take many images to use up 10 or 100 megabytes of storage. So your costs for maintaining these files online represent yet another hidden cost of going digital for many users.

You can use gigabytes of local storage instead. But you have to have a way to backup those gigabytes and do so often enough not to lose data in system or virus related crashes. Digital files are subject to the various risks of film and prints (fires, floods..) but also add their own risks. Having seen lots of virus related crashes this last year alone, I suspect that digital photo files are much more at risk than traditional film and print media, especially in the home (non-professional backups) environment.

Leafscan 45 Film Scans File Sizes (source)
FormatMax. PPIwidth pixels height pixelsapprox. file size
35mm portrait508050807400113 mb
35mm landscape25404000279032 mb (cropped)
6x4.5cm25406000450081 mb
6x6cm254060006000103 mb
6x7cm254060007000126 mb
6x9cm254060009000162 mb
6x12cm2540600012000216 mb
4x5" portrait12004740474067 mb (cropped)
4x5" landscape12006000474082 mb

Aliasing - Or Why Film Grain is Superior to Grainless Digital Cameras

Many digital camera advocates believe that the lack of grain in digital sensors makes them superior to film emulsions due to film grain. The opposite is true; film is superior to digital sensors because it has a random pattern of varying sized film grains.

Digital sensors are subject to a rather troubling problem called "aliasing". Aliasing can occur because digital sensors are precisely deposited arrays of sensors and silicon features in a regular grid structure. This grid pattern can interact with regularities or patterns in the image to produce a series of artifacts on the digital imaging. The most familiar example are the Moire patterns and color fringing artifacts.

To try and prevent this troubling problem, most higher end digital cameras have extensive image processing and aliasing detection software. This software tries to guess when you have an aliasing problem (versus when you are using a diffraction grid filter, say). Then the software tries to guess how best to process the image to remove the aliasing artifacts in the image. Depending on the software and aliasing image, the result can be very good to very poor.

The solution to an aliasing problem is simple. You need to convert the regular array of identically sized sensors into an irregular, randomized array of sensors of different size. This solution to digital aliasing is precisely what we have with film grain - an irregular array of different sized grains of light sensitive elements.

Sensor Area - Another Advantage of Film

Most digital sensors use four silicon sensors to create a single picture element or pixel of color image data. Today's consumer digital camera sensors are such that each is typically a 3 micron square element (area of 9 microns).

The size of film grain is a randomized bell shaped curve distribution around some average grain size which is different for each speed and type of emulsion. A typical film grain for mid-speed film might be circa one micron in area.

The first thing you might conclude here is that you would get, on average, nine film grains with a total area of 9 microns (one micron area each) into the same size space as one silicon sensor, namely 9 square microns based on a 3 micron square sensor feature size.

So even if you could build a silicon sensor array the same size as film, it would have much lower resolution than film because of the large size of most silicon sensors versus film grains.

Stacking the Deck - Layered Emulsions versus Silicon Sensors

The analysis gets worse if you consider color images, which are what most digital camera users generate exclusively. For a typical prosumer digital camera color image, we need a block of 4 sensors, each 9 microns in area, yielding a total color sensor equivalent size of 36 square microns (4 sensors x 9 microns).

Film cheats by layering the different color filters and emulsion layers one on top of the other in the typical color film emulsion. This trick is impossible in making a silicon sensor, since they are a planar grid in two dimensions. You can't stack silicon sensors vertically, because the top layer would block light from reaching the sensors underneath it.

The layered nature of color film emulsion lets us achieve a remarkably small area for our color sensors. If the average grain size is our typical one micron area, it will be the same in each color layer (red, green, blue..). These color grains can be superimposed on top of each other to create the individual color elements in the final color Kodachrome slide.

Moreover, film is an analog medium. A film grain may overlap another grain by any percentage value, not just a binary "1" or "0". So the actual range of densities in a 20 micron thick typical film emulsion is highly variable over a wide range. A particular digital sensor of say 12 bits accuracy can register 2^12 or 4,096 tonal values from a 36 micron square sensor site. But film's analog variability is much higher, given 20 or more grains which can overlap by any of a continuous range of values from 0% to 100%.

Why did I say Kodachrome slide above? Because Kodachrome slide films replace the individual film grains exposed in each layer with a colored dye of essentially the same size. Other E-6 color slide films such as Ektachromes and Fujichromes are simpler to process, but the resulting color dye blobs are somewhat larger than the original exposed film grains. Now you know why Kodachrome slides are so sharp. The Kodachrome chemistry is different, and the smaller color blobs result in higher resolution and sharper slides for Kodachrome slides. Newer color print films have finally equalled and in some cases exceeded non-Kodachrome slides in potential resolution recently.

As a result of this film processing effect, we have to de-rate the advantage of the small one-micron sized film grain area somewhat. So we won't claim that our one micron film grains are 36 smaller than the average digital color sensor area (a composite of 4 color filter masked sensors of 9 microns area each). Instead, we'll suggest that color film enjoys a 20-fold or better advantage in smaller color sensor area against digital camera sensors.

Dry Plates vs. Digital Surprises...
You may think that dry plates also are history, but in my day job (holography) we use dry plates every day. We would _love_ to go digital, but we need about 5000 line-pairs/mm of resolution to match the performance we get from dry plates. Digital detectors are still about two orders of magnitude away from that requirement. ... from posting by Helge Nareid

Resolution Limits

If you have 20+ times as many color sensors (film grains) in the same square area as a digital sensor, you would expect to have circa 4.5 times the number of linear sensors (as square root of 20 is 4.47..). So you would expect to have a potential resolution advantage of 4.5 times greater for the smaller film grains in color film emulsions. Some other factors like the distribution of film grain sizes impact this issue (in favor of film), but we will ignore them here. So you would expect that for the same area, film would be capable of resolving more detail. In the same area, color film will have 20+ times as many film grains as a 36 micron square silicon sensor.

In fact, you can calculate the maximum resolution of today's digital camera sensors based on the sensor size. When you do, you get a value of circa 55 lpmm as the maximum resolution of most sensors. Simply realize that a lpmm has to have a line of black dots and a line of white dots to tell it is a distinct line. Color sensors (with support and control lines) are typically spaced 9 microns apart, so two lines of sensors take 18 microns to make a line of black and white dots. From the math, 1/18 microns is 0.0555 lines per micron, times 1,000 microns per millimeter, yielding 55.5 lpmm. So the best case resolution of current day consumer digital camera sensors is typically around 55 lpmm.

In the real world, you need to consider sampling issues, as image data will practically never align with the sensor array in the theoretically maximum resolution best case. Generally, you only get about half the maximum value, or under 30 lpmm in our example. This resolution limit would be easily achieved with 800 ASA print film in the $8.95 disposable Kodak Max HQ cameras with two element plastic lenses (rated at over 30 lpmm in Popular Photography tests).

Darkroom Print, Inkjet, or Color Laser Prints - Which is "the Best"?
I have it printed as 8x10 on whatever printer I am considering (ink jet, color laser, etc) with proper paper, ink, etc. I also had it printed at a digital service center, and printed directly off the negative. Then I let "someone else" look at them with instructions not too be worried about slight color shifts (I know those could be corrected with enough time in Photoshop). I simply want their opinion of which is "sharper or clearer". So far, the ink jets and color lasers have never been selected as "the best".
See posting

Image Quality - 6 vs 8 lpmm in the Print?

The original Leica standard for a quality 8x10" print viewed at 10" distance is 8 lpmm on the print. A younger human eye can see differences between 4 and 6 and 8 lpmm on the print. Most of us can readily detect 4 versus 6 lpmm resolution on the print. But few adult eyes can resolve or see quality differences from more than 8 lpmm on the print at the specified viewing distance.

Many photographers are happy with less than 4 lpmm on prints which are viewed at a longer distance (e.g., 20 inches or more). Larger prints are often viewed from afar. So you can't detect the lower print resolution without getting up close (e.g., 16x20" at 20"...). If you masked off an 8x10" section of these larger prints, and looked at it from ten inches, you would see that the print quality is less than optimal (with experience). The effects of low quality minilab prints has led to a further erosion in the level of acceptable print quality too.

Most digital printers use a relaxed print quality standard as a way of expanding the size and area of an "acceptable" quality digital print. The math is again simple arithmetic. For 300 dpi printers, you divide 300 dots per inch by 25.4 millimeters per inch. The result is 11.8 dots per millimeter. Unfortunately, it takes a row of black and a row of white to make a line. So we have to divide that 11.8 dots per millimeter by 2 to produce circa 6 lpmm on the final print. So a 300 dpi printer is capable of producing nearly 6 lpmm quality prints.

To reach the Leica standard of 8 lpmm on the final print, you would need over 400 dpi (25.4mm/inch x 8 lpmm x 2 dots/line).

What does a typical 3 megapixel camera deliver? First, start by ignoring that many 3 megapixel cameras have really just 2.7 million usable pixels. We will also ignore that most digital sensors are not 8:10 aspect ratios. An 8x10" print printed full frame has 8" x 10" or 80 square inches of area. Dividing 3 million pixels from the digital camera by 80 sq. in. yields 37,500 pixels per square inch. The square root of 37,500 is 193 pixels per linear inch. In other words, a 3 megapixel camera can only produce 193 pixels of true color data when making an 8x10" print. But many color printers print at 300 dpi, or 600 dpi, 1200 dpi, or even 2400 dpi. So where are all those millions of extra colored dots coming from?

In practice, software is used to interpolate or project a smoothed set of data for the printer even when printing at a modest 300 dpi. As we calculated above for a 3 MP digicam, we have circa 37,500 pixels/sq. inch. For 300 pixels/inch, we need 300x300 or 90,000 pixels/sq. inch. We have only 37,500 pixels/sq. inch. In other words, the software is interpolating roughly 2 out of every 3 pixels in a typical 8x10" print at 300 dpi.

Now you know why digital prints have such a smooth and "creamy" texture to them. The vast majority of printed color dots are interpolated between the relative handful of actual or real color data points from the digital camera. The higher the printer dpi, the more dots and the more smoothing that goes on.

Given that 400 dpi corresponds to 8 lpmm, 193 dpi corresponds to less than 4 lpmm. So an optimally sized true 3 megapixel camera is delivering at best less than half the 400 dpi needed for a Leica quality standard print. Stated another way, a Leica quality print (at 8 lpmm) will have four times the resolvable image data on the same size print. That is quite a quality difference!

To get a Leica quality standard (8 lpmm) 8x10" print out of an optimized aspect ratio (4:5) sensor digital camera, you need not a 3 megapixel camera but more like a 12 megapixel camera (4 times more sensors). Assuming future 2:3 aspect ratio (corresponding to 35mm film's 24x36mm) digital cameras, a 16 megapixel camera will just about produce an 8 lpmm quality standard 8x10" full print on a 300 dpi color printer.

Squandered Silicon

A related issue is that some digital sensors are "in-line" arrays, while others are not. In some sensors, you use up a large fraction of the silicon sensor area in support and data storage functions, with the actual sensor being only a small fraction of the overall surface area (e.g., 30%). So only a small part of the image data is falling on a light sensitive sensor, with the rest falling on data lines and other chip features.

Imagine a window screen in which each tiny square blocked 2/3rds of the light. You will still have an image, but it might be somewhat different from one in which 100% of the light is used to generate data. The actual point where a dark area and light area change over in the image may be incorrectly guessed by the software. Moreover, smaller light sensitive areas mean fewer photons are captured, and eventually the noise levels kill the quality of your digital image.

Some chips (such as RCA) use a matrix of microlenses over these smaller chip sensors. This trick helps the smaller sensor act more like their more efficient (70% or so) cousins, especially improving noise performance. But the flip side is that the smaller sensor size can't be used to improve the potential resolution of these chips.

Chips and Resolution Limits

Chip makers face some daunting challenges. If you make the chip sensors smaller, you can get higher densities and more image data from the same sized chip. But the sensors become so small that you get less light intercepted by each sensor. The effects of noise become more problematic with smaller sensors, producing problems in the images. So even if you could make a chip with very tiny sensors packed very closely together, problems with noise would be hard to overcome.

One reason current sensors remain relatively large is that the overall system costs are kept lower by using cheaper lenses. This factor more than offsets the slightly larger silicon real estate used in making the larger chips. With a 9 micron sensor, we had circa 55 lpmm as a resolution limit. The sensor is smaller than 35mm film, so it is easier to make a higher resolution lens for it more cheaply than for 35mm film too. Most third party zoom lenses can easily deliver this level of optical resolution for the small size sensors of most current chips. So we are at a "sweet spot" where the chip size and required low lens resolution makes it cheap and easy to build current digicams.

Let us say you develop a 16 MP chip with much higher density in the desired 24mm x 36mm size format. Since today's 3 to 5 MP chips are slightly smaller than 35mm film (by 40% or so on), some of the higher density will come from larger chip area to reach 24x36mm sizes. The rest will have to come from higher sensor density. But there is a problem with denser and smaller sensors due to problems with noise in the small sized sensors and the limited amount of light hitting the smaller sensors.

Assuming you have roughly halved the sensor size, you would expect roughly twice the resolution you had before. Our old 9 micron sensors delivered at most roughly 55 lpmm. Twice that 55 lpmm value is 110 lpmm. For example, if the new X3 technology announced in Jan/Feb 2002 (see postings) enables stacking three red, green, and blue sensors on a single sensor site, then such resolutions might be achieved (at least in bright light)? For photographers using autofocus, our AF lenses can rarely exceed 50 lpmm with any consistency. Many low end consumer zooms may be challenged to deliver 110 lpmm resolution to the chip surface (especially in the corners).

I do need to point out that when we deal with lens resolution on film, it is the result of the camera, lens, and film resolution components taken together as a system. With most color films, the low film resolution limits (typically 50 lpmm to 80 lpmm) means that the film is more limiting than our lenses. Many lenses can deliver well over 200 and even 400 lpmm, with some high end optics (e.g., Leica summicron 50mm) hitting 650 lpmm aerial lens resolution. The problem is that these lenses are too good!

So digital camera designers have to put in a low pass filter, which cuts off the high frequency components. Those high frequency components are the crispy details and sharp elements in your image, and the image projected by a quality lens. None of this data gets to the digital image sensor, where it could cause aliasing and other problems. The low pass filter is basically a softening filter that is permanently mounted over your digital camera sensor to "dumb down" your lens to a low enough resolution compatible with your digital sensor. So you might as well be using a cheapy lens with most such low pass filtered digital sensors. The costly high resolution components of your pricey OEM lenses will be filtered out and lost anyway.

The flip side of this argument is that 35mm sized chip sensors can only deliver resolutions slightly better than today's 3MP to 5MP cameras using current 35mm lenses. At some point, you don't have enough light to provide a large enough signal to the sensors to overcome the inherent noise in the smaller sized sensors. Do you see the problem here?

How about a medium format sized chip? With a larger area, you could use current medium format lenses with a larger area chip to yield higher quality digital images (e.g., 16MP). The problem here is few folks have medium format rigs, and they are big and heavy. The larger chips would have higher rejection rates. The bigger chips would have more chances to have a defect on them due to their larger area. That spells higher costs too. To me, these observations suggest that the cost of custom digital backs for medium format will remain high for some time to come.

New Lenses for 16 MP Cameras

The obvious solution is to make smaller and higher density chips in smaller formats. It is relatively cheap to make microfilm lenses which resolve in the 200 lpmm range, and even 300 lpmm is readily possible. A smaller high density chip would have higher yields, and hence lower costs too. The microfilm format lenses would be lighter and cheaper to make. Most of the 40+ million digital cameras projected to be sold this year won't use existing 35mm SLR lenses. So I suspect that the smaller chip sizes of the 16MP high density chips will obsolete the use of 35mm sized camera bodies and lenses for all the reasons stated here.

The other side of this issue is whether it will be worthwhile to have a digital back or digital film insert for existing 35mm SLRs and medium format rigs. None of the current 35mm film based SLRs nor medium format rigs are optimal platforms for a digital system. Only a few medium format cameras even have data links to their backs and lenses (e.g., Rollei).

Now suppose a 16 MP digital camera with a super high resolution microfilm format zoom lens weighs less than a pound with batteries and gigabytes of removable data elements. Thanks to mass production, it costs under $1,000. Do you really think you would lug around, let alone buy, medium format or 35mm SLR bodies to get much lower resolution images from the lower resolution 35mm or 6x6cm lenses? No, huh? Conversely, given you can have a 200 lpmm zoom microfilm format lens for $100 cost on your 16 MP digicam, will you really be bummed out by not having to carry around all those 35mm or 6x6cm heavy lenses? Hmmm? The only thing you are getting by using your 35mm or medium format SLR as a base for a digital camera is a poorly designed and heavy case. Your expensive high resolution lenses will be wasted as their high contrast and high resolution images are put through a low pass filter (acting as a softening filter essentially) to reduce your high dollar lens resolution to a low enough level to match the chip's limitations.

In short, I think we will see an interim design using the existing base of 35mm SLR lenses at or near their resolution limits on a digicam body for the 5 to 10 MP resolution chips. Medium format backs will continue to be specialty items at high cost, due to the small size of the market and its fractured nature (hasselblad vs. rollei vs. mamiya..). The future 16 MP digicams will probably use smaller high density chips mandating smaller high resolution optics which will obsolete 35mm SLR lens based cameras.

Financial Sanity

The average USA household shoots under 100 photos per year, or roughly 4 rolls of 24 exposure film - one roll per season. Now you know why disposable cameras are so popular. Only a relative handful of amateur photographers shoot more than a roll or two of film per week. At a typical minilab cost around $10 for film and processing, that $20 per week adds up to around $1,000 per year in running costs. Most casual photographers shoot more like a roll of film per month, or circa $100 per year. If you shoot slides (as I mostly do), then your costs are more like half this figure.

Digital camera users would have you believe that since you don't need film or minilabs to do digital prints, the cost of digital photos is effectively zero. Maybe so, but they must be stealing those 2CR23 batteries from somewhere. If you are used to replacing a mercury or silver cell in your light meter every 3 to 5 years, the battery costs for a digital camera can be a suprise. Even worse, if you need to use flash for many of your photos, you will be shocked at how fast even a small flash eats up lithium batteries. On one of my web cameras, I can take 250 shots per set of batteries (3 cents per photo), or 60 shots with flash. A typical mix yields circa 8 cents per photo for digital camera battery costs alone.

Naturally, you could use an external battery pack with rechargeable batteries and a charger, and carry spare batteries. Some digital pro cameras use AA rechargeable batteries, although many prefer the higher energy and much higher cost NiMH rechargeables. My homebrew external battery pack for one of my memory card cameras weighs more than the digital camera. But most folks just put more batteries in while arguing to themselves that they are really saving much more on film and processing.

Note that I am not counting the cost of external strobe batteries here either, since that would be the same for film too. But on many digital consumer cameras, there isn't a provision for triggering an external strobe except by using the internal flash to trigger a slave photosensor on the bigger external flash. Most digital camera strobes have such low flash power that they can't really do much for lighting even at 6 to 10 feet. So you may end up with a much larger kit using a real strobe to light the eyes of subjects even ten feet away.

What if you elect to make digital prints of all your photos to 4x6" or 5x7" or whatever your photolab provides? You have to pay for the costs of paper and ink. If you want the highest quality photos, the proper papers cost around $1 per sheet. For four 4x6" prints, that's about 25 cents each - for high quality photo-grade papers. So if you are using the high quality paper, plus ink, plus factor in battery costs, the cost per 4x6" print is higher for digital prints than the cost of film and processing for mini-lab prints.

One nice feature of digital printing is that you can make pretty good quality 8x10" prints, even 11x14" and panoramics up to 11x48" on some color printers. You can, that is, if you start with a film image that is scanned into a digital file. Today's current 3 megapixel digital cameras may produce an acceptable 8x10" print on some shots, but few can do a full print (to the borders) on 11x14". You can find mail-order places offering 8x10" prints at modest costs (often just over $1 per print in bulk). I find it a bit paradoxical that the big savings with digital image processing and printing isn't feasible with current digital cameras, but rather only to those of us using both film and digital technology.

You can use regular paper or lower cost photo paper in many printers, but the quality will be less (and possibly less archival). Another significant cost is ink, which can run anywhere from a few cents per print on up (some printers require 3 or 4 ink cartridges at up to $30 retail a pop). So while it is possible to spend less on printer paper with some printers, you still have significant on-going costs for ink, paper, batteries, and other supplies.

What other supplies? How about all those CDROMs or zip disks that are storing your digital images? A 3 megapixel camera (at 16 million colors is 24 bits or 3 bytes per color pixel) works out to circa 9 megabytes of raw data per image. Even a 1 megapixel 24-bit color image is 3 megabytes. You can use lossy compression (e.g., JPEG) and greatly reduce these file sizes, but at the loss of already marginal image data and fidelity of the image. You will also need to backup your files on other media (e.g., negatives and prints are backups of each other). What I am suggesting here is that you have a significant cost in storage media which is often ignored by those claiming that digital camera costs are nearly zero.

Obsolescence - Digital's Hidden Cost Iceberg

An iceberg has 90% of its bulk hidden underwater. The same is true of digital camera costs. The big dollar cost in digital photography is not the cost of batteries, ink, photo-quality papers, or storage media cited above. The big cost is buying a $2,000 digital camera plus $1,200+ computer and monitor and color printer ($200+) setup with software ($?). Two or three years later, the computer will be worth a few hundred dollars, and the digital camera about the same.

Nobody wants a 640x480 web camera, or even a 1.2 megapixel digital camera, when you can get a 3 megapixel (usually 2.7 MP on chip) camera. As with older computers, the price drops precipitiously. That economic loss when upgrading to a new digital camera model every few years - new printer and new computer and new storage system and new software version of Photoshop... - hey, it all adds up.

Let's assume that your depreciation losses on upgrading your setup to a new digital camera and new printer are as suggested above. That works out to a $2,000 depreciation loss on hardware, software, and peripherals in two years, or roughly $1,000 per year. This figure is roughly the same as the running costs for the more active film amateur photographers shooting a few rolls of film per week. Our casual shooters burning a roll a month or $100 a year are spending rather less on their photography. So the vast majority of amateur photographers would be out less money if they are shooting film with film cameras with a much longer obsolescence period (e.g., ten years or $100 per year in camera obsolescence).

Speaking of obsolescence, don't forget that high power computer, disk drives, monitor, CDROM, backup tape drive, and color scanner. Now you need a CDROM burner, no make that a DVD reader, no, you really need this DVD burner and buggy software that goes with it. The syquest tape backup drive is out, you need a DAT backup tape system. The old 15 inch monitor is too small, you really need this 19 or 21 inch monitor. And your old color scanner is only 24 bits, don't you really need 30 or 32 bits? Don't forget to get the light table for it to scan film in too. You could use an Intel 486 for your internet email and office projects, but to run Photoshop with 128 megabytes you really need a Pentium II, or is it III or IV? If all this sounds familiar, it is probably because you too are on the digital express. As Alice in Wonderland said, you have to keep running to stay in place. Only with digital photography, you have to keep paying and paying!

Learning Curves

How much is your time worth? Maybe you would be better off working at one of those film minilabs for $5 per hour and doing your prints for free? When you pay for minilab prints, you are also paying for the labor to do the job, and re-do the job if it isn't done right. Even after learning and doing digital photography, you will often find yourself reprinting prints and spending hours "tweaking" your images. If you don't match your color monitor to your output device, I can guarantee you will be doing a lot of reprinting if you are finicky about your photos!

Speaking from my teaching experience, I can assure you that there is a steep learning curve for non-geeks learning digital photography and computer technology. The cost of books and courses is also never mentioned by advocates of digital photography. You can often buy a nice coffee table sized photobook by a favorite pro photographer for the price of a thick and boring software book with CDROM.

The cost of image processing software, add-in packages for special effects, and other software packages is also not trivial. It is not unusual to pay more for computer software than for computer hardware, especially with some programs like Photoshop and the Adobe suite costing over $500 for a commercial copy. Don't forget to factor in all those digital photography and computer magazine subscriptions that you will be reading to learn the inside tips too.

And finally, every hour behind the computer monitor or reading a computer software book or manual is another hour you won't be spending taking pictures.

Color Reference

If you take a color slide or color print, you have an inherent color reference against which you can check your final print. But what do you use in the digital world? A simple example of this problem would be to view the same image on a Mac and on a PC monitor, with obvious color differences between monitors. But the only solution is to preserve the color fidelity throughout the entire chain, including the final output device. But CMYK inks and printing processes may vary as significantly as monitors, as there is no defined standard on the output, let alone for each element in the chain. Efforts such as Epson's Print Image Management system attempt to fill in some of these gaps. But digital photographers are basically adrift without such start to finish color fidelity management capability. By contrast, it is easy to compare a slide or print with the resulting ad copy or magazine or book pages. [see Professional Photographers Newsletter (email from British Journal of Photography) of 27 March 2001].

Beyond 16 Megasensor Chips?

Today, only 1% of all minilab prints are 8x10" prints or larger. Most computer color printers are limited to 11 inch widths, implying a standard 11x14" print size. My guess is that prints larger than this standard width will be farmed out to minilabs with larger printers. The flip side of this observation is that the optimal digicam size is likely to be around the 16 MP chips which can support a decent 11x14" print with some cropping allowed.

I am suggesting that it may be hard to justify a costly 64 MP chip camera if you are just doing 11x14" prints. Many of us will be happy with 8x10" or 11x14" prints from a 16 MP digicam, just as we are today with minilab prints in this size. A square chip would provide 8192 pixels on each axis, or 4096 lines, yielding 500 mm of print with circa 8 lpmm print quality, or one meter (circa 39") of 4 lpmm print quality. But if you are just printing 8x10" or 11x14" prints, the higher density of the 64 MP chips may be overkill that won't show up in the prints. The human eye can't see or resolve the data past circa 8 lpmm, so the extra information might not be readily discernible?

Data Interpolation

Digital data is currently interpolated to a large degree to supply a larger image when printing from current 1 to 3 MP digicams. As noted above, a 3 MP camera provides about 37,500 pixels per square inch in an 8x10" print (optimally mapped at the 4:5 aspect ratio). The typical 3 MP camera (2.7 MP true) actually delivers closer to 150 pixels per linear inch in an 8x10" print. Most printers generate 300 dpi or better output. That means we require 300x300 or 90,000 dots per square inch to make the print. Where do those extra dots or data come from? Interpolation!

Interpolation happens at a number of levels. The sensors on a typical chip are only able to measure levels of light, typically 8 bits or 0 to 255 levels of greyscale data. To generate a color picture element (pixel), we have to use at least three sensors, each of which is masked with a color filter to respond mainly to red, green, or blue light. The 8 bits of red, 8 bits of green, and 8 bits of blue data are used to create a 24 bit color value. In practice, we use a four element Bayer pattern of RGGB, partly because such a power of two array is easier to design, access, and build. Since the human eye is most sensitive to green light, the averaged green information provides the best and most pleasing image results.

However, some high resolution digital cameras are made using three separate chips. Each of these chips is masked with a different color filter, resulting in the required red, green, and blue color data.

While we currently use 24 bits of color data depth, other higher values are possible with lower noise and higher analog to digital converter bit depth (e.g., 30 bits of color data with a 10 bit A/D converter). We currently use 24 bits as the best compromise of cost and complexity against acceptable quality of the resulting millions of colors provided by 24 bit color depth. Color scanners have improved and increased their color bit depth from 24 bits to 30 and 32 bits and beyond, so digital cameras may follow suit in the future too.

Imagine a bathroom floor made of patterns of red, green, and blue tiles. The pattern is RGGB in a square or diamond shape. The software takes the observed 8 bits of red, blue, and (averaged) green data and generates a 24 bit color value for that square. That data point can be considered to be at the center of that square, and is a dimensionless point. But you can also realize that it represents the average intensity and color of the light falling on the light sensitive sensors in that grid of four sensors.

If it takes four sensors in the RGGB Bayer pattern to produce one color pixel, how does a 3 megasensor camera deliver 3 million pixels of color data? This process varys with different cameras, but in general, the camera uses the nearest available blocks of the required colors to interpolate a color data value at each point. So the four nearest red sensor cells to a blue block might be averaged to get an 8 bit estimated value for red at that point, and similarly for green. Now move on to the next sensor, say a red masked sensor, and repeat the averaging for the four nearest blue and green sensors around it. Keep going, stepping through the matrix of sensors.

One minor problem is that when you get close to the edges of the chip pattern, you don't have the required color data to project estimates for these edge sensors. For this reason, many chips are unable to provide quite as many pixels of color data as they have actual on-chip pixels. The larger the chip, the smaller the percentage of these lost data points. In some cases, the software tries to "mirror" or guess an interpolated color pixel value for the edges too, but the guess may not be very good.

A more interesting problem is that the average and maximum dimensions of these interpolated color pixels may be different from those computed using the close Bayer block pattern (RGGB). Blue sensors on a grid will have a pattern of four green and four red sensors in a box around them. Red sensors will have a pattern of four green and four blue sensors around them too. But what about the two green sensors next to each other? Ooops! The patterns must now be different. Depending on your approach, you will be using data from sensors farther away (e.g., to get four red and four blue values for averaging).

What happens to resolution if you are averaging in light from more distant sensors? In effect, you have generated an average color value from a larger area sensor, right? And a larger area sensor means lower resolution, given a fixed sensor density and chip size. So the chip resolution depends a bit on color and software algorithms used in interpolating these color values over the grid of the chip sensor array (excluding those "falling off the edge" values).

Effects of Chip Defects

In order to keep yields of high density chips higher, some chips use complex software to keep track of glitches or bad spots on the chip. Imagine a dust mote in chip processing has zapped a tiny spot on the chip's surface. While the spot is tiny, it has destroyed two sensor sites. The chip has to use special software routines to lookup and interpolate values to use in place of the bad sensor data. Some chip makers might permit only a few such defective sites in their chips before destroying them. Others might be happy with lower costs and higher profits from accepting scores such bad sites and fixing them in software. But the result is further loss of fidelity of the resulting image data against the original image projected by the lens of the subject.

Interpolation In Printing

All of the on-chip related interpolation issues pale in comparison to the issue of interpolation during printing. The typical 3 MP camera (actually closer to 2.7 MP image data) can provide circa 150 color dots per inch from actual sensor data (itself interpolated). The photo-realistic color printers typically start around 300 dots per inch, and go up to 2400 dpi and above. You have data for 150 dpi, but want to print at 300 dpi, so you need to interpolate 3 new data values for each value of image data that you have. That's for an 8x10" print using a 3 MP camera. For an 11x14" print, you have twice as much image area. So you have to interpolate 7 out of 8 data values in software. Stated another way, 3/4ths or 75% of what you see in an 8x10" print is interpolated data. For an 11x14" print, some 7/8ths or 88% of what you see is interpolated data. To do 16x20" prints, you would have to interpolate 15/16ths of the image data on the print.

In practice, few folks would find 16x20" color prints from a 3MP digicam to be of sufficient quality, and most would find 11x14" prints rather marginal.

One of the giveaways of low resolution (3 MP) digicam prints is their "creamy" texture. The texture is creamy because it is largely interpolated, with a series of interpolated values smoothing out the steps between actual data values from the 3 MP cameras (itself interpolated). Lots of people like this creamy smooth image effect, unless they have had experience with higher quality photo prints.

Sad to say, but few people nowadays have ever seen a high quality photographic print. In many minilabs, the enlargers are purposely defocused slightly to hide the effects of dust and scratches on your negatives. The low quality of many fast 800 ASA/ISO films also doesn't help. So the low quality of today's minilab prints has accustomed the public to lower quality photographic images, making the lower quality of digital prints seem as good and in many cases better than minilab photographic prints.

We are already seeing people rediscovering photography and high quality print making after seeing quality photographs such as the traveling exhibitions of Ansel Adams environmental prints or even a local camera club salon print competition. I suspect that one of the future benefits of film based print making will be precisely the ability to produce contrasty and detailed prints which extensive software interpolation and smoothing makes impossible in digital prints.

Film vs. Digital - Terabytes vs. Megapixels
I once read (in an astrophotgraphy book by Walis & Provin)
that a fine grain 4x5 negative is capable of holding
2,200 gigabytes of information...George Stewart...

Best of Both Worlds

Fortunately, we have another way of getting digital images - scanning. By scanning film, we get the benefits of film with its high quality along with the economy of scanning over digital sensor arrays. Even modest cost scanners enable us to get a scanned image from film or prints which are much larger than the current prosumer digital cameras.

For many amateur users, modest cost scanners and color printers will make a nice combination with their existing computer systems. Personally, I think this trick will make 8x10" prints more accessible to many amateur photographers, including those who don't have access to a home darkroom.

One of the intriguing options here is to use the data from panoramic selections and print panoramic prints of any length (by setting printer software and using roll papers).

Another alternative is to have the film scanned on a drum scanner or other very high quality scanning device. The resulting digital image data files (at up to 600+ megabytes per image) dwarfs the image data provided by 3 to 5 megapixel digital cameras. Costs vary from $15 USD on up, with delivery via CDROM or over the Internet as popular options.

At a past Dallas Hasselblad University program, the discussion and interest on digital photography focused on the scanner based options. Perhaps this is just a reflection of the $50,000+ cost for a medium format digital back for Hasselblads from Dicomed and others? But many pros have found that adding a scanner and learning digital skills have opened up some new markets. But probably 3/4ths of pro photographers have yet to see enough advantages to begin to make the sizeable investments in time, money, and learning efforts to make the transition to digital. They may be wisely waiting for us amateur digital photographers to drive down the costs enough to make digital photography worth the real costs - including high depreciation rates.

Conclusions

Today's high end digital 1 to 3 megapixel digital cameras do a decent job of providing modest sized and quality images (up to 8x10" or so), with an emphasis on speed and convenience over film processing requirements. But even at 3 megapixels, today's digital cameras have limitations and deliver less quality than even modest cost film based cameras. The total costs of a fully digital camera based system is also much greater than usually claimed, largely due to rapid depreciation of cameras and equipment. Many of the benefits of digital imagery (for web use..) can be achieved by using film with an appropriate scanner or color printer. Until the costs of 16+ megapixel sensors falls significantly, film will still provide much higher potential quality than even the best prosumer digital cameras.

Warning RE: Lexar Media's new Write Acceleration-enabled CompactFlash cards

The Lexar 32x and 40x Professional Series cards can become corrupted (CHA error code) when used with Nikon's D1X or D1H digital SLR cameras, per British Jrnl of Photography note (see BJP PROFESSIONAL NEWS - 4 June 2003 or same week's BJP in print for details). The images on the cards are lost, and the cards can't even be reformatted.

[Ed. note: thanks to Meryl Arbing for helping promote the creation of this resource page]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001
From: Meryl Arbing marbing@sympatico.ca
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: A page to respond to the digital enthusiasts

Mr. Monaghan,

I enjoy reading your site. I am not advanced enough to claim that I understand everything on a technical level but things seem to ring true. I have also been reading the thread on rec.photo.35mm.equipment about digital's comparability with film. I even responded to one of your postings referring specifically to the http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm site where the owner claims that his Canon D30 digital camera exceeds the print quality of Provia 100F. I know that Provia is a transparency film which is why he decided to scan the slide and print it on an inkjet printer to get hard copy. On the surface, he seems to have a point but I am not sure where he has made his mistake.

I have had digital cameras for some years now so I am not unaware of the strengths of the technology but I never thought that a 4x6 prints that I got from my digital cameras/inkjet printer were superior to the 4x6s that even a simple photo lab would deliver from my little point and shoot 35mm.

I found this site from Schnieder Optics http://www.schneideroptics.com/pressreleases/kina.htm which indicated that as the resolution of the digital image approached a certain point that the structure of the digital CCD produced false data and introduced detail that did not exist in the real world. I also did not understand the technicalities very well either but it may explain why some digital cameras test at a resolution which is greater than Nyquist theory would account for.

What is needed is another part of your site which would add a little reality to the enthusiastic claims of the digital users. Digital is quite an exciting technology but it doesn't replace all existing imaging technology and it needs somebody who knows what they are talking about to add a little truth to the whole business.

Meryl Arbing

From: "Mark Morgan" mmorgan2@san.rr.com
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: contrary evidence was Re: Pop Photo digital vs film comparison

I didn't find ANYTHING in your post to disagree with.

Well done!

-mm

"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote 

> some good queries, to which I respond:
>
> you are right that we aren't getting the equiv of 22 to 150 times more
> quality out of film vs. digital in most cases - but this is not the  fault
> of the camera or film. The film is technically capable of much greater
> quality, but most of us sacrifice that potential in various ways (see  list
> at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/limits.html). Yet I find it strange
> that photographers who denigrate third party lenses because they deliver
> maybe 15%-20% lower resolution, suddenly jump on the digital bandwagon  and
> ignore quality differences of much greater dimensions. I blame the ads  ;-)
>
> When the top engineers designing digital cameras tell you that film wins
> in the quality dept by a large margin, IMHO that should be it ;-) If  some
> guy with a scanner and digicam thinks he knows more than the guys who
> designed both, it is time for us to question their claims - and loudly!
>
> I would probably agree that a cruddy print out of a minilab in which  they
> purposely defocus the lens to hide the scratches their underpaid clerks
> are putting on the film, and hairs etc., probably explains why so many  of
> us think that digital cameras are the equal or superior to film as
> claimed ;-)
>
> I also blame kodak for constantly reducing the silver content in films  and
> papers, and for coming out with poor designs and formats like the disc
> camera, 110, 126 (not flat), APS which all try to trade off quality for
> higher profits. Digital cameras are only the latest extension?
>
> If you compare to cibachrome prints, or a high silver content print, you
> can begin to see the differences a bit more clearly, and even more so  for
> drum scanned imagery. The real problem is that so few folks have seen a
> high quality cibachrome or B&W print image; or seen a medium format  slide
> projected, so they can accept the claims of digital's superiority based  on
> cruddy minilab prints...
>
> the simple test is to see how far you can enlarge the imagery before it
> falls apart; in most cases, you can get lots of enlargement capability  out
> of various films, far in advance of what a digital image would provide -
> esp. if you use good technique and pro processing. If you eliminate the
> losses from enlarger lenses (i.e., drum scanning) you get an even better
> appreciation about the quality of film (vs. digital). If you take a 5x
> print, you can still enlarge a section of it by a large amount (e.g., to
> 28X per a prior post) and still have a coherent and usable image. Not so
> in digital cameras, which are pushing their limits on low-res 300 dpi
> 5x7 or 8x10 prints with modest color depths etc. If you use slow high
> silver content film, with film resolutions now up to 300+ lpmm - wow!
>
> What I find odd is that so few folks who are pro digital can articulate
> the real advantages of digital cameras (e.g., dynamic range of sensors,
> extended depth of field considerations, instant checking of shot..).
> Instead, they focus on arguing how digital beats film and the costs of
> digital shooting are essentially zero and other misleading claims...
>
> The supposedly zero costs claimed for digital cameras ignores the  enormous
> depreciation in value of used cameras (that's how I buy mine for less  than
> the sales tax on the original, now 2 years old digicameras).  And
> similarly, they ignore costs of backups (and labor to do so), costs of
> storage and file conversion, costs of learning computer skills at pro
> level (steep learning curves), costs of obsoleting computer gear and
> printers etc. and so on. If you shoot scores of rolls of film a day,  like
> some studios and pros, and have clients who will accept digital formats,
> then you can save some $$ even on a 2 year depreciation camera or pro
> digital camera back at these volumes. But for the casual shooter, it is
> questionable to ignore all these costs in the digital camera, esp. given
> the average photographer is shooting only 96 shots/yr (per industry  stats
> see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/economics.html and
> ~rmonagha/mf/photostats.html ). For most photographers, film is the
> cheaper and higher quality solution to making images in modest volumes.
>
> But if you look from the mfgers point of view, digital is just in time,
> now that we've all "upgraded" to autofocus cameras. They can sell us
> completely different cameras and smaller, more convenient zoom lenses  ;-)
> Sure, the quality is less than on old SRT101, but hey, it's DIGITAL! ;-)
> Even better, everything from a few years ago is obsolete today, and you
> might as well buy an entirely new camera (with fixed lens etc.) - and
> you'll need a faster computer with more storage too with that! ;-) And
> there is no end in sight!
>
> grins bobm

From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 11 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: contrary evidence was Re: Pop Photo digital vs film comparison 

> Wrong again, Heavy!  I've spent ZERO $$ on digital.  100% of it's cost  was
> picked up by my boss!  I have ZERO need for rationalization of purchaswe
> here, since I didn't spen a single dime on it!!

You'd have a little bit of trouble in my organization, since I'm the boss and you would have to build a business case for the purchase of that D30. I doubt, given your statements here, that you have the necessary business skills to make such a case.

As for our equipment, I'm sorry to say your D30 is a bit more "modern" than the Leaf Cantare we use for tabletop images and the Nikon 990 we use for low-res work. However, we will soon be adding a Horseman Digiflex body that will allow us to use our regular Nikkor lenses at their rated focal length. Of course we only use the Leaf for clients that require fairly low resolution work because it allows us to skip the scanning.

For typical 4X5 work though, we have enough skill to bring a properly exposed and balanced image to film that does not require the large amounts of manipulation you describe, and gives us whatever resolution the client requires. Most of our work is PJ or technical stuff, though, and we simply have the film developed, proofed and scanned to Photo CD by our pro lab here, which is done overnight and delivered the next day. That has always been more than fast enough, and images can be forwarded electronically usually before the client or subject gets back to the office the next day.

We've found that from a business point of view, we have saved the approximately $50,000 it would take to replace our current equipment with digital, and more importantly, we get much higher resolution if and when we need it, fast overnight service, and we can use wide ange lenses (which we use ALOT) with our current camera bodies, which we could not do with digital bodies. We also do not have to deal with the fast obsolecence of the digital equipment. Frankly, your boss could do better getting someone who is more careful with his money.

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: math of digital = 4 lpmm, max 8x10 for 3 MP Re: contrary evidence

The luminous landscape guy is pretty far out in left field. After doing irreparable damage to a film image and tarting up the digital he calls digital the hands down winner. It's sort of like a 100 meter dash in which the starting pistol is used to shoot the better runner.

At one point he did admit that digital was only better FOR HIS USES, but he's a true believer type and has obviously convinced himself that it is better - period.

The only way to know is to compare. I have printed 3.3 megapixel images and they do not compate with scans from film. I also have many chemical prints about, and have never made an inkjet print in B/W that is up to the original darkroom print.

I can do a pretty fair job with colour, and suspect that digital colour printing is going to surpass chemical in the very near future - this is valid for home printing only as one can currently have digital files professionally printed to photo paper or very high quality digital printer. B/W is going to take a bit longer.

--
Tony (the gimp) Spadaro
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html

From: David Chien chiendh@uci.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: quality of 20x30" 3 Mpixel prints? Re: contrary evidence

There's differences between quality and detail level in a print. Film can and will resolve more/sharper details (eg. sharp lens & Provia 100F used) than <6MP digicams, but print quality can be the same either way. - http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/ to read my film vs. digital article. Then, you can download the ftp://ftp.photodisc.com/pub/ free test target (decompressor at www.aladdinsys.com) and take that >>8MP digital image file. Print it at various MP (eg. resize downwards in Photoshop to a 1800x1600 pixel image eg. for ~3MP image size) after resizing it to match 2,3, etc,MP image sizes, and print at whatever print size you'd like. Notice how you continue to see increasing detail in prints from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to the original MP size of the test target - that's about 16megapixels! 35mm film (on a good camera using Provia 100F) starts off at 8MP, then goes up from there, so 16MP can be considered in the range of a decent 35mm image. Now compare that 16MP print at poster size to the same rescaled down to, let's say, 4MP to match the current top of the line <$2000 digicams, also printed at poster-size, and note the huge difference in sharpness, resolution, details, etc. (use the resolution bars, hairline details, and text in the image to compare) Notice however how good the quality is! Again, quality is not the same as detail/resolution/sharpness.

less than 6MP digicams can produce a very good 20x30" print, but nowhere near the detail level of a super-sharp 35mm print (sharp lens, sharp film, tripod, etc.), or for that matter, those 5000x5000+ pixel digicams from BetterLight.com or PhaseOne.com.

--
Quality-wise, you =can= match 35mm film print quality with today's inkjet & dye-sub printers. (notice quality does not = resolution, detail, sharpness)

d =)

From: vtVincent@prodigy.Net (VT)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: math of digital = 4 lpmm, max 8x10 for 3 MP Re: contrary evidence

"Mark Morgan" mmorgan2@san.rr.com wrote: 

>>    The only way to know is to compare. I have printed 3.3 megapixel  images
>> and they do not compate with scans from film.
>
>This is true.  My initial enthusiasm with my D30's prints was partly
>"surprise" because I didn't think it would look as good as it did.  But  it
>clearly doesn't have the fine, crisp detail of my scanned slides/negs.
>
>BUT!!  To the majority of public eyeballs, the difference is small 
enough.

Mark,

May I applaud you publicly for such honesty.

I fully agree that digital can be very, very pleasing.

There are number of authoritive references that say the minimum for true photo quality is 300dpi/ppi on paper - this translates to roughly

300/(25.4*2) lp/mm = ~6 lp/mm

6 lp/mm is normally regarded as acceptable/satisfactory quality for _normal_ viewing -
8lp/mm is for (obviously) higher quality and critical viewing for most general photography (as a matter of interest that is close to 400dpi/ppi)

A 3.3mp digital image (that's normally 2,048 x 1,536 pixels, or for the Canon D30 -2,160 x 1,440 pixels) and using 300dpi/ppi prints - the sizes this density/resolution will yield

6.8" x 5.1" for the majority of 3.3Mp digi-cams,
and
7.2" x 4.8" for a Canon D30

However having said that very acceptable and pleasing prints can be produced at 200dpi/ppi, or even 150dpi/ppi depending on the subject - those figures will yield:

at 200dpi/ppi - 10.24" x 7.7" (and 10.8" x 7.2")
at 150dpi/ppi - 13.7" x 10.24" (and 14.4" x 9.6")

Interpolation by imaging/printing software can help a lot in not revealing nasties/jaggies - and interpolation helps in producing prints at 150dpi that are much "better" than 1/2 as good as the figures would make one believe (ie:straight scaling) - That's why we often hear from people who will say that their digital prints are superior to their film prints, even to sizes as large and larger than 10x8......

BUT unfortunately interpolation cannot _add_ detail which wasn't captured in the first place - a (captured) pixel is still just a pixel - it is one picture element - one "dot" which contains only information of one luminance level and one color - one simply cannot get over the physics of that

--
Vincent
vtVincent@Prodigy.Net

http://vtVincent.HomePage.com/

[Ed.note: thanks to Bill Gillies for correcting my misuse of "steep learning curve"!]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
From: Bill Gillies bgillies@nplc.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: steep learning curve

hello Robert.

I just had the pleasure of reading the past week's online debate re film vs. digital, and want to thank you for the time you took to make your thoughtful and detailed observations. This is what makes the 'Net so great.

One totally tangential comment: In one of your posts you wrote that a product had a "steep learning curve" when you intended to say that it was difficult to learn. A steep learning curve means that a lot of knowledge is acquired in a short period of time, i.e., it is easy to learn. I know many people misuse the expression, but since you are a stickler for detail (good for you) I thought I would alert you to this error.

Cheers, 

Bill
______________________________

Bill Gillies
1104 Lansdown Drive
Oakville, ON   Canada   L6J 7N8
(905) 829-4683   fax: (905) 829-4334
bill@gillies.com

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 44 lpmm from 24x36mm $7,000 digicam to equal 800 ASA $9 disposable

You certainly make a strong case, but most digital enthusiasts are claiming superior quality to film at 1/2 to 1/4 those resolutions. The oft cited Canon D30 digital SLR has only a resolution of 2160 x 1440 and the Nikon D1 is a mere 2000 x 1312.

Digital users are printing images from consumer level digital (2 megapixel) at 8x10 (150dpi) from 4 colour inkjet printers (with dithered colours) and hanging them on their walls. All the while claiming that "You can't tell the difference from film."

Who is right? Is this just a question of acceptability standards being lowered so far that anything will pass muster? Perhaps none of them have actually seen an actual 8x10 (or larger) print from a quality lab?

...

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
From: "Syl Z" vid-cam@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Enlargability of 35mm vs. Digital? thoughts?

Most people have been satisfied getting a good 8 X 10 and smaller from digital. I've been using a 1.5 mb camera and have been satisfied with SOME 8 x 10's I printed. I really don't have a need to print 8 x 10's or larger of the stuff I shoot. Once and awhile someone will ask for an 8 x 10 but normally it's 5 X 7 or at times 7 x 9.

I would guess that most consumers are satisfied with what they are doing with their digitals. Personally, they keep coming up with more advanced digitals and I am curious as to where they may be going with the advancements other than more sales. I know if I kept up with the advancements, money wise I would have been able to buy top line 35mm w/lenses or have to set aside $2000 or more ever year of so.

I found it foolish to buy advancement as soon as it comes on the market being if you wait a year or so you'll get it for possibly half price. I did exactly that and was sick after a few months seeing the price drop big time. New digital camera buyers should beware of this unless they have much money to through away. Truthfully......... I got burnt 3 times with this..duh and will never do it again.

...

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
From: "JeffW." elox@HOT.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: obsolescence factors Re: Pop Photo digital vs film comparison

Alan Browne at alan.browne@videotron.ca wrote: 

> I don't think we will see 24x36mm chips ... in 5 or 50 years.  The  economics
> of
> chipmaking don't allow it due to the defect/square-millimeter effect.

I believe the new Pentax Digital SLR (MZ-D?) due out this summer is supposed to have a 24x36mm chip. It will also use the k-mount lenses.

Jeffw.

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: obsolescence factors Re: Pop Photo digital vs film comparison

Phillips is making a 24x36 6.6 megapixel chip now. It is a CMOS device. Pentax and Contax have both announced cameras based on this chip for 2001. The price I heard was in the 6 to 7 grand range.

--
Tony (the gimp) Spadaro
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: 44 lpmm from 24x36mm $7,000 digicam to equal 800 ASA $9 disposable

the big disadvantage would seem to be that the limiting resolution will be about the same as the $9 Kodak disposable camera using 800 ASA film cited in Pop Photo this month which had 44 lpmm rating, right?

my math: 

864     sq mm  in 24x36mm
7639    pixels/sqmm (6.6 million pixels chip/864 sq mm)
87      pixels/mm (square root of 7639)
44      lpmm (two pixels for each line - one black, one white)

conclusion - ignoring nyquist, the resolution of the $7k digital cameras is in the range of a $9 disposable camera - but only the ones using 800 ASA film - the 100 ASA $9 disposable ones are presumably lots better ;-)

why pay kilobucks for high quality 35mm lenses, when even third party lenses are waaay too good for this density of chip? Why pay $6-7,000 for a digital camera that is only going to produce a resolution similar to $9 disposable even when it is hooked up to your great 35mm OEM lenses?

grins bobm

From Leica (Topica) Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Digital cameras, was Kodak Improvements B&W Films

I'm working in the middle of the industry. The FAB 100 feet from my desk makes sensors and, of course, other IC's. There are a lot of very highly educated people here at Agilent, working on the digital imaging problems.

Just up the road is Agilent Labs (used to be HP labs) which is a think tank for future technology. We work very closely with them and I have first hand knowledge of what IS coming and what is NOT coming in the near (three to five years) future. It takes three to five years for a new technology to be proven and made producible at a cost congruous to the intended market.

Your view of the digital vs film market is much too simplistic and naive. You make a few positive points for digital but fail to mention the score of negative points. The points that all of us, who are deeply immersed in the industry, know all too well.

Just think beyond what you have said. If it doesn't become crystal clear what the holes in your logic are, you need to start thinking your lines of logic through to the end, taking in to account every step and every consequence. Forget the fluff and idle statements, if you can. But perhaps that is the extent of your knowledge and you do not wish to actually turn over the rock.

There are plenty of brilliant people here in Silicon Valley working day and night attempting to solve the problems associated with all aspects of digital vs film. From the consumer level to the scientific level. Your few sentences, copied below, are pathetically lacking in thought and are not even relevant.

The US President said "we will walk on the moon" and funneled billions of tax dollars into the NASA program to MAKE IT HAPPEN. If the president today said "we will make digital photography do away with film photography" and funneled billions of tax dollars into the program, indeed it could, and would, be done. But this hasn't happened and won't happen. All of the research budgets are gleaned from PRIVATE company profits. Not government programs. Stockholders, boards, investors, the current economy, the current consumer mind set, etc, dictate how much effort will be put into R&D programs.

So be prepared to wait a long while before consumer digital camera technology will be better than film technology. And before aunt Mary can take a digital camera on vacation and not be burdened by geekware. Which is why she rejected it in the first place.

By the way, when you take your compact flash card into a "one hour" digital lab, stick your card into the slot and get your pictures, what happens to all of the picture files that are on the compact flash card? These are your "negatives." Where does aunt Mary put them? Does the digital lab burn a CD? A zip disk is too small. Aunt Mary cannot re-use the compact flash until it is cleared. Where does she do this? On her computer at home? Most aunt Mary's are computer illiterate. A photo CD is worthless to her. She cannot even program her VCR. How does she get reprints? I hope she doesn't have to buy a new compact flash card whenever the current card fills up.

These problems are slowly being solved. An entirely new method of handling digital images will have to be implemented. It will be Internet based. But getting the VCR programming syndrome out of the digital camera market is difficult. There are hundreds of millions of people that simply do not, and will not, compute.

Geeks have no problem with this technology. But the aunt Mary's and grandma Frances' of the world, cannot, will not, and do not want to, use current digital technology.

The local (to me) photo supplier (Bear Images) is a big commercial digital back supplier. The average Hasselblad/Bronica/Mamiya/Linhof/Sinar back costs between $20,000 and $50,000. They produce outstanding results. Some take multiple images, shifted slightly to eliminate pixel boundary (Nyquist limit) problems. And require a lot of compute power. These are great for catalog (still) photography. No good for anything else. The current Kodak/Nikon/Canon $5000-$10,000 digital SLR's are great for reportage, photojournalism, newspapers, but not much else. They will still only produce large happy snap size photos. And still require a computer.

The bottom line is that any digital capture technology worth it weight in pixels, is extremely expensive and computation intensive. A multitude of firmware and software algorithms are used to fix-up digital sensor deficiencies. Bringing this to a consumer level is going to be a tough row to hoe. It will be done. But don't hold your breath. 

>>I'll bet that 5 years from now, if you ask the
>>guy in your local one hour lab to develop a roll of film,
>>he'll give you that same hazy look that you get
>>today if you ask him to print from sheet film.
>>
>>Bee.

Not likely! He may have a digital kiosk for the digital geeks. But P&S film cameras will still be the prevalent consumer technology. Aunt Mary is still alive. You have to actually "think" about how digital cameras are used. And who uses them. And what they have to know in order to use them. And the massive changes that need to be made to the whole digital arena in order to capture the current (and future) P&S film users. This will take a huge amount of investment money and some dot com companies (not too popular right now) that are willing to provide the infrastructure and programs that will make getting the computer out of the digital camera, a reality. I've actually been working in this area, among others, for a couple of years now. Moving megabytes of images over the Internet is a major problem.

It is easy to talk about how digital cameras are going to do away with film cameras in the near future. But if one simply sits down and actually thinks it through, one will discover that there are a myriad of problems to be solved. Many require a whole new technology and infrastructure, which is difficult to do quickly since it is funded privately. As Bob says in "What About Bob"... "baby steps." 

Jim (Jolly) Brick, ASMP
Senior Scientist
Agilent Technologies
Imaging Electronics Division
Santa Clara, CA

Bee Flowers wrote: 

>You're a jolly fellow! Two to five years and it'll all be over and done
>with. Leica
>owners don't account for the purchase of a lot of film; Linhof users  don't
>either,
>and Hasselblad users are very busy already getting their rig digital for studio
>shooting. The newspaper boys, who are the truly big film consumers among  pro
>are
>already digital. The real film market, though, are all those millions
>(billions,
>trillions, zillions:-) of people who use little crappy cameras. And these
>folks are
>exiting the film market like lemmings. Would it be the first time for people to
>give up quality for convenience? Hell no!
>
>You talk a lot about the technical impossibility of making an adequate  CCD.
>How it
>would take a quantum leap of technology. But one day not too long ago
>walking on
>the moon was a ludicrous dream. Until it was done. Look around you and  most
>of what
>you see are items that were a madman's dream not long ago. I'll trust you
>when you
>say that you don't see how it's possible to make a CCD that will compete
>with film,
>but somebody else will make it happen nonetheless.
>
>By that time, five years from now, film will be long gone from the photo
>industry
>already. But just as you can still buy photographic glass plates, you'll
>still be
>able to find something to load those Leicas with.
>
>Bee.

From: "Axel Farr" Axel.Farr@t-online.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.darkroom,rec.photo.misc
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: digital vs. photo question

"George" GDEPLEY@prodigy.net schrieb 

> When I was young I had a teacher that showed me a lot about darkroom
> techniques and photography.  I was very interested at the time but had  no
> money to pursue my interests.

You lucky one! We had a chemistry group at our school were we could do experiments after school had ended, but not such a group. 

> Now that I am much older I have more money to spare.  But I'm not sure which
> way to go.  I have a digital camera and enjoy it very much.  I've seen what
> you can do with a digital camera and a computer.  But I still am interested
> in photography using enlargers and 35mm cameras and so on.  But I am
> wondering if this kind of photography is becoming obsolete and a waste  of
> time.
> Is there anybody out there that can tell me what the advantages are if  any
> to old time photography compared to digital technology that is coming  out
> today ie digital camera. I am looking for commercial reasons as much as
> amateur reasons.

There are a lot of reasons why "chemical" photography will not become obsolete in the next 50 years. A few to be listed by this posting:

* resolution: a good lens and a fine film (example: Fuji Velvia) can record up to 100 lines/mm, which is a resolution of approx. 7000x4500 pixels (you need at least 2 pixels to reproduce a line!) in 35mm and 12000 x 14000 pixels in 6x7 format.

* reproduction: the tonal range of a chemical film is at least 1.5 times the range of a RGB image at 2.2 gamma. There will always be a lack either of contrast and/or of color resolution as long as you stick to 24 bpp on your monitor screen.

* memory: a 35mm roll with 36 images of Fuji Velvia to me would be approx. 4.3 GBytes occupied by 4000 dpi scans with 48 bit/pixel (uncompressed). As there exists no data format for this, you need to save it in 64 bit/pixel TIFF to have an interchangable format, resulting in an extra 1,5 GBytes overhead. So, to record images of a 35mm film in a qualitiy beeing able to record anything the film would record, you would nearly need a hard disk (or a DVD) for a single film! If you go to medium format with a 220 roll, you have multiple times the capacity listed above.

And with a classical camera, you are allways free to choose between a fast, low-resolution film and a slow hires film. You can select a film with smoth color reproduction for portraits, or you take a b/w film with a yellow filter to fotograph clouds.

What I miss most at digital cameras is their relative low resolution (SLR models with more than 3 million pixels are still around 2500$, bodys or camera backs for medium format with larger resolution are often above 5000$) and the non-existence of a commonly usable image format with more than 24 bits/pixel. It is also very expensive (or you have to work a lot) to get a digital equipment with a good color calibration. What is the worth of a digital image at 4500x3000 pixels, when you have no colors left in either light or shadow? On a print from a negative or a slide you get the lights shaded as well as the shadows lighted, in a digital image it is often only white or black.

Greetings, Axel

From: Paul Rubin phr-n2001@nightsong.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: --24x36mm CCD back -NEVER. (Was Pop Photo...)

dhaynie@jersey.net (Dave Haynie) writes: 

> Much as huge chips have been made for memories, huge chips can be made
> for sensors. Just not CCDs, cheap. The key to large and cheap is
> redundant imaging cells, which it perfectly possible in CMOS
> architectures, but not in CCD, due to the serial architecture.

In fact it's common for CCD digicams and video cams to have a few bad pixels in the ccd, mapped out by the camera firmware. The pixel is instead interpolated from the surrounding ones. There's already tons of interpolation going on due to the RGB mask, in-camera sharpening, etc. so nobody notices a few pixels here and there being "virtual". It's not like a bad pixel on a laptop screen, which is out where you can see it.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: "mdelman" mdelman@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Film Demise

Brian:

I think the problem with digital is not only can that the medium can degrade over time, the devices used to decode it will change as they have for music. That's going to cause problems for people who need to constantly convert their photos as digital evolves.

Think about the music industry... 

45 speed records
33 speed records
reel-to-reel tape
8 track tape
cassette tape
CD

Six different format changes for listening to music in about 30 years. Think about what that means for digital photography. Constant conversion if you want to look at your old pictures. It's the device change over that scares me.

- -Mark

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Reid" reid@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001
Subject: Re: [Leica] Film Demise 

> The funny thing about "the end of film" is that there is almost no way
> to make an image that will last 200 years other than to record it on
> film or paper.
>
> I can imagine a future in which photography is digital, but images are
> stored on film. They would be stored not as images, but as digital
> signals; if you put the film in an enlarger what you would see would
> not be the image, but odd geometric patterns that encoded the zeroes
> and ones that represented the image.
>
> This would be black-and-white film, of course; color film is not stable
> enough.
>
> No current digital medium is known to last more than 25 years. People
> suspect that CD Roms will, but no one knows. But we know film lasts 100
> years, because we have 100-year-old film that still holds its
> information.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Digital Demise, A/D 

> Malcolm McCullough at MM4@mm-croy.mottmac.com wrote:
>
>> John Brownlow wrote (probably without thinking, 'cos I'm sure he knows
>> this):
>>
>> 'The same is NOT true of digital cameras! I have been through SO many
>> digital
>> formats, moving and still... eg Umatic, 1" reel to reel, Betamax, VHS,
>> S-VHS, 8mm, Hi-8, Beta, Beta SP,...'
>>
>> Nine video formats - none of which are digital (though the cameras may  use
>> digital signal processing).

Johnny Deadman wrote: 

>Yeah you're right but you get the point, I hope. ALL video cameras since
>they phased out the vacuum tube type are digital, since they rely on a  CCD
>for image acquisition.
>
>John Brownlow

John,

Data (pixels) captured in a CCD is an analog process. They are stored as a minute voltage level in a capacitive junction associated with each pixel. The voltage level stored between black (no light/no voltage) and white (saturated pixel) is a few hundred millivolts. Typically between 10 and 350 mv.

Reading the data out of a CCD is an "analog" process and the signal IS an analog signal that could be recorded onto analog tape. If you look at it on a scope, it looks like any audio signal.

The CCD signal has to be run through an analog to digital converter before it becomes a digital signal.

This is just one of the many reasons why pixels cannot, with current technology, get any smaller. They could not produce enough analog signal (voltage level captured in the even more teeny weeny capacitor) to be separated from the noise.

As the pixel size goes down, the noise level goes up. As the light level goes down (same problem, not many electrons stored in the capacitors) the noise level goes up.

When thinking about digital cameras (still or video) you still have to think "analog". Digitizing happens later.

This is like film. Digitizing happens later. Only with film, you have a good master. With a digital camera, you have no master so you cannot redo the analog to digital process. But you can PhotoShop it until you have what you wanted in the first place.

Jim

From Photo-3D mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001
From: "Mike Kersenbrock" michaelk@photo-3d.com
Subject: Re: Digital vs Film

--- In photo-3d@y..., Bob Wier (wier@c...) wrote: 

> The semi conductor manufacturers are on the verge of marketing (so I'm told)
> a 16 megapixel digital camera, which is "approaching" film
> resolution.

Kodak announced that they were going to sell 16 megapixel CCD's to "the public" (other than just to Kodak's digital camera division) last year some time.

Do note, that it's really a 16-megasensor array, not really megapixel unless a single R-G-B point is considered "three pixels".

Mike K.

From: "Terry Dawson" terry.dawson@att.net
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: PPI Calculator On-Line

As I hope you know, it is image pixels/inch (PPI), NOT DPI that ultimately determines the best print you can get from your printer and also determines the print size. To estimate (quantify) your print quality before wasting paper and ink, you must do the math. You simply divide the image pixels by the print inches, which gives you PPI. To "fill the frame," as we say, you must do this in both directions and take the LOWER result to allow for cropping. What a bore, eh?

Well, cheer up, Flash! I just wrote a little on-line Javascript PPI calculator this weekend to take the drudgery out of it. Select any of the popular English or metric paper sizes and have your result in a jiffy. If it's not there, you need to turn on Javascript support in your browser.

You'll find the calculator on my "Tech" page at the site below along with instructions for adding it to other sites with only one line of code! The only "ad" delivered with the code is a simple text link to OneZenZeros in the table caption. Hey, that's only proper if you use it, ya know. As you would expect, my code must be subject to changes (enhancements, bug fixes, formatting, etc.) without notice.

If it works out well, I might try to dream up some additional gizmos ( in between photo shoots ;-). I'm not a Javascript guru, but suggestions on this one and potential new ones are always welcome. Thanx and enjoy.

--
OneZenZeros http://onezenzeros.home.att.net/

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: "William Cassing" wcassing@thegrid.net
Subject: CCD Sizes (was News about new digital cameras)

There seems to be come confusion about CCD sizes. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I thought the following might be helpful in comparing manufacturers' claims to some specific information:

The Kodak KAF-5100CE is a color photo-imaging CCD made by Kodak. Pixel count is 2614 X 1966 for an advertised resolution of 5.1 megapixels; if you divide the total number of pixels by the binary definition for "mega", you get 5139124 / 1048576 = 4.9 megapixels.

The chip measures 19.8 mm X 14.6 mm (~ 0.78" X 0.57") for a total area of ~ 0.45". The reciprocal of the area is 1 / 2.3".

The photo-sensitive array is 17.8mm X 13.4 mm (~ 0.70" X 0.53") for an area of ~ 0.36" or 1 / 2.7".

Generally, a marketing department will use data which sounds most advantageous for the purpose of selling the product. In this case, I'm sure Kodak would call this a 1/2" CCD.

There are, of course, a lot of other factors in determining the applicability of a chip for a particular need. Kodak lists the following parameters and values for the KAF-5100CE: 

Architecture:  Full-Frame CCD, Single Output
Resolution:  5.1 Megapixels
Pixel Count:  2614 (H) x 1966 (V)
Pixel Size:  6.8 µm(H) x 6.8 µm(V)
Photoactive Area:  17.8 mm(H) x 13.4 mm(V)
Aspect Ratio:  4:3  (Personal Note: Aspect ratios may, like CCD sizes, be
expressed in other terms, e.g., 1.3:1 or even 1.3/1)
Photographic Diagonal:  22.3 mm
Total Chip Size:  19.8 mm(H) x 14.6 mm(V)
Pixel Optical Fill Factor:  68%
Output Sensitivity:  19 µV/electron
Saturation Signal:  650 mV (35,000 electrons)
Readout Noise (1MHz):  10 electrons rms
Dark Current (25°C):  <10pA/cm2, <35 electrons/pixel/sec
Dark Current Doubling Rate:  6°C
Dynamic Range:  71 dB
Quantum Efficiency (450, 540, 630 nm) 12%, 16%, 17% Anti-blooming Margin:200X
Maximum Data Rate:  10 MHz
Package:  26-pin Ceramic DIL, 0.1" pin spacing
Full Frame Blue Plus Color Sensors Menu

As you can see, claims and arguments regarding the physical size and/or pixel count of a CCD are somewhat moot. It's like arguing about the relative values of two cars based solely on the size of the engine; the numbers are important, but only when discussed in context.

Bill Cassing

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: "William Cassing" wcassing@thegrid.net
Subject: RE: CCD Sizes (was News about new digital cameras)

Karl

Please understand that I do not want to appear contentious about this. I understand that my comments did not deal with the context of the thread. I was merely trying to interject some technical information into the discussion. In that vein, it might be interesting to note that the EOS D30 uses a 3.25-million pixel CMOS sensor, not a CCD. Total pixel size is 2226 X 1460; effective pixel size is 2160 X 1440. The actual size of the sensor is 15.1 mm X 22.7 mm; for an aspect ratio 2:3 (the same as a 35 mm image). Total area of the sensor is 343 square mm, compared to 864 square mm for the 35 mm film image. Thus it appears that the sensor is approximately 37% of the 35 mm film image.

Don't get me wrong. The Canon is a very good camera! I have owned several EOS film cameras, and my current digital camera is a Powershot S20. But they (and others) seem to have a bit more work to do before they provide a basic image the size of a 35 mm negative or slide.

Bill Cassing

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] "Contax N Digital" final look. 

> From: "Jiawei Ye" leafy@seed.net.tw
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] "Contax N Digital" final look.
>
> Since most digital cameras work more or less like a SLR without the  reflex
> mirror, one can actually produce a DC with very large bayonet and a very
> short register length and accept virtually all existing camera lenses  via
> different adapters.

No, all digital SLR cameras still have the reflex mirror.

Bob

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: Re: Nikon and Canon Flash

Félix wrote: 

>About durability I "hope" to
>confirm you in 25 years however I'm using more and more Canon flash as it  is
>compatable with digital Canon SLR D30 and Nikon flash it is not with  Nikon
>digital SLR and I am not ready to buy a new SB28 just for using with .

That's an excellent point. How well does the Canon flash work with the D30? Does it function properly in TTL mode?

Just about every one I know who uses a Nikon D1, even with an SB-28DX, much prefers to use it in A mode rather than TTL. The consensus seems to be that "the D1 flat doesn't work right in TTL flash mode" -- I've heard the same comment from some Canon people who use the D30/EX-550. It's apparently because the reflectivity of the CCD (or CMOS, for Canon) just doesn't have the same quality of either film or the shutter curtain. None of the Nikon D1 users I know ever uses the Pre-Flash Monitor on their SB-28DX flashes, but then, most pros of my acquaintance don't use it even for film cameras, because it takes too much control away from them. I personally have never found much use for it myself, so usually have my F100 set to standard TTL.

--
John Albino
mailto:jalbino@jwalbino.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Trading Hasselblad for Digital - Was: RE: hasselblad V1 #1237 

> When a very sellable 30x40 can be made
> with a D1/S1/D30 (all AF, of course) that costs less than $6K with
> lens, *most* folks aren't going to spend a lot more for a Hasselblad.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Those sensor arrays are 2k x 3k (6M), which even at 180DPI, gives you a print of only 11x17, and that's pretty low resolution... Yes, you can use GF or something like that, and they do an "ok" job but still, no comparison to the image you get from a Hasselblad...

How can you expect a camera that uses 35mm lenses (and even a smaller imaging area!) to even come close to MF quality especially with enlargements of the size you are talking about? Even the best 35mm film, which has FAR greater resolution than these digital cameras does, can't make a 30x40 that compares with a 30x40.

And this doesn't scratch the color resolution issue...

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: Trading Hasselblad for Digital - Was: RE: hasselblad V1 #1237 

> I don't know of a scanner that does better than
> 4000dpi,

Most drum scanners are, 4000 is the low end for drums. Also, the Leafscan can do 5080 (2:1 optical magnification) for 35mm, but scans MF at 2540 (1:1 optical magnification), it's a CCD scanner with a 6k element CCD.

But anyways, this was your original question, I thought: 

> > > > > Would a 16megapixel back produce an excellent 30x40 print?
> > > >
> > > > Here's the arithmetic.  16M pixels is 4k x 4k.  The 40"
> > > > dimension would only be getting 100 pixels/inch output to
> > > > the printer driver, so I would say the quality would be low.
> > > > Typically, you need around 240+ DPI for decent output.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

From: vtVincent@prodigy.Net (VT)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Nikon D1x beats Velvia

rafeb@channel1.com (Rafe B.) wrote: 

>Bottom line:  I haven't seen a really significant gain in sharpness
>beyond 2700 dpi.  I'm not saying that's a "magic number."  It may
>well be that all the scanners I've "tested" are limited by their own
>internal optics.

OK let's just try to back up your experience by actual numbers:

A negative scan at 2700dpi at the film plane is 2700/25.4 dots/mm = 106.3 dots/mm (that's 106.3ppi for the 36x24mm image)

That resultant ppi figure for the 36x24mm negative image is equal to 106.3/2 lp/mm = 53.2 lp/mm

This is pretty respectable figure for resolution - that's why for many photos for all intents and puroses this is indeed "good enough" -

But as many will know on this newsgroup 53.2 lp/mm is hardly a limit to the resolution capablities of good film with good lenses.

So the figures show that 2700dpi is not the limit of film scans - perhaps that's why profession drum scanners for film are as high as 5000dpi. (= 98.4 lp/mm)

--
Vincent
vtVincent@Prodigy.Net

From: David Chien chiendh@uci.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Nikon D1x beats Velvia

I don't have the article in front of me, but in a recent industry magazine (Spectrum - light & lasers), a Kodak film researcher said that 35mm film has at least 25MP (was it 27MP?) of data in it, which is why digital has quite as ways to go. Not only that, Kodak is continuing to develop improved emulsions and technology which will push 35mm film quality up even higher than it is now at 25MP.

That along with www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/ film vs. digital article suggests that the calculations of lp/mm are about right.

At 50lp/mm for a basic 35mm camera setup, that's about 8MP of image data; push that up to aout 100lp/mm for Leica/Contax best-possible-equipment 35mm camera setups, and that's about 35MP. 25MP accounts for various factors limiting the ultimate recordable limits of 35mm film and/or is an average figure for the upper limits of what you normally expect to see w/o going to special equipment and setups.

Thus, a 5MP D1x comes nowhere near what Kodak scientists would agree is the maximum amount of image data that's recorded on their 35mm films, and given that Velvia is one of the tops in the world in resolution and detail, I'm sure Fuji would agree.

----------

Looking at the D1x prints in the latest issue of Impress Digital Camera magazine (japanese; http://home.impress.co.jp/magazine/digitalcamera/), you'll find that at least for 8x10" magazine use, it is already operating at a level of detail sufficent for news journalism, layouts and spreads, and so forth. Image detail and resolution still won't match the advertisment photos with even higher resolution and detail quality that are taken with MF/LF cameras in the same magazine, but still quite high and sufficiently so that most readers who aren't subjecting each photo and page to a high level of scrutiny will enjoy them and see nothing but a very good picture (ie. pixelization and artifacts are minor and small enough that they aren't immediately noticable, or even after casual examination for a couple seconds).

Note that the magazine is limited by the output press resolution, and that's somewhere around 150-200 lpi I'd suspect. But still enough lpi to show the even higher resolution of MF/LF ad photos.

----

Thus, can D1x beat Velvia? On an absolute scale and comparison, no. Resolution and detail level of film is still higher when both use the highest-quality equipment available. But for commercial use, such as for magazines and newspapers, yes, the D1x is producing images of sufficient detail and resolution at 5MP that it can easily replace a similar 35mm camera in the field for such work. It won't yet replace those cameras used for advertisement photography in all cases - the image quality of those ads are still better vs. the D1x in the same publication - but, it can give many people the [Ed. note: sic - just ends]

For the general public and average consumer, more than sufficent as they probably will not know or have the equipment and knowledge to properly output the image at the highest quality possible, esp. on the typical inkjet/dye-sub photo printers available to them. Or for that matter, even realize the effects of shake/shutter speed and the proper use of a tripod to achieve the highest image quality. (or in any case, be willing to put down $4000 down for just the D1x alone, w/o any lenses - ie. they're average consumers, not photographers) In the cost aspect, the better choice would be the Sony S85 IMO at $799 with 4.1MP for the average consumer, and even photographers who don't happen to want/have $4k to blow away on a digital camera that =will= depreciate 50%+ per year from now on.

(Yes, for the past 10+ years, computer prices and digital equipments good like digicams have and will depreciate 50%+ per year -- thus, expect to be able to buy the D1x next year for 1/2 of today's price, and if you buy it today, expect it to be worth/sell for 1/2 the price you bought it today. Of course, by then, they'll have 6-8MP digicams, and it'll depreciate even faster.)

From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Nikon D1x beats Velvia

ss@randomc.com (Steve) wrote: 

> I don't know the numbers, I just look at the scans and results from a
> 4000 dpi scanner and a 2700 dpi scanner with similar dmax and the 4000
> wins in my book.  However, I think 4000 is all you need.

Agree 100%. It's easy to see a clear difference between 2700/2900 dpi and 4000 dpi. However it is difficult (to say the least) to see a difference between 4000 dpi and the resolution of the high end drum scanners used for magazine publication.

How do I know? Because apart from the fact that I can't tell the difference, the most demanding picture editor I've ever met can't tell the difference. He believed he could, but has now admitted he can't.

However there is still the difference in Dmax to be considered. I'd be interested to see a comparison between the Canoscan 4000 and the Nikon Coolpix 4000. They both have a scanning resolution of 4000 dpi but the Nikon has a significantly higher Dmax - unfortunately I don't have the Dmax figures to hand.

--
Tony Polson

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001
From: olenberger olenberger@email.msn.com
Subject: Re: Trading Hasselblad for Digital - Was: RE: hasselblad V1 #1237

I'm sorry I confused people by omitting the units. What I meant was scanning a 6cm by 6cm transparency and producing a 30" by 30" print.

Also as a matter of clarification, when I referred to 300dpi as being sort of an industry standard for good quality, I was referring to continuous-tone printers such as dye sublimation printers, or silver halide digital printers (such as the Chromira machine used by Color Services in Santa Barbara). I was not referring to inkjet printers, and I just don't know much about laser printers.

The 30"x30" prints I get from the Chromira look quite sharp at any distance.

A good drum scanner (and now the Olympus 120 scanner, for about $3000 US) can scan at 4000dpi, which means that you can make a 30"x30" print from a 6cm x 6 cm transparency with a 300 DPI output. If you enlarge beyond 30"x30", you will have to print at a lower DPI, with increasing loss in quality. I don't know of a scanner that does better than 4000dpi, but then I'm not an expert at this. I suspect that much beyond 4000dpi, other things would limit sharpness, such a film grain, lens resolution, film flatness, etc.

-Fritz

...

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001
From: Robert Welch robertwelch@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Digital camera for Hasselblad owners 

>  Is the quality of a Zeiss lens even needed for a digital camera?  I do like
>  the focusing aspects of Zeiss lenses, especially the "out-of-focus" image
>  that these lenses produce (what's the term???).  But in digital with  only
>  3.x megapixels, does the quality show through?
>
>  Paolo

Because of the smaller size of the sensors, relative to the area of exposed film, lens resolution is even more critical with digital cameras. I've heard that current lens technology is only good enough to take digital cameras up to about 4 megapixels at the current CCD size being produced. My guess is in a 3.x megapixel camera, a Carl Zeiss lens is better than many other lenses, and probably makes a difference, if only a small difference.

As for digital vs. film, they are two different beasts, and each has it's advantages and disadvantages. To simply say that a certain digital camera will give you an 11x14 equal to film is impossible, since the circumstances of the photo are not specified. There are many things that film can handle decently which digital can't do so well yet, such as low light situations. Also, digital can introduce aberrations, such as chromatic fringing, which can be very hard to predict. As a wedding photographer, I find film is a much more forgiving and predictable beast, although you are never sure until you have the film developed...but gee, isn't that half the fun?!

On the plus side for digital is that it's improving rapidly, and decreasing in cost. I feel it's a matter of time before this discussion is irrelevant, and we will all be shooting digital only. But will that be in 5 years, or 100 years? Who's to say?

Robert Welch
www.rwphotography.com

Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001
From: "J. Costello" costello.i.m@online.at.nac.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,comp.periphs. scanners,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: What we need (was Re: Scanning 6x7 film? (DANIEL ROBERTSON RETURNS) :-)

Careful, could read that and be confused that lpi and dpi are the same thing.

Your statement that a "300 dpi is quite reasonable for a desktop printer" is confusing. I'm assuming that you mean the 300 dpi to refer to the resolution of the digital images that are being sent to the printer NOT the resolution that the printer is capable of

We commonly print 150 lpi halftones on glossy coated paper (on an offset press). Those images are 300 dpi, yet the imagesetter that makes the films for these images runs at 2540 dpi (or is it 2450...whatever it is it is above 2000). And for all vector art (eps files) we set the resolution to 1200 dpi so that we get very crisp edges.

Despite the resolution of your original graphics...I've never seen a desktop laser printer that can give much higher than about 127 lpi halftone. We also commonly print on Docutech machines and the halftones that they seem to spit out is are about 105 lpi. In each case what we send to these machines is a 300 dpi image.

Careful, could read that and be confused that lpi and dpi are the same thing.

Your statement that a "300 dpi is quite reasonable for a desktop printer" is confusing. I'm assuming that you mean the 300 dpi to refer to the resolution of the digital images that are being sent to the printer NOT the resolution that the printer is capable of

We commonly print 150 lpi halftones on glossy coated paper (on an offset press). Those images are 300 dpi, yet the imagesetter that makes the films for these images runs at 2540 dpi (or is it 2450...whatever it is it is above 2000). And for all vector art (eps files) we set the resolution to 1200 dpi so that we get very crisp edges.

Despite the resolution of your original graphics...I've never seen a desktop laser printer that can give much higher than about 127 lpi halftone. We also commonly print on Docutech machines and the halftones that they seem to spit out is are about 105 lpi. In each case what we send to these machines is a 300 dpi image.

And lastly, when you look at those halftones from laser printers, use a loupe and look close. The images are degraded by the splatter of toner where dots should not be. Additionally, the dots are not well-formed, perfect circles and some are, missing quite a bit of toner. Although you can get better results with by using better paper... Because of these reasons I strongly suspect that about a 120 screen is about the tops that toner-based printing technology should go. And are probably the reason that the RIP in the printer does not give you higher resolution halftones.

--
J. Costello

"Rafe B." rafeb@channel1.com wrote 

> Another thing to consider is that printed images (in fine-
> art magazines, on glossy coated paper) rarely are printed
> with screens of more than 200-300 lines per inch.  So a real,
> effective resolution of 300 dpi is quite reasonable for a desktop
> printer.  In fact, there may be practical upper limits to this
> resolution, on most papers.

Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001
From: rafeb@channel1.com (Rafe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,comp.periphs. scanners,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: What we need (was Re: Scanning 6x7 film? (DANIEL ROBERTSON RETURNS) :-)

"J. Costello" costello.i.m@online.at.nac.net wrote: 

>Careful, could read that and be confused that lpi and dpi are the same
>thing.

Yeah, I know, I get sloppy at times. 

>And lastly, when you look at those halftones from laser printers, use a
>loupe and look close. The images are degraded by the splatter of toner  where
>dots should not be. Additionally, the dots are not well-formed, perfect
>circles and some are, missing quite a bit of toner. Although you can get
>better results with by using better paper... Because of these reasons I
>strongly suspect that about a 120 screen is about the tops that  toner-based
>printing technology should go. And are probably the reason that the RIP  in
>the printer does not give you higher resolution halftones.

Desktop inkjet printers these days don't use halftone screens They use error diffusion and stochastic processes to determine which color dots to fire. The dots themselves can be placed to a resolution of, say, 720 x 1440 dots/inch (on a typical Epson.)

I've not seen any convincing calculation that can translate these numbers into an effective "resolution equivalent" in terms of true, continuous-tone output. So my seat-of-the-pants guess, based on several years of printing photos on Epsons, is somewhere around 200-300 lpi, under optimal conditions.

As opposed to output produced by screens, it is impossible to obtain a Moire effect from an Epson inkjet print.

rafe b.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001
From: Phil Swango pswango@att.net
Subject: [Rollei] Tessar/Planar

"Creamy?" I like that. That's exactly the effect I noticed in a recent portrait I took with a Nettar with f/3.5 75mm Zeiss Novar, shot at about f/4-5.6. With this particular image it's a wonderful look. I'll have to try it with my MX Automat. I'd post the image for all to see but I don't have access to any of the websites where you can post images. I'll send a JPEG to anyone who's interested -- send me an email off-list. You can see the effect in Photoshop, but it's more obvious if you make a print (I used an Epson 880 at the highest quality settings: 1440 dpi with high-speed printing turned off on Matte Heavyweight paper). The print was beautiful and the parents were thrilled. The JPEG was scanned at 300 dpi from a 5x5" Fuji Pictrographic digital print of an Ektachrome original. It could have been even better if I had a film scanner.

Phil Swango
pswango@att.net

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001
From: Rick Housh rick@housh.net
Subject: Digital Cameras for Nikon MF addicts 


> snip
>I went to frigid Stockholm[1] last February and I took the F2 and the
>990 with me.  The following happened while I was shooting the beautiful
>and picturesque city:
>
>* I could fill my 128 MB flash card with about 70 or 80 pictures with
>   high-quality compression; these are 2048x1536 pixel images.  That is
>   the only memory card I have, so it would last me for about two hours
>   of shooting. [2]

In my experience, you have to make judgments as you shoot and delete images you know you aren't going to use. The habit of wanting to keep all images for later screening is compensated to a large degree by being able to see the image as you take it. There are always some you see immediately you did something wrong, what it was, and that you can safely delete it. This is also very educational, like doing a test Polaroid print. You can also reduce the size of the image, especially if you know you won't want to print it (this also allows faster image storage). Otherwise, you must off load the images to some permanent storage and clear the card(s), or use a larger card or one of the new microdrives, which holds a lot more and plugs into the space provided for a card on the camera. If you usually carry a laptop with a PC Card slot, adapters are available for about $10 which allow the digital memory card to plug in directly, and become a virtual disk drive for permanent image transfer to the hard drive. However, digital overall can't yet even come close to matching film for convenience in compact and immediate permanent storage. 

>* I used about three sets of four AA batteries to shoot those 80
>   pictures.  Batteries *SUCK* in cold weather and digicams still go
>   through them like butter. [3]
> snip

They shouldn't even imply you can use alkaline cells in a digital camera, except in a dire emergency. They just can't deliver enough current for long enough to "cut it." Several sets of rechargeable cells are a necessity, either NiMH or Lithium Ion, which will last several times longer than alkalines before recharging is necessary. I have 6 sets of NiMH cells I keep charged all the time, using three chargers (they're not that expensive anymore). Unlike NiCads You can "top off" these cells whenever you want with no damage, and I've found the plastic cover wears off the cells before they fail. Memory and batteries are the digital camera's analog to film for our MF cameras. They're reusable, but initial cost is high and permanent storage arrangements are usually more complicated.

This may sound off topic, but I think the issue of "what to do about digital" is important for us Nikon manual focus aficionados. The point I'm trying to make is that a digital camera won't replace your Nikon MF body, especially where a large volume of images will be needed before access to somewhere to store the digital images is available, where extreme cold is involved, or where you need to maintain total control over the image capture process (might as well get used to the new vocabulary). Not usually mentioned is the ability to shift the processing tasks to someone else. I spend *lots* of time editing and storing digital images, and it takes me much longer to deal with a "session" of digital images than it takes the corner drugstore to come up with a set of proof prints from some rolls of color negative or even slide film. Furthermore I need a lot of computer hardware and software to do it.

However, what I miss most when I'm using my digital camera is what NikonMF is all about. They just don't have the manual features necessary to give you complete control over the image capture process. There's no reason they couldn't - digital is really just a different medium used for the same photographic/image capture process. The visualization, aperture, shutter speed, flash synch issues, optics and all the other aspects are still there. Market forces just seem to require digital camers to be unavoidablyautomated to some degree or another, except for some like the D1 in the $5,000+ range - beyond my wife's acceptable range for my camera purchases.

By all means get a digital camera if you have a use for the electronic images. Just don't think it will replace your Nikon MF bodies.

My $0.02 worth.

- Rick Housh -

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Carey L. Jones careyj@pipeline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Sadly, I'm at a loss. Please advise...

....

> Oh dear not again. IMHO a D30 with a DECENT piece of glass on it used
> at the correct exposure with a a tripod will give you prints certainly
> 8X10 and even A3 size that you would be hard pushed to tell the
> difference from film --even Puji Provia which is probably about as
> good as you can get for general purpose photography.

Good A3 prints from a D1X? You're talking about approximately 175 dpi without interpolation By that standard, any decent 35mm camera with good glass, properly exposed fine-grain film, shot from a tripod, etc. will capture images which will scan to produce "good" 21x32 prints. Or A3 prints at over 300 dpi without resorting to interpolation. 

> Of course more pixels can be helpful but it's not only the amount but
> also size, quality etc. D30 is essentially grainless and virtually
> noise free. OK costs around 2700 USD or 1850GBP but don't forget
> professional photographers spend a lot on their cameras anyway. (F1's
> etc)

And for less than $3000, you can get a Nikon Coolscan 8000, which will produce enough pixels from a 645 negative (hardware resolution - not interpolated) to produce a 22x30 print at 300dpi. Or radically crop an image for smaller prints without compromising its quality. The Nikon's Digital ICE technology makes the dust problem easily managable. And its 4.2 dynamic range will produce saturated, noise-free images that will often exceed the gamut of most printers.

Also rember that noise goes up as exposures get long. Astronomical CCD cameras have to have expensive cooling systems to keep their CCDs from overheating and producing noise. Several thousand dollars for even a 1 megapixel monochrome camera. Provia 100F can be exposed for 4 minutes with only 1/3 stop exposure correction, and only a 2.5 green CC filter. Or you can skip the CC filter, and expose normally, and correct the slight magenta color cast in Photoshop. 

> Of couse digital will become better and cheaper -- that's true of most
> things but if you can afford it you won't be wasting you money and
> your expensive SLR Glass can be used on the next model.

And scanners will continue to produce better resolution for less money. 

> The only drawback I find is that really wide angle is not possible yet
> -- can't afford 14 MM lens and my Sigma 17-35 mm lens even at Wide is
> only effective 28 MM. Still this will change in the full frame sensor
> digicams to come out.

Physically larger (35mm frame size) sensors will require more than 6 megapixels to maintain their. If you take the same number of pixels and spread them over a larger area, the pixels will have to be larger.

Typical 3 megapixel sensors are about the size of a fingernail, say about 1/4 of a 35mm film frame. Doubling the number of pixels while quadrupling the area they cover will reduce resolution.

--
Carey L. Jones

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: "Woodard R. Springstube" springst@jump.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital camera or Medium format camera???

Now Bob, even though you are quite correct, and are at SMU, one of the premier universities in the South, if not the nation, you know that the "digit-heads" are going to flame the hell out of you; because, you have intruded reality into their digital Nirvana.

Given the way that some of these digital enthusiasts react to any criticism of digital technology, I hope that you have your flame-proof suit handy.

My gripe with the whole "copy whenever the format changes" school of thought, is that I have better things to do than to sit for even two hours of copying--or two days, depending on how much there is to copy. Even if it is only once every year or two, that is too much time, especially for those of us who are on the wrong side of 50. I'd rather be taking pictures, listening to the stereo, fishing, etc. My negatives, on the other hand, require no special handling other than proper, or even improper, storage.

Have a great day,
Woodard

Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu wrote 

> I used to work in a media lab; the CD archival media that was supposed to
> last 150 years turned out to have problems making it to 10 years. I
> suppose you know that magnetic materials demagnetize over time, so many of
> the diskettes I made in the past can no longer be read - even NASA is
> having problems with reading their old computer tapes etc. We won't know
> if the latest "archival" inks will be any better than the last set. We
> also had a library of wire recordings and the like which could only be
> used with the one existing reader available - and no repair parts etc.
>
>
> On the other hand, there are lots of century old photographs and negatives
> still quite usable. Yes, some non-kodachrome slides have faded, and color
> prints are not doing well after 30-40 years and need to be recopied. But
> 40 years in computer terms is like 15 different generations of media
> types; in the lab I'm sitting in now, we have three types of current and
> incompatible zip disk style drives for macs/pcs of several brands and
> densities etc.
>
> Normally, I'd agree that once you get it on the web, it can be moved
> seamlessly to newer media. But then, I look at how many sites have been
> dropped, how many ISPs went bankrupt (surprise!) and how many folks have
> lost files and images to the cheapy online photo processors/scanners...
>
> In short, the costs of converting and tracking files and converting files
> to newer imaging types and formats and standards are much higher than
> usually suggested by the adherents of the digital formats here in
> rec.photo  Those of us who have been doing this work in the trenches for
> 10 or more years have come to see how large a cost the conversions really
> are.
>
> A hidden cost is how many images are discarded before being stored,
> whether in the camera or otherwise on uploading. With film, you select but
> generally don't discard a "bad" image from the rest of the roll; but with
> digital, the file is deleted and gone. Yet, with time, many of those older
> frames may have a useful purpose unforeseen at the time of digital
> culling...
>
> bobm

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001
From: rafeb@channel1.com (Rafe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc,comp.periphs. scanners,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: What we need (was Re: Scanning 6x7 film? (DANIEL ROBERTSON RETURNS) :-)

john@stafford.net (John Stafford) wrote: 

>This has been interesting, but it seems that the reports regarding
>digital resolution and _print_shaprness are largely impressionistic.
>Regardless of the manufacturer's claims and simple math, we seem to
>have no base-standard.
>
>I'd like there to be a standard test-pattern digital image. Perhaps it
>would have various patterns, including single-pixel (with various
>depths) lines and patterns, various lines per mm, and so forth. Is
>anyone up to the task for defining such a thing, and if it exists,
>where is it?
>
>Until I see such a standard, I remain highly skeptical of the math I
>see here. The math might be good, but the metrics are unproven. Do you
>really _know_ what your printer does to the image you send it? Do you
>really know what resolution it is attempting? I don't.

On the Leben Epson-Inkjet listserv, this matter (printer resolution) has been discussed to death over the span of several years. It is still an "open issue" but there is a good deal of consensus, also.

The numbers can be determined experimentally. Any reasonable image can be printed at a small enough size so that it has an astronomical resolution at print size. So, start at some very high lpi value (at the print size) and work your way downward. See where the print quality starts to fall off. Use a loupe, if you wish.

Another thing to consider is that printed images (in fine- art magazines, on glossy coated paper) rarely are printed with screens of more than 200-300 lines per inch. So a real, effective resolution of 300 dpi is quite reasonable for a desktop printer. In fact, there may be practical upper limits to this resolution, on most papers.

The spacing of the nozzles -- which is what the manufacturer quotes -- is meaningless. This is a game played by all of the printer manufacturers. Far more important is the size of the output dots (in picoliters) and the quality of the error-diffusion and shingling algorithms employed by the printer.

In the end, why sweat the numbers? I own the gear that I can afford, and my eyes remain the final "judge" of print quality. I've made enough BW silver prints and Cibachromes to have an idea of what's "good" and what's "possible" in a wet darkroom, and for me, there's no turning back.

rafe b.

From Bronica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Dig back; Was: Re: Anybody left out there with Bronica?

you wrote: 

>Can you please tell me how much a MegaVision digital back cost and what
>image size it produces at highest quality.

The MegaVision S3 for the ETRS/ETRSi = 18900.00
The MegaVision S3 Pro for the ETRS/ETRSi = 15900.00
The back adapter & finder mask are included. 

Specification Notes for MegaVision S3 (Single Speed) Digital Back

Imaging Sensor --------> 36x24mm rectangular CCD sensor, 3072x2048
pixels, 12 micron pixel size, protected and sealed behind glass
Color Depth -----------> 12 bits per color; 36-bit RGB
File Size -------------> RGB 18 MB CMYK 24 MB (at 8 bits per color)
RGB 36 MB CMYK 48 MB (at 16 bits per color)
Capture Rate ----------> One image per 1.2 seconds
Sensitivity -----------> 50 ISO
Shutter Speed ---------> 8 seconds to 1/250th

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[Ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted photographer and photobook author and an engineer who designs digital camera systems...]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE: digital M

Jay Burleson wrote: 

>instead a super high end M digital that uses existing lenses
>and similar body shape.

Well... you can put the guts of any number of available digital cameras into a body similar to the M shape. This DOES NOT make it a "digital M." And you WILL NOT be able to utilize the high resolution, high definition, and high contrast, of Leica M lenses. You would get digital images, but they will be no better than most other $1500 digital camera.

If you simply research the physics, the geometry, and the make-up of a digital sensor, how it is scanned, what the voltage levels are, etc, it should become quite clear that hoping for a breakthrough in capturing a zillion pixels instantaneously, running color space conversion, PRNU, interpolation, JPEG, and getting a file out of a camera large enough to compete with real film (100mb) is still a pipe dream.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M redoux

Jay Burleson wrote: 

>So if I can get an M style body that has a good quality chip in it and  uses
>the lenses that I have bought and paid for long ago, I am not bothered  that
>they won't use the full capability of those lenses.
>Because they will use the full capability of the chip, which is what I'm
>buying.
>How many of us use the full capability of our lenses with film anyway?

As I wrote earlier, you have to "dumb down" Leica lenses in order to use them on a digital sensor. You cannot collect data that is running at a higher frequency than the collector. The Nyquist limit. Look it up. A resolution killing filter (a blur filter) must be used in the camera between the lens and the sensor. See the white paper on lenses for digital cameras on the Schneider web site. An inexpensive Asian 10-150mm zoom will produce pictures every bit as good as a Leica M lens when used with a CCD or CMOS sensor. And you won't have to keep switching lenses for different focal lengths. It is a simple fact of the state of digital. And it won't change for a long time yet.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M 

>>According to Erwin Puts' very excellent _Leica Compendium_, which I just  got
>>today, lenses like the Apo-Summicron-M 1:2/90 ASPH can easily resolve  100
>>lp/mm
>>with high contrast even wide open.  That would require a CCD with a
>>minimum of
>>7200x4800 pixels to resolve.  Is such a CCD in the works?  There's no
>>point in
>>having lenses like this if they cannot be fully used.

I have written, ad nauseam, about this before and explained the fact that the minimum size for a pixel is 3 microns. It takes four pixels to represent one color pixel. That's 36 square microns per real pixel. The reason it cannot get any smaller is that there is not enough space to contain a large enough capacitor to capture enough electrons to represent how much light hit the pixel. As the pixel size gets smaller, the noise level goes up. And the yield goes way down and the price goes way up. And the image quality sucks. Semiconductor geometry is at the point where the atomic structure of the traces and junctions are interfering with the circuitry. When atoms are getting in the way, you simply cannot go any farther with the current technology.

I work as a senior scientist for Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics Division. We design and manufacture imaging devices. This includes CCD and CMOS sensors and imaging chips and subsystems of all sorts. I deal with this stuff every day. In a sensor, the bigger the pixel the better. Five microns is a good size for good signal to noise ratio. This is 100 sq. microns for one color pixel.

You folks out there can believe anything you want. But the technology will not support your pipe dreams.

If there is a digital M, it certainly will not be the M you know and love. It will be plastic and probably AF. And a Japanese zoom as a lens. And made in Japan (or Korea, or China.) Just like the Leica P&S cameras. Actually you can buy this today. Most any consumer digital is the same. Just squish it into the shape of an M camera.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] RE: Re: Digital Leica and reality

Frank Filippone wrote: 

>OK.. it invents DOTS of ink.. so what is the difference other than a
>technical definition.. Pixels are captured, some other technical term (
>dots?) are printed.....
>
>those dots were not there in the original capture,,, and that is my  point.,.
>they ( whatever you wish to call them) are invented.
>
>The multitude need to understand clearly that a true 1:1 correlation of
>captured pixels to printed pixels does not happen in a digital  enlargement..
>It does so happen in wet prints.
>
>Where do the extra digital pixels come from?  A math algorithim.
>
>Frank Filippone
>red735i@earthlink.net

It's called INTERPOLATION. All digital imaging algorithms, whether in silicon or firmware, interpolate the results of reading out a CCD or CMOS sensor.

Remember, it takes four real pixels to make a single color pixel. One red pixel, two green pixels, and one blue pixel.

This really means that the optical resolution of a digital camera is 1/4 of the stated resolution. A 2 million pixel CCD is really a 500,000 CCD.

Interpolation invents data that is not there and stuffs it in. Look up "interpolation" in the dictionary.

Remember Fuji claiming something like 4.7 megapixels? The CCD in the camera was actually around 2.4 MP. This really means that it recorded 600,000 actual pixels. There's a whole lot of data inventing going on to get from 600,000 to 4,700,000. Fuji r-e-a-l-l-y took heat about this.

Genuine Fractals is the classic supreme interpolation program. It can invent data from hell to breakfast, and have change left over. Want to make a poster from a simple digital camera? Use Genuine Fractals. What you get in the blow-up is not the picture that you took, it is a figment of Genuine Fractals imagination. It may look like the picture you took. But 90% of what you see is invented pixels.

Is it real, or is it Memorex?

Jim

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] re: digital future

see draft pages at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/filmwins.html

the good news is that I think film will remain the best tradeoff between cost and quality, while digital will provide a new high-convenience option. Since it is far cheaper to build a high density color scanner with high color depth, I suspect the new generation of color (film) scanners will make a lot of medium format users happy. We can print out pretty good quality but low cost color prints, including low cost panoramics, while enjoying the ability to produce great cibachrome style prints from film. The cost of a digital camera with such high density, esp. in medium format, would be prohibitive, largely due to chip yield and size issues...

an interesting observation is that the current crop of 35mm body based digicams use a sweet spot in the current chips that match the resolution of 35mm optics of modest cost quite well. the chip sensors are still pretty big (3 to 9 microns), so their resolution isn't very high (circa 55 lpmm or so). So a 5 to 10 Megapixel digital chip can take good advantage of 35mm SLR lenses up to resolutions of 60 or 70 lpmm.

The bad news is that the expected low cost 16 MP chips, if made in 24x36mm formats, look to be problematic for current resolution 35mm lenses. It is also much much easier to get higher resolution from smaller lenses on smaller chips (as microfilm lenses often hit 200 to even 300 lpmm). On the other hand, a larger chip fitting medium format gear might be usable with medium format lenses - but whether the demand/market would justify the mfger of a chip for such a small market is problematic at best. My guess is that a 4:5 ratio (for 8x10" prints, or maybe 11:14 for 11x14"?) is in the offing, since it would take better advantage of the lens coverage circle (smaller=higher resolution=cheaper) and fewer sensors would be lost to aspect ratio issues in printing etc.). I suspect a digital camera will be modified to link to existing camera and flash systems, so you can use it as a low cost replacement for a polaroid test camera, and see if that ratty little kid blinked in the shot like you feared ;-) Lots cheaper than a digital back, just takes a flash synch cord etc.

Good news for digital camera makers. They can sell existing base of photographers an intermediate model digital camera using current optics, then obsolete this investment base with a new line of 16MP chip cameras with much smaller, higher resolution optics for more compact cameras. ;-)

grins bobm

Date: 2 Jul 2001
From: jimh@jimboh.demon.co.uk (Jim Hawthorne)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: digital vs film and legacy engineering

... 

> > Future digital cameras may use CMOS rather than CCD sensor.  The yield  for
> > CMOS is much higher than for CCD therefore reducing the cost of the
>  camera.
> > It may be as long as 5 years from now but I think CMOS will take over  CCD.
> >
> >
>  http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/technologyFeatures/cmos.
> > shtml

Maybe not so long !!

The D30 uses CMOS which is one reason why at last you get an acceptable battery life. In-camera processing removes noise unlike film grain - after a shot you get the identical shot again in darkness. The difference between these is the noise which is subtracted then the image is stored to your memory - microdrive etc. (Not completely accurate but a reasonable non technical explanation.

You can consult the literature for more detail if you are interested) You have to pay a price for this -- If you want continuous shooting then you will get a lower fps rate but with faster processors this limitation will be overcome.

Optics on the current crop of PS digicams are still awful -- for example the OLY 3040 gives chromatic aberration and distortion that would be a disgrace on a use once disposable camera. The old OLY 2000Z although only a 2.1 MP camera gives results far superior to the 3.3 MP oly 3040 due to better optics so resolution is only one side of the coin. While the D30 might only have 3.3 MP these pixels are at least 8 times larger that those of the smaller CCD based PS digicams and there are plenty of examples from the D30 even up to 20 X 16 where most people would be unable to say whether or not the photo was from film or digital.

The D30 IMHO marks the real start of where digital photography can displace film but as to the eventual shape of digital cameras who knows. I would love a camera that had the look and feel of a fuji MX 4700/6900, a lossless, distortionless L type f 1.0 14mm-2000mm Zoom with 0% chromatic aberation and at maximum zoom was less than 2 inches long! and further either the lens or camera be fitted with micro gyroscopes allowing hand held shots to be done at any exposure and aperture, and finally to be fitted with at least 1 Terrabyte (1000 GB) of fast memory.

Maybe not in my lifetime but if there is a demand technolgy will do it.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: Johnny Deadman john@pinkheadedbug.com
Subject: [Leica] Nyquist again (was scanning)

Mxsmanic at mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:

[to Austin] 

> Your posts consist almost exclusively of personal attacks; mine consist  of
> information and discussion relating to the topic at hand.  I'll leave  the
> evaluation of the relative utilities of our posts as an exercise for the
> reader.

the original dispute was about this I think:

Austin insists: 

>>> Which means you need a scanner of 5400 SPI
>>> to reliably detect your 53 lp/mm...

Mxsmanic drones: 

>> Nope.  53 lp/mm times two = 106 lp/mm, or 2692 dpi.

This is all about Nyquist frequency in the end. The Nyquist frequency is the bandwidth of a sampled signal, and is equal to half the sampling frequency of that signal. In the case of a signal consisting of a continuous range of frequencies, the Nyquist frequency is the highest frequency that the sampled signal can unambiguously represent.

In the case you guys are locking horns about, you require the sampled signal to unambiuously represent a frequency of 53 lp/mm. We refer to line pairs rather than lines because a black line needs another white line beside it to qualify as a line. So one 'cycle' is a black line followed by a white line.

The Nyquist criterion says that we need to sample this at 106 lp/mm, or 2692 dpi.

However all this tells you is that a sampling frequency of 2692 dpi is sufficient to *represent* 53 lp/mm. However, it does NOT guarantee to reliably *detect* the 53 lp/mm in all cases. This is where the confusion in this case arises.

In the case in question, as Austin points out, it is perfectly possible to position the sensors so you get a uniform gray. Therefore you need to oversample considerably in order to guarantee any kind of *resolution* of those lines. But it is not as simple as just doubling up: any increase in sampling frequency over the Nyquist threshold will increase the resolution.

In order to prevent aliasing (whereby a, say, 106 lp/mm grid shows up as a 53 lp/mm grid because the sampling frequency is too low) you would normally put a low-pass filter before the sensor, to cut off all frequencies above the Nyquist frequency. Scanners of course, don't do this (though as Jim points out, digital cameras *do*). Some people argue that the result is 'grain aliasing', where film shows up looking a lot grainier on a scan than it does in real life (tm).

hth

- --
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

Date: 16 Jul 2001
From: dilbertdroid@aol.com (Dilbertdroid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 4 rolls/camera/year stats - Re: The one and only Leica Addict

My experience is that regular consumer print customers who go into digital are usually pleased, while advanced film users who go into digital aren't, unless they continue to use their film camera and go to the "digital darkroom." I would attribute that to the fact that the average point & shooter with drugstore prints can see a big improvement in quality by taking, manipulating and printing their own pictures, while the more advanced user sees little gain or even decline in quality with a digital camera. While I do use digital cameras, I get much better quality with my film camera, scanner, and printer than with the digital camera and the same printer, especially at print sizes over 4X6 inches.

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: MarkTuccillo mtuccillo2@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm Film Versus Digital: An article at extremetech.com

Most of us on this news group are probably achieveing about 60 lines/mm when handholding with a good zoom lenses. A good prime, tripod and Provia 100F probably achieves a little better then 70 lines/mm. A digital needs to be about 12 MPixel to achieve about 60 lines/mm. Assuming Moore's law holds for CCD ( or CMOS if they ever work as well ) sensors and electronics, then 12 MPixel cameras should be about $1500 in 4.5 years, or 6 MPixel $1500 in 3 years.

The other side of the equation is printer technology, and presently there is nothing available for less then 4 figures that can match what I can make in my darkroom using Ilfochrome or Supra III paper at 11X14 or 16X20. However, considering the rate of printer technology development, that will change in 3 to 5 years. Therefore, by 2005, digtal will match present 35mm resolution and prices. Untill then, one must accept inferior resolution and 5X the cost.

Furthermore, one must accept that present digital cameras will only be worth 40% of the original price after 18 months. Any analysis of the economics of digital photography must take this high rate of depreciation into account. I have been ofered a D1 for $2000, the owner just received his D1x. As a pro, the D1 has made him a lot of money shooting on site product photography and the depreciation is not an issue. But for a non-pro looking to upgrade, this is a hugh hidden cost.

Mark

ThomasH wrote: 

> To add yet another opinion to the never ending discussion about how
> many "pixels" equivalent has a fine 35mm film, you might take a look at
> http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s%253D1009%2526a%253D5629,00.asp
> an article by Sally Wiener Grotta.
>
> She states that a film frame contains approx. 13 to 15 million  individual
> silver halide granules. Assuming a resolution of 2000 lines per inch in
> a CCD chip, she argues that "the resolution of fine grain 35mm  Kodachrome
> film is about 2,200 lines--per millimeter! That's more than 50 times  better
> raw resolution than digital."
>
> I will rather let the experts to pass the judgment as if this estimation
> is correct. By myself I am wondering that she uses Kodachrome for this
> comparison and not one of the meanwhile numerous sharper E6 materials,
> foremost the Provia 100F.
>
> Thomas.

Date: 17 Jul 2001
From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: News article on digital print quality

BIG SNIP BEFORE AND AFTER 

>Two excellent articles from recent issues of PC Magazine discuss photo
>fade-out and rate different printers for longevity of printed images,  cost
>per print, and other features.  They are available free on the magazines
>web site:  Fight Photo Fade-Out at
>(www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,50663,00.asp) and
>Farewell, Photo Lab? at
>(www.pcworld.com/features/article/0,aid,41301,00.asp).
>The Epson Stylus Photo 2000P (about $900) got the highest marks in the
>ratings, producing images with an estimated life span of more than 100
>years.  Several other printers produced images that would resist  noticeable
>fading for about 25 years.  They included the Epson Stylus Photo 1280
>($500), 1270 ($400), 890 ($300) and 870 ($180); and the Cannon S800  Bubble
>Jet Photo Printer ($300).

Thank you Ken for posting this.

Lewis

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: "Ken Rosenbaum" kenrosenbaum@accesstoledo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: News article on digital print quality

Colleagues:

Michael Woods, a fellow staff member at the Toledo Blade, writes a weekly computer column. He is also syndicated by Scripps Howard News Service. Last Saturday, he wrote about the quality and longevity of images printed on consumer home computers.

Personally, I prefer the convenience of having a lab print my stuff. And I appreciate that the prints I had done 50 years ago still look mighty good.

However, the times they are a-changin'. Perhaps home printing is inevitable, although I'm certainly not yet ready to shed convenience.

I thought it might be a topic of interest in this forum and asked him for permission to post it here. Below, with his permission, is the column.

Ken

THE COMPUTER NOVICE for July 14, 2001

Thousands of people who bought low-cost color ink jet printers during the last few years are getting a lesson in the negative side of photography without negatives.

Consumers are taking another look at those first digital photos printed with the ink jet, and wondering: Did I print them with disappearing ink, or what?

Photo fade-out is a growing problem as more consumers substitute their personal computer and printer for a professional photo lab, and print photographs at home.

Surveys indicate that about half of personal computer owners now print their own photographs. Some print images of birthday parties, weddings, or business-related material captured with digital cameras. Others print traditional photos scanned into digital files with a scanner. Still others print photos, graphics, and other images captured from the Internet. As prices on digital cameras, scanners, and color ink jet printers continue to drop, more consumers will say farewell to traditional photo processing and hello to photo fade-out.

Images produced with some combinations of printer, ink, and paper may fade noticeably within a year. Thats no problem if you still have the digital image file. Just print another copy. Without that file, however, treasured family memories and valuable business-related photos may literally vanish within a few years.

Fortunately there are ways to avoid photo fade-out. Studies of photo paper longevity by Henry Wilhelm (www.wilhelm-research.com), an expert on the topic conclude that digital photo prints can last as long as conventional photographs. However, it takes the right combination of printer, paper, and ink to produce the prints. Prints then must be handled and stored properly.

Photos made with general-purpose ink jet printers using standard inks and papers will not last. Consumers looking for real digital print longevity should consider the photo printers introduced by manufacturers like Epson, Canon, and Hewlett-Packard during the last two years.

These specially designed machines and their recommended inks and papers can produce photos that last for decades. Some use a printing process, termed dye-sublimation, different from the standard ink jet process. Ink jets create an image by spraying minute streams of ink onto paper. Dye sublimation printers apply dye from a dry ribbon. The images remain vivid longer, but cost more per print.

Two excellent articles from recent issues of PC Magazine discuss photo fade-out and rate different printers for longevity of printed images, cost per print, and other features. They are available free on the magazines web site: Fight Photo Fade-Out at (www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,50663,00.asp) and Farewell, Photo Lab? at www.pcworld.com/features/article/0,aid,41301,00.asp).

The Epson Stylus Photo 2000P (about $900) got the highest marks in the ratings, producing images with an estimated life span of more than 100 years. Several other printers produced images that would resist noticeable fading for about 25 years. They included the Epson Stylus Photo 1280 ($500), 1270 ($400), 890 ($300) and 870 ($180); and the Cannon S800 Bubble Jet Photo Printer ($300). In addition to picking the right printer, its important to use the manufacturers recommended combination of paper and inks. These combinations are carefully selected to control image fading. Other simple steps also can increase the longevity of ink jet prints: Let each print dry for 24 hours before stacking or placing in albums to prevent one print from sticking to another, keep prints out of direct sunlight, and avoid storing prints in damp or hot rooms like basements and attics. The ultimate protection against photo-fade is to keep the original digital image so that new prints can be made. When sending people an image intended to last, consider including a copy of the digital file on a CD-ROM, diskette, or as an e-mail attachment.

Michael Woods is The Blades science editor. His column on computers and technology appears each Saturday.

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: Hassel Weems gabiz@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: learning curve

I started photography with digital cameras. I learned quite a bit about composition, light, etc. by shooting thousands of pics with instant feedback and no "per shot" cost. I would not have progressed as quickly as I did becasue of the cost factor. 30,000 clicks of 35mm costs more than any consumer digicam on the market. There did come a time where I had to move to film for quality reasons, and for real creative control.

Now I shoot film on most occasions, since the cameras and medium offer so much more control. Even my new CoolPix 995 with its wiz-bang features (far better than any of my former digitals) lags behind a rudimentary SLR for seeing the picture (viewfinder) and focus control - not to mention speed. Also - I am stuck with the CCD that is in my CoolPix, it has certain insufficiencies. Film gives me the freedom to choose a medium that has strong points where I need them and weakness where it doesn't matter so much. That is, I can change to a film that responds to light differently than another. I can shoot Velvia if I want zippy color or Press 800 if I want great low light performance, or Tri-X if I want that thing that Tri-X does.

Digital cameras certainly have their strong points, and the cameras are getting better almost weekly. I use both film and digital in my business. I use digital if I can get away with it: no film cost and no scanning time are a big plus. I use film if I need more resolution, high film speed, fast shooting, a different quality, or archival storage. I use both if I absolutely have to get the shot today and I will not be able to set up again (out of town work.)

Hassel

Peejayholbrook wrote: 

> not trolling here!
> just wondering how the group feels about digital being a good learning  tool for
> would be photographers?
> I graduated from point and shoot and then went digital point and shoot (olympus
> 1.3 megapixel) , played briefly with 35mm SLR's, both Canon and Minolta.  I 
> really enjoyed taking pics with the Minolta (an old 7000i and 2 standard
> lenses) but have now bought into the new finepix 6900 zoom.
> I know a newer SLR would have given me better results that those I got  with the
> older cameras but the cost of film and developing was too restrictive  for me. I
> also had some experience with photoshop and no access to lessons on   darkroom
> techniques.
> Dont you think that digital cameras will expand the art of photography  given
> that no picture can capture the truth of "being there" and the true  worth of a
> photographer is showing you what he sees?
> My favourite photographs are the older ones, taken with rather crude equipment
> in most cases. Digital allows you to take a pic and see the results on  your
> computer screen while the moment is still fresh on your mind. Surely  this is
> the fastest way to learn how to capture an image the way you see it.
> Or Not?

--
Hassel Weems Photography
Plugged In Design
Photography Web Sites Graphic Design
http://www.hasselweems.com

Date: 17 Jul 2001
From: nikkorguy@aol.com (Nikkorguy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm Film Versus Digital: An article at extremetech.com 

>I don't think they're true 6 Mp sensors anyhow.  Interpolation is the
>name of the game...
>
>From the Kodak website regarding the 760...


ISO Settings: 80 to 400
6-megapixel CCD (3032 x 2008)
18 MB finished file size
Bit depth: 36-bit color (12 bits per color) original capture
Removable, rechargeable NiMH battery
IR filter included
1.3X focal length

It is a 6mp monochrome chip with RGB filters over the pixels. You effectively get 2mp per color. The Fuji S1 does use an interpolated figure for its super ccd to arrive at the 6mp output size( I believe it is actually a 4mp chip.) If you check the Fuji website, you will see that they state that the camera has a 6.1mp output, but are pretty vague on the actual sensor size.

The Kodak cameras are indeed 6mp actual resolution. And the Nikon D1x is approx 5.75mp actual resolution.

Frank

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001
From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm Film Versus Digital: An article at extremetech.com

MarkTuccillo mtuccillo2@home.com writes 

>Moore's Law has been revised several times over the years and is now  generally
>considered to mean overall capacity of digital integrated circuits. For
>example,
>for
>DRAMS, it means that MBytes / $. The DRAMS are not really any faster then
>several
>years ago, but the dies are larger and the transistors are smaller. For
>processors
>it means performance which is as much a function of faster circuitry as
>increased
>complexity, such as multiple processing units, predictive caches, deep
>pipelines,
>etc. All of this comes at decreasing cost per mips with increasing die  size.
>
>You are wrong in your assumption since although die sizes might increase  ( a 12
>MP
>sensor could be the same size as present D1 and D30 sensors and be  extremely
>useful
>) the trend towards larger waffers will push the sensors along the Moore curve

The limit on die size is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago - around 26mm diagonal, +/- a few mm depending on foundry. This includes the area of the bond pads, external clock driver circuitry and antistatic protection, all of which take size away from what is available for the imaging focal plane. DRAMS don't even come close to that size of die and have certainly not had any influence on it. The only thing that has changed significantly is the minimum geometry that can be reproduced within the die size.

With a 3:2 aspect ratio the maximum die size limitations result in a focal plane size approximately 22x15mm - sound familiar? This is not a limitation that has grown. I had a digital imaging chip fabricated in 1995 that was about the same size - 20x16mm. Over half a dozen years earlier, my colleagues fabricated the worlds first megapixel CCD, with almost the same diagonal size. So much for die area doubling every two years! If that was the case you would be up to 168x120mm focal planes by now - only one chip to a wafer - and 3MP cameras would be uneconomic because the market for them would already be too small, just like it is now for 8 & 16-bit computers.

Large focal planes are either limited to within this maximum die size or, like the 6MP FT-3020C Philips chip, are stitched from several projections of the lithography field lenses, known as reticle stitching. That is a VERY expensive approach which will not result in low cost sensor chips. It will be interesting to see where the cameras based on this device sit in the price range after they have settled down - there will be anomalies of price at introduction. 

>Furthermore, history proves you wrong since todays 3 MP cameras cost no  more
>then
>the 1.5MP cameras of 2 years ago.

Today's 3MP cameras costing no more than 1.5MP cameras are not pushing the die size, but are using 3um pixels instead of 5um pixels. That trend cannot continue because even a 5um pixel already exceeds the diffraction limit of visible light with useful photographic apertures. The more expensive digital cameras use pixels of 7-10um for exactly this reason. So the only route for expansion is to grow the die size. That means lower yields and higher costs and a significant departure from Moore's law.

I stick with my original statement: digital focal planes are not a big enough market on their own to buck the trends of the silicon industry.

--
Kennedy

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M redoux

Jay Burleson wrote: 

>So if I can get an M style body that has a good quality chip in it and  uses
>the lenses that I have bought and paid for long ago, I am not bothered  that
>they won't use the full capability of those lenses.
>Because they will use the full capability of the chip, which is what I'm
>buying.
>How many of us use the full capability of our lenses with film anyway?

As I wrote earlier, you have to "dumb down" Leica lenses in order to use them on a digital sensor. You cannot collect data that is running at a higher frequency than the collector. The Nyquist limit. Look it up. A resolution killing filter (a blur filter) must be used in the camera between the lens and the sensor. See the white paper on lenses for digital cameras on the Schneider web site. An inexpensive Asian 10-150mm zoom will produce pictures every bit as good as a Leica M lens when used with a CCD or CMOS sensor. And you won't have to keep switching lenses for different focal lengths. It is a simple fact of the state of digital. And it won't change for a long time yet.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M 

>>According to Erwin Puts' very excellent _Leica Compendium_, which I just  got
>>today, lenses like the Apo-Summicron-M 1:2/90 ASPH can easily resolve  100
>>lp/mm
>>with high contrast even wide open.  That would require a CCD with a
>>minimum of
>>7200x4800 pixels to resolve.  Is such a CCD in the works?  There's no
>>point in
>>having lenses like this if they cannot be fully used.

I have written, ad nauseam, about this before and explained the fact that the minimum size for a pixel is 3 microns. It takes four pixels to represent one color pixel. That's 36 square microns per real pixel. The reason it cannot get any smaller is that there is not enough space to contain a large enough capacitor to capture enough electrons to represent how much light hit the pixel. As the pixel size gets smaller, the noise level goes up. And the yield goes way down and the price goes way up. And the image quality sucks. Semiconductor geometry is at the point where the atomic structure of the traces and junctions are interfering with the circuitry. When atoms are getting in the way, you simply cannot go any farther with the current technology.

I work as a senior scientist for Agilent Technologies Imaging Electronics Division. We design and manufacture imaging devices. This includes CCD and CMOS sensors and imaging chips and subsystems of all sorts. I deal with this stuff every day. In a sensor, the bigger the pixel the better. Five microns is a good size for good signal to noise ratio. This is 100 sq. microns for one color pixel.

You folks out there can believe anything you want. But the technology will not support your pipe dreams.

If there is a digital M, it certainly will not be the M you know and love. It will be plastic and probably AF. And a Japanese zoom as a lens. And made in Japan (or Korea, or China.) Just like the Leica P&S cameras. Actually you can buy this today. Most any consumer digital is the same. Just squish it into the shape of an M camera.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: digital M

you wrote: 

>Jay Burleson at jayburleson@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > 2002, however, will see an M Digital. All they are waiting for is a  full
> > frame 35mm chip to use.

Full frame 35mm and larger CCD sensors have been available for going on four years now. I've had one since 1998. In 1998 we cut a hole in the back of a Canon EOS 1n and stuffed it in. Then mounted all of the electronics on boards outside the camera. What a giant kludge. And the digital pictures from this 6 megapixel sensor had aliasing and other artifacts because of the sharp Canon optics and the Nyquist limit.

Film cameras and digital cameras are two completely different beasts. They are not intermixable. But, you say, what about the Canon, Nikon, etc, SLR digital cameras. The illusion is only skin deep. Crack one open and it is stuffed to the gunwales with billions of transistors, resistors, capacitors, circuit boards (yes, several) connected to each other with ribbon cable and flex circuits. Not for the faint at heart. Ah, but how about the Hasselblad backs hooked on to a conventional film camera. Well... nice for $15,000 and up, plus lugging a computer around and an umbilical. Besides, Hasselblads and the like are modular where the digital part can be built into an attachment. The back. Open up a digital back and discover how much electronics you get for $15,000. It looks like $50,000 worth. And the really good backs are $50,000.

An M camera is probably the worst camera to attempt to digitize. They could make a digital M camera. But it wouldn't be anything like the M camera you know now. They would probably call it a D camera. And the wonderful high resolution Leica lenses that you love would be looking through a defocusing filter (built into the camera over the sensor) because a 2500 Hz sensor pixel frequency cannot collect data of ten times that frequency. Again, the Nyquist limit.

If you really want a digital M, buy a Silicon Film cartridge (www.imagek.com) and have someone modify an M camera so it will fit. Then use it for awhile. Then instead of throwing it away as a useless waste of time and money, loan it to someone else who hasn't stopped to think it through.

Want to buy a good, sharp, easy to use, digital camera? Get a Nikon CP995. Or something like that. A digital M would be a marketing disaster as well as a disaster to use.

Jim

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm Film Versus Digital: An article at extremetech.com

Digital camera user have been counting pixels to put down owners of lower resolution digitals for years. It is a digicam tradition!

I will ask if you are saying that resolution makes no difference between 2 megapixel and 3 megapixel cameras? If there is no difference then there are a lot of people who have been sold a bill of goods by getting higher and higher res digicams.

Now, if you are saying that a scan of a slide puts the film image at a disadvantage, then most of these supposed film vs digital comparison sites are highly questionable.

However, the problem remains that if a 3 megapixel image is better than a 2 megapixel image then the huge digital image that you get from a scanner must be better than the smaller digital image you get from an expensive digital camera.

...

Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Interesting News From Agfa

I thought Agfa was retiring products like APX 25 because it wanted to concentrate on digital?? Just where is this company going?

The current digital market is one of mass-market gadgets, with the exception of a few professional niche applications. You have to be a really big company to play in that arena.

"Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca wrote 

> No future
> Agfa digital cameras and amateur scanners face the end
> 2001-07-05
> Are Agfa digital cameras and amateur scanners threatened with extinction?
> That's the way it looks at the moment at least. As Agfa let it be known at a
> press conference on 27 June, the company wants to gradually withdraw from
> the barely profitable Consumer Digital Imaging business segment.
> This business segment covers all digital products - principally digital
> cameras and scanners - for private customers. The department is part of  the
> greater Consumer Imaging division, which covers all products - analogue
> cameras and 35 mm or APS film included - for private the customer.
> Negotiations with the equity investment company Schroder Ventures on a
> possible sale of this greater business segment recently failed due to
> differing ideas about the takeover conditions. If it had succeeded, Agfa
> would also have got rid of its "unloved child" Consumer Digital Imaging. Now
> the negotiations have failed, Agfa wants to retain the Consumer Imaging
> sector but hive off the Consumer Digital Imaging sub-division. As it
> happens, its existing product range is to undergo minor improvements in the
> near future, but there's no longer any room for innovation. (yb)
>
> Like Agfa, Leica will find the digital market is "barely profitable".

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: "Woodard R. Springstube" springst@jump.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital film for SLR 35mm camera

Actually, Nikon and Canon would make much more money by making the 35mm format obsolete, coming out with a new line of bodies and lenses that are incompatible with anything that uses 35mm, and killing the used market.

Just think, if film dies and the camera makers make only bodies that require all new lenses, flashes, etc., then they will make a ton of money. But, none of it will be mine. I'll take up Stamp Collecting first.

Woodard

...

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: christine christine@napc.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF sales, # of users

Gregory Blank wrote: 

> Before digital eats film @ all,...conventional color print materials  will
> go. Ever seen a Durst Lambda? The lab I work for now has a Lambda  machine.
> Awesome,....The scan from Trans to print output is far and away better
> than R Prints from borderline contrasty Trans.
>
> The tonal repro is very superior w/o enhancement to the original
> scene....once the scan- output
> equation = handmade prints you'll see R printing die....maybe this year.
>
>
> --
> Gregory W.Blank Photography

I also worked at a lab that went digital and bought some Durst Lambda machines. While the Lambda prints do look great, I could always tell if it was a handmade print or a digital print, and I do not feel that they were ever tonally superior to handmade prints. I really don't think the Lambda is going to completely replace color photography. It's much too expensive.

A lot of people are going to stay with their Wal-Mart cheapo prints. When you say R prints, do you mean RA-4 prints? If you make an RA-4 print from a Trans, you will need to first make an internegative, which will degrade the quality somewhat. But a Positive made from a Positive (i.e. a ciba from a chrome) is just incredible.

2 cents,

christine

--
Christine M. Shepherd
NAPC Technical Support

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001
From: Robert Gruber lists@robertgruber.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] RE: Dilettante or real photographer? (before coffee) 


>  The oft-published image of Clinton hugging Monica
>Lewinsky in a large crowd at some event wouldn't have existed if some
>press photographer wasn't busy running his batteries down as fast as he
>could.

I saw a TV show on photography, some sort of retrospective of the 20th century, (maybe on PBS?) a while back. There were getting near the end and talking about digital photography and how easy it is to see what you got instantly and erase what you don't want (often to make room for more pictures if memory is tight).

There was a press photographer interviewed who had taken a shot of Monica with Clinton way before the scandal, at some sort of event. The kind of picture he would have erased if it was digital, but as it was film, and when the scandal broke he remembered seeing Monica somewhere and went back and found the picture.

It was interesting. Sometimes you don't know what's important till later.

Rob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Scott Gardner jantamrac@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V9 #282

The D30 does indeed use CMOS and, since it is indeed a fine photographic tool can yield fine results when used to its potential.

I'll add that I'm frustrated by the small size of the sensor that creates

a focal length 'factor' of 1.6x, i.e., the effective 35mm focal length is increased by that factor. Thus, my 20mm lens becomes a 32mm lens. Of course, one needn't worry about edge resolution because the whole image circle is not being used. ;-)

The new generation of 6MP sensors should remedy the problem and I impatiently await their arrival.

Scott Gardner

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Kevin Ramsey kramsey@trinity.nyc.ny.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

you wrote: 

>I think the Canon D30 digital SLR uses a CMOS array.  I've downloaded  some
>images from it and it's pretty impressive.

Thanks all for pointing out that Canon is using a CMOS chip. I assumed it was a CCD when I saw the specs for the camera. Why they chose to use a chip that requires a 1.6 focal length conversion is beyond me. I thought one of the advantages of the CMOS over the CCD was that you could modify the capture area without a huge increase in cost or power consumption. Oh well, maybe some company will realize that we don't want to trade in our current lenses just to have digital capture.

Kevin

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> From: "Kevin Ramsey" kramsey@trinity.nyc.ny.us
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon  chip
>
> Thanks all for pointing out that Canon is using a CMOS chip. I assumed  it
> was a CCD when I saw the specs for the camera. Why they chose to use a  chip
> that requires a 1.6 focal length conversion is beyond me. I thought one  of
> the advantages of the CMOS over the CCD was that you could modify the
> capture area without a huge increase in cost or power consumption. Oh  well,
> maybe some company will realize that we don't want to trade in our  current
> lenses just to have digital capture.

Yes, Canon went CMOS in their D30. Leaf is introducing a new back for medium format cameras with a 24 X 36 CMOS sensor soon.

There are serious problems with making a 24 X 36 chip for a 35mm sized camera. The angle of incidence of image forming light gets steeper as you move away from the center of the image area. This is not of much concern with film since silver grains are happy to take light from many angles. Electronic sensors, on the other hand, want the light coming more or less straight on. Each little sensor sits in a shallow well (called pixel well) and the walls of this well will block light coming at oblique angles. Using a current wide angle lens on a 24 x 36 chip simply is not practical with current image sensor designs. This is a major hurdle for camera makers to leap.

The promised Philips 24 X 36 chip(and the Pentax and Contax cameras designed around it) is yet to see the light of day. Whether you will be able to use wide angle lenses with it when it does come out is a question the tech people have been ducking when I ask it. My guess is that you won't be able to use very wide lenses.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> Why they chose to
> use a chip
> that requires a 1.6 focal length conversion is beyond me.

The CMOS chip is substantially larger than a CCD of the same resolution. This gives far better noise characteristics...which is why the Canon D30 images look so good.

The reason the chip is the size it is, is because of physics and manufacturing. The individual CMOS sensor has a physical size, and as such, if you increase the size of the chip, you get more sensors...which leads to a manufacturing/process issue. It's called yield. The larger the chip, the lower the yield...and then it becomes not so cost effective...

There will be a time when the CMOS sensor will match the size of 35mm film, and also of 2 1/4 film...and it's not that far away. If you want to figure out just how many pixels that will be...do the math...the pixel density will be the same, just more of them. When full size CMOS chips do come out, I think digital will look a LOT more attractive, one for a reason you stated...that you are using the full focal length/image size that the lense provides, but more importantly (at least for me), the image density (resolution) will be much higher...especially MF.

6cm x 6cm is 36 square cm. 2.4cm x 3.6cm is 8.64 square cm. The MF resolution will be almost 4x higher than 35mm!

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> The Foveon array boasts pixel sizes of a little over 5 microns. This is
> achieved with a 0.18um process, and I remember reading that from a noise
> point of view, they don't think they can get much smaller. I think it
> was actually Carver Mead who said it at the time, so you can pretty much
> take it as gospel.

They don't want to get smaller at this point in time...it is a noise issue. The closer electronic sensors are to each other, the more noise between them...typically.

The reason the D30 IS so nice is because they pixels are not as close together as comparable resolution smaller chips used in other digital cameras are.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> From: Rob McElroy idag@pce.net
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon  chip
>
> Bob Shell's point, which you seemed to attempt to refute, was that -  larger
> (24x36) sensor arrays will have difficulty sensing light coming at a  steep
> angle from wide angle lenses (designed for 35mm cameras), because of the
> "pixel well."  Using your 50mm Hassy lens on a 24x36 sensor in your  example
> below, is just like using a "normal" 50mm lens on your Nikon and would  not
> exhibit the wide angle lens concern that Bob raised.

I'm glad someone understood the point I was trying to make. I know about this from recent conversations with designers of digital backs. It really is a serious issue, and the only company to address it so far is Olympus who have designed special lenses for some of their cameras to work around this problem.

Another problem is trying to increase pixel density by making smaller sensors. The limit has been reached at about 15 microns because if you make the sensor smaller the sensor well begins to function as an aperture and is diffraction limited. Make it smaller and diffraction kills your image. Making sensors without pixel wells would solve the problems, but so far that has not been practical. 

> Do a test and mount a true wide angle lens (18, 20, or 24mm) on the LightPhase
> back and see if there is a significant fall-off of sensitivity.  Yes, I
> know you will have to do a bit of fiddling to get the lens close enough  to the
> LightPhase sensor for proper focus, but it would be an interesting
> test.  I would be curious to know.

Believe me, the folks at Canon, Nikon, Contax, etc., have done this and know that it doesn't work. Image falloff is severe.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

I know some CCDs that are 9...but as I said, smaller isn't necessarily better, since noise increases as the sensors get close to each other. I believe, and I could be wrong, that CMOS sensor size is quite a bit larger than CCD at this point in time. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon
> chip
>
>
> Austin, you seem up to speed ccd/cmos technology.  A couple of
> years back I did some work with light valves, then the pixel size
> was 11 microns.
>
> What are is the pixel size of todays ccd/cmos arrays.
>
> John Kufrovich
> Katy, Texas

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> I'm glad someone understood the point I was trying to make.

I understood what you said, but I believe it was misleading. As I said, it IS a potential problem for possibly some, but to make a blanket statement about it being a "serious problem" without giving the whole story, like at what angle it becomes a problem, overstates the "issue". 

> Another problem is trying to increase pixel density by making smaller
> sensors.  The limit has been reached at about 15 microns because
> if you make
> the sensor smaller the sensor well begins to function as an aperture and
> is diffraction limited.  Make it smaller and diffraction kills your  image.

Sensors that I have used are all the way down to 9u, and I know of sensors that go all the way down to 3u. The reason that I get from the manufacturers (and I deal with these guys regularly) has nothing to do with diffraction it has to do with noise and physical semiconductor geometries/processes. I haven't heard of the issue you raise as a cause for any problem, and I am not saying it isn't. Where did you get that information from?

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

I looked through my literature/notes, and found that 3u is the limiting factor, and that the noise is horrible. 5u/7u seems to be the smallest workable sensor geometry at this point in time.

...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: John Kufrovich jkufrovich@ev1.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

5u/7u with a 1u gap.

Just for a perspective, I believe, the average human hair is ~25u.

John Kufrovich
Katy, Texas

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> From: "John Kufrovich" jkufrovich@ev1.net
> Date: Thu,  2 Aug 2001
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon   chip
>
> Trying to re-activate some brain cells.  I thought majority of
> cmos detectors or was it ccd had a ir filter sitting on top of the
> actual array.

All of the ones I know of have a plate of glass, or maybe it is ceramic in some, over the sensor array. That plate can incorporate IR cutoff filtration if necessary.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

That's asking a lot! Some of the CCDs I have used have IR glass over them. I have not used a CMOS imaging sensor yet. I don't know how think the glass is, but that certainly could be what would add to some fall-off given the thickness increases with the angle. 

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Trying to re-activate some brain cells.  I thought majority of
> cmos detectors or was it ccd had a ir filter sitting on top of the
> actual array.
>
> John Kufrovich
> Katy, Texas

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon  chip
>
> What firm is that (you can email that to me off list if you like, all I  am
> looking for is information on the sensor so I can see what you are  talking
> about)?  Do they say such on their spec sheets?

Let me think about this. I don't know if this would be in the spec sheets. They usually list pixel sensor size, not diameter of the pixel well. A 15 micron pixel well may have a much smaller sensor at its bottom.

I probably already said more than I should about this.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: John Kufrovich jkufrovich@ev1.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

Ha,

wasn't there a firm or university working on a ccd array, where each RGB pixel was stack on top of each other. The different wave lengths would penetrate to the appropriate pixel level.

John Kufrovich
Katy, Texas

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip

I'm not aware of that...but that would require transparent cells...

I would solve the "issue" of the Bayer pattern by putting a light pipe on top of each four pixel array such that each sensor of the four got exactly the same light... Now, the question is, which is more important...edge information (which is better attained with each pixel getting different light) or color information... I would say edge information, since the eye really aliases color anyway far more than edge information...

...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] return of square format in digital 16MP Foveon chip 

> > What firm is that (you can email that to me off list if you
> like, all I am
> > looking for is information on the sensor so I can see what you
> are talking
> > about)?  Do they say such on their spec sheets?
>
>
> Let me think about this.  I don't know if this would be in the
> spec sheets.
> They usually list pixel sensor size, not diameter of the pixel well.  A  15
> micron pixel well may have a much smaller sensor at its bottom.

Typically, the metal aperture light shield (the surround to the photodiode) is far thinner than the photodiode is wide...which means what you are calling the well is not very deep at all. What you are describing is called a "buried channel" structure, which is not conducive to be used in cameras, for exactly the reason you state...a "surface channel" CCD should be used.

If a surface channel CCD is used, I'm having a hard time believing that wide angle lenses have significant light loss towards the outer edges caused by photodiode depth. It may be the glass cover that is causing the problem...not the well depth. 

> I probably already said more than I should about this.

I doubt it. What you just said is hardly proprietary by any means.

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: is digital hurting Leica? Re: The one and only Leica Addict

You are correct that the number of shots storable on memorycards is completely dependent on the resolution. With so-called High Resolution digital cameras producing 10+Mb TIFF files you would need 720Mb of storage to hold the same number of shots as 20 rolls of 36 exposaure film. It is always a trade-off of Image Quality over Storage Space. The digital option is to cut down the quality of the images until there is enough space to hold the number of shots you need to take. Film is always the same "resolution" (which is many times higher than the current crop of "Pro" digital cameras!). When you mention that a 128Mb card could hold 144 images (That is 4x36) you must be expecting us to accept thata filesize of under 1Mb is of the same quality as what you can get from a 35mm frame.

In these arguments, images are not always created equal! And you can't, at the same time argue that the highest quality, largest size images produced by the most expensive digital cameras are the SAME images as the ultra-compressed, low res images that you can squeeze onto a memorycard. Given the miserable reputation of Microdrives for reliability are you advocating that people commit a full gigabyte of their work to the possibility of total loss?

You are correct that memorycards are reusable. I should know because I have a lot of them that I have purchased over the years and that have become obsolete as larger storage technology was released and as filesizes produced by the cameras increased. Do you have any use for a 2Mb or 4Mb card?? Soon there will be no use for a 64Mb or 128Mb cards either and you will have to shell out more hundreds of dollars and whatever you THOUGHT you got back goes away again!! There is a difference between REUsable and Usable!!

With a simple film scanner and a camera, I can easily 20-30Mb digital images (and that figure can rise as the quality of the scanner increases) which contain much more detail than the compressed 600K images from your digital (or even the 5.5Mb uncompressed files that is can make too!) Once I have my 20Mb digital image, I have the same storage, editing and printing options that the digital camera users have. But, because I start with a higher resolution image (3000x2000) I can print a larger size with less image degredation! The fact that the image I print comes from a film camera that costs less than $200 is significant especially when we are hearing of digital SLRs in the several thousands of dollars range and they are producing less than 3000x2000 images.

All in all. the digital users dilemma is whether to settle for a large number of low quality images of a low number of high quality images...or a mediocre number of mediocre images which is what is usually chosen.

"Paul Rubin" phr-n2001@nightsong.com wrote 

> Yes, but to hold the same number of pictures as 20 rolls of film, you  only
> need one or two memory cards, not 20.  And besides being re-useable, the
> cards can cost LESS than the same number of frames worth of
> non-reuseable film+processing (1 GB Microdrive at $400 = 1600 or
> so frames, about 45 rolls of 36-exp film, which is about $15 a roll
> at my local store).  If you use the highest density flash memory you'll
> pay more, but that's getting cheaper all the time too (128 MB CF card
> is $72 at www.newegg.com, holds as many pics as maybe 4 rolls of film).
>
> This does depend somewhat on resolution and file size.  Most of my shots
> are with a 2 MP Canon S100 which makes about a 600k file per image.
> If you're shooting with a Nikon D1 and making 1-1.5 MP images, the
> numbers get a little bit less favorable, but as soon as you re-use
> the card, you get it all back :).

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 16 mega-sensor vs mega-pixel warning Re: is digital hurting Leica?

vtVincent@prodigy.Net (VT) wrote: 

> Bob,
>
> Perhaps I am missing something - please be patient and see below, and
> please help me understand where my argument is wrong:
>
> {big snip}
>
> The current 2,3,4, and even 5 Mp digi-cams all use the same Bayer
> (RGGB) Pattern  - so in effect by your argument - they also should be
> 1/3 their claimed/advertized effective pixels -
>
> So by your argument any 3Mp digi-cam is only really effectively 1Mp -
> We already _know_ this is simply _not_ true.
>
> This is true for color information -
> but the camera interpolates from the RGGB pattern the true color for
> each pixel/site resulting in the full 3Mp worth of full (24bit) color.
>
> This is done by the luminance level at each pixel/site - ie: the
> lumiance _is_ measured at each and every pixel/site - therefore there
> is literally the full CCD pixel count of resolution information.  So a
> xxMp digi-cam will capture the full xx million effective count of
> pixel information for resolution.
>
> The same argument applies to a 16Mp digi-cam or any other xxMp
> digi-cam _if_ they use the same Bayer (RGGB) pattern matrix

Hi Vincent,

Sorry, that argument simply does not compute. The luminance of a green pixel tells you precisely *nothing* about what would be the luminance of the red or blue portions of the spectrum at that pixel's location. That information can only be interpolated (guessed) from the luminance of surrounding red or blue pixels.

Of course manufacturers will try to persuade you to believe otherwise, but they would, wouldn't they? Would Nikon want you to know that the top-selling D1 SLR had only 0.7 million pixels' worth of reliable data? Would Olympus readily admit that the new E10 had only just broken the 1 million pixel mark? Of course they wouldn't!

We should not allow manufacturers to confuse the issues in this way. There is no way that luminance of one RGB colour can reliably be used to predict luminance of another colour at that location. Period.

Interpolation makes assumptions that may be good enough to produce a convincing prediction of what the luminance of a particular pixel *might* have been, had the pixel's filter only been of that particular colour (R, G, or B). But it's only a guess, albeit an informed guess in the same way that Nikon's early Matrix Metering used look-up tables to make informed guesses about exposure.

Just because a guess works convincingly some of the time, or even most of the time, doesn't make it fact, or data.

Even if convincing, it isn't data. It's surmise.

Best regards,

--
Tony Polson

Date: 26 Jun 2001
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 16 mega-sensor vs mega-pixel warning Re: is digital hurting Leica?

Sorry Tony, but your argument only holds water with subjects having a color that matches the blue or red filters (which are not 100% efficient as you presume). Have you ever studied a photograph of the PIMA/ISO resolution chart? you will discover that a good 3MP camera does indeed deliver very nearly a full 3MP of luminance information, not 1MP or even less, as you insinuate. This is irrefutable experimental evidence. See www.dpreview.com for many examples. If the test target were printed in blue/black or red/black instead of white/black then you would see a different result. The white/black chart is a way to measure luminance information. For example, Phil Askey has experimentally determined that the Nikon D1 will resolve approximately 1200 lines per picture height (see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/page19.asp). Since the D1 CCD has 1312 pixels in the short dimenension this means that its luminance resolving power is fully 91% of the theoretical maximum, not the 25% or 33% that you seem to believe.

Brian

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: "Mike Lipphardt" mlipphardt@dynamotors.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: OK - let's talk the cost of taking pictures - digital vs 35mm

Let's set up equivalent SLR systems. Nothing exotic - something like I took on vacation with me. Prices taken from Adorama as of today...

Maxxum 7 no vertical grip - keep it cheap(? Not HTsi cheap, but not too bad either) and compact - $650
50mm f1.7 lens - $77
24-50 f4 - $380
28-200 Tamron - $280

Equipment cost - $1387

20 rolls of film + processing - $150

Total - $1537

Digital - I will have to massage the lenses here a bit to come close to the fields of view of the Maxxum system.

Canon D30 $2,999
20-35 - $419
35 f2 - $299

What the heck - throw in the Tamron despite the fact the wide angle end won't be as wide - It's not that much money - $280.

Total equipment - $3997. More than twice the hardware costs of the Maxxum system. We also need storage. That I need help with. I don't want to store the shots with any kind of lossy compression, so I suspect that leaves RAW as my only alternative. Since I don't haul a notebook computer to offload files from the camera when I'm on vacation (add another couple thousand bucks for that, if you want) I need non-volatile storage for 720 RAW files. Ouch. The camera comes with a 340 meg microdrive. That takes 85 shots in RAW format. Lets compromise - go with "Large/Fine" and get about 250 images on it. We still need three microdrives. Lets get the most bang for our bucks and get a 1 gig microdrive. Add $450. Not too bad. I paid more than that for an 80 meg hard drive for my 386SX-20 (remember those? :).

Total including storage; $4447.

Let's get some pics out of this thing now. Need a computer, a good printer, descent paper, ink, etc. I have all that, so we'll write it off. Add it in if you want - about $2000 intial investment. Epson premium glossy paper costs me about 50 cents a sheet. I can get 3 4x6 prints on a sheet. Each print costs me therefor about 17 cents. .17 x 720 - $122 for paper, not counting the cost of carts. Carts cost me about $20 each for color - times two carts - $40.

Total processing costs (not counting time spent) = $162.

Recap;

Initial investment = $4447 not including the computer system, spare batteries for the D30, etc.

Consumables = $162.

So what does this little exercise tell me?

1) Getting started with a digital SLR is expensive, if you want a system with performance close to that of a good film based SLR.

2) Getting your prints is more expensive than going to a lab and having them printed for you. Not to mention time consuming.

I think I'll stay with film for now :)

Mike

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001
From: "shepherdlen" Shepherdlen@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: Enhanced DOF

From: "Jack Jansen" jackjansen@access1.net 

>snipped
> He also uses a technique for increasing resolution: he takes a four- or
> five-frame panorama and merges the frames with Photoshop so that the
> effective resolution is four or five times greater than would be  obtained
> with the same MF camera and film

On the same topic Olympus now market (to chip manufacturers in view of the price!) digital microscopes which have twice the resolotion and much higher contrast than the best "optical" microscopes . As the "digital" microscopes use an optical lens I assume the enhancement is obtained by several passes of a static subject and by-passes the Rayleigh formulae for diffraction limits.

The option of several digital passes is used on the latest Nikon scanners to obtain better shadow detail without digital noise.

I expect 10 years from now electronic manipulation of resolution and depth of field will be feasable in photography at an affordable price.

Len Shepherd.

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001
From: "shepherdlen" Shepherdlen@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: Re: Whole F Stops

From: "bryce hashizume" bryceh@cpsc.ucalgary.ca

Len said 

> > The deterioration due to diffraction between f16 and f22 exists in
> > mathematics but in the real world is below 10% at f22 and between
> >f16 and f32 is  under 30%.

Bryce replied (snipped) 

> This is a bit of a generalisation. The Rayleigh diffraction formula says
> that the > maximum possible resolution of a lens is 102 lp/mm at f/16;
> 74 lp/mm at >f/22; and 51 lp/mm at f/32 (small variations in these
> numbers are possible depending on what values you use in the formula).

Thanks Bryce,

I agree with the Rayleigh theory, but in my view taking Rayleigh in isolation gives the wrong answer.

The words you quote were in my introduction, and in the detail the main points I made was that you can stop down 2 stops more with 6x6 than 35mm before diffraction becomes an issue. This avoided getting into Rayleigh, circle of confusion detail, and different magnification which could have caused many to hit the delete button. I apologise if this has mislead some.

For 35mm the circle of confusion is taken as between 0.025mm (which requires above average visual acuity) and 0.033mm. Nikon use 0.03mm.

The COC for 6x6 is generally taken as 0.06mm, and with the bigger format you enlarge a lot less for the same size print.

Purists argue a 10x8 print from 35mm high resolution film viewed at 250mm will be at the diffraction limit at f16, and deteriorating due to diffraction at f22 if the criteria is solely lens resolution .

The same purists argue that because 6x6 has a larger negative than 35mm it has to be enlarged the same number of times to 20x16 before diffraction effect equal to 35mm at 10x8 shows in the print.

If 6x6 is printed to10x8 the smaller magnification means the theoretical diffraction effect seen at f22 with 35mm does not show in a 10x8 print from 6x6 until stopped down 2 stops more to f45.

I feel most people print to a specific print size and not to a size dictated by format/magnificarion and stand by what I said.

Next I also pointed out medium quality 6x6 equipment outperforms best quality 35mm.

6x6 has a much bigger negative/slide area. This means there are more grains for each part of the subject so more detail is held.giving better tonal range and acutance as well as smaller apparent grain in the print. The degree of enlargement is also lower with 6x6 so you will be less likely to get enlarger lens factors affecting print quality.

Kodak say you can enlarge up to 2x/2.5x without any loss of quality and from thereon quality progressively drops.

Again things are not straightforward as prints larger than 10x8 can only be viewed within the cone of comfortable vision at distances greater than 250mm.

Visual acuity is constant so fine detail cannot be seen at greater viewing distances. A large print at a comfortable viewing distance looks as sharp as an equivalent 10x8 from the same negative at 250mm.

Bryce said 

> On the other hand, many lenses are capable of resolving well over 100
> lp/mm at f/8 or f/ll., but NO lens is capable of resolving more than 51 lp/mm
> at f/32.
> So diffraction can have a very definite effect on the final image.

The Rayleigh formulae is about resolving detail at or near infinity.

The closer the subject the greater the magnification which means more lpm in the subject plane are resolved.

UK test charts are designed to used with a head and shoulders size subject, so we expect to see more lpm in a test report than in the Rayleigh formulae based on infinity.

There would be no quality macro pictures if resolution in the SUBJECT plane at 1:1 was the Rayleigh infinity figure of 71 lpm at f22 .

That said at any focus distance resolution falls off from f16 and smaller with any 35mm lens, unless the lens is broken.

Len wrote 

> > As modern lenses out resolve any film faster than 100ASA it is
> > difficult to see any quality fall off in most pictures.

Bryce replied 

> This is another common misconception. Just because a lens has an aerial
>resolution of 80 lp/mm and the film also has a resolution of 80 lp/mm, it
>certainly doesn't mean that you can achieve a resolution of 80 lp/mm
>with that film & lens combination.

I accept your point in part.

Average eyesight is assumed to resolve about 5 cycles per mm (5 black and 5 white lines) from a high contrast test chart printed to 10x8 and viewed at 250mm.

This means normal visual acuity limit of a print stops at the equivalent of 40lpm recorded optically on the print.

Anything finer than the 40lpm equivalent is superfluous to what the normal eye can see, but useful if you wish to make a selective enlargement or use a magnifying glass.

If a lens and film each have an aerial resolution of 80lpm as you say you are not going to get the equivalent of 80lpm on a print as the lens looses some of the detail.

You will, however, definitely get more than the 40lpm needed for a sharp picture with any decent set up.

I agree if the aerial and film resolution are each as low as 40lpm (a very rare combination) you will not get 40lpm equivalent and unsharpness on the print is likely to be detectable.

A minor factor is that the higher the contrast of a lens the higher the perceived sharpness in a print independent of resolution.

Modern AF lenses are always made to have high contrast to give more accurate focus with AF sensors. They can appear to give sharper prints than some older lower contrast lenses with the less efficient older lens coatings even when both lenses have the same resolution..

According to USA Popular Photography (July 2001) the Nikon LS4000 scanner outputs at 60 lpm from print and slide film i.e. 50% more than is needed for a print to look sharp printed to 10x8 from the full negative or slide.

Bryce said 

> At any rate, it doesn't really matter if you do have a lens with a
> resolution of  240 lp/mm if you stop down to f/32 or f/22. That's  because
> the lens is effectively diffraction limited at these apertures, and youcan't
> get a resolution of more than 51 or 74 lp/mm (respectively), anyway.

The equivalent of only 40lpm on the print is the normal criteria used for assessing print sharpness.

40lpm equivalent on a 10x8 print (or larger print at a comfortable viewing distance) is not difficult from 35mm at f22, assuming you achieve close to 74 lpm on the film and have good enlarging technique.

I agree 40lpm equivalent on the print is not possible (without digital enhancement) with 35mm at f32 and some loss of quality can be detected.

I also accept if you use a magnifying glass to view 10x8 prints taken on 35mm at f22 you are likely to be able to see a slight deterioration compared to using f16.

If you wish to work to a higher standard than normal (e.g. selective enlargement) then the higher criteria affect visual perception regardless of which format you use.

Len Shepherd.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001
From: "Kot, John (TIP, Marsfield)" John.Kot@tip.csiro.au
Subject: [Rollei] Transparent ceramics

When I worked in semiconductor lasers in the 80s, Indium Tin Oxide was widely used as a transparent conductor for making contact to e.g. vertical lasers. Many ceramics (e.g. TiO2) have conductive phases and can demonstrate all kinds of other odd behaviour. I'm sure they have much cleverer materials now!

John

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
From: Fritz Olenberger olenberger@home.com
Subject: Re: A new MF film scanner

I got this info off the Minolta web site. A lot of film scanners have an optical resolution that isn't square. My guess is that one parameter (e.g., CCD size) determines the resolution in one direction, and another parameter (e.g., stepper motor increments) determines the resolution in the other direction. However, if that is true, I don't understand why the optical resolution for 120 film is any different than that for 35mm film.

I know that often a manufacturer of multi-format film scanners will advertise a pretty good resolution for 35mm film, and the same resolution for 120 film, but then (in the fine print) say that the resolution for 120 film is interpolated. That's not the same as optical resolution, and not as good.

The rectangular resolution spec made me wonder if you scanned a square slide, and then view it on a monitor, would you get an image that was compressed in one dimension? I doubt it. I suspect if you scan at 4800 dpi, the scanner software would interpolate the 3200 dpi dimension so that you would get an image file of 4800 dpi in both dimensions. Maybe someone could shed some light on this.

-Fritz

...

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001
From: dNaOvSiPdAcMa@writeme.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: digital vs film and legacy engineering

There is nothing that says 35mm lenses should drive the standards of the digital marketplace except that they are a standard with a large number of lenses backing them up, lenses that were expensive to design and produce that many people have invested large sums of money in. If a vendor wants to change to a new lens mount then they will again have to reengineer all those lenses and they also have to pick a sensor size to cover which hasn't necessarily been a constant. People are still bitching about Canon moving to the EOS mount and its been how many years since they made an FD lens? Sure, a manufacturer can start over be creating a new lens system. There won't be any reason, however, for any given person to pick their system over any other manufacturer's, they are starting over with a clean slate. A manufacturer like Canon and Nikon that brings out a body that is compatible with their existing lenses has a built-in market that they have already established that is hungry for compatible products (why the hell else would you pay $3K for a 3MP camera?).

One of the falicies in your commentary, however, is in your assertion that the lenses will necessarily be cheaper. I don't think that the ingredients that go into lenses are in and of themselves that expensive. Much of the expense I would expect that like silicon manufacturing is from the precision and purity required. The reality is that smaller sensors equals higher resolution lenses. A sensor that is a quarter the area of 35mm film will require a lens that delivers twice the linear resolution to get the same quality, everything else being equal. Nevermind a sensor that is a quarter the size of 35mm film is still pretty big. Higher resolution lenses are expensive, smaller form factor or no. In the beginning, sensor resolution was so lousy it wasn't a big issue, but as sensor quality has driven toward film quality the cost of the lens to extract that quality has become more and more of an issue. I read an article just the other day where optics are not advancing at the same pace as silicon in the digital camera market and are hampering advancement and have caused alliances to develop between lens houses and electronics developers.

It will be interesting should an interchangeable lens system for digital cameras develop. One of the things I've noticed that is very different about digital cameras is that people don't talk about lenses or comparative optics or at least not nearly to the same degree they do in 35mm forums. I speculate that this is largely because the in digital marketplace the sensor has been the more interesting story and being a mostly P&S marketplace the optic is permanently stuck to your camera. I would expect that interchangeable lenses and sensors that truely rival film might change that.

alexnoy@yahoo.com (AlexZN) wrote: 

>I probably risk opening a new can of worms here, but I'd like to ask
>you guys a question. The one thing that keeps popping up is the
>phrase:" I will switch to digital when they come out with XX Mpix body
>that will let me use my existing lenses. The questin is: why are we so
>sure that the pro digital cameras will be using existing lenses?
>Current 35 mm lenses are the legacy of 35mm film and they are made to
>cover the image circle of a 35mm film. If you need to cover only the
>image circle of a smaller size CDD sensor you can make the lens
>smaller and lighter and still maintain the, say, f2.8 throughout the
>range. What makes me wonder about it is the f2. apertures on current
>digital point/shoots- they are nice and smll, but they are equivalent
>to the current heavy pro zooms in max perture throughout the focal
>range. So what stops, say Canon from introducing a totally new line of
>lenses that would be made specifically to accomodate smaller sensors
>of digicams.
>
>Also, what makes us think that SLR body shape is the future of digital
>photography? There is this talk of the pro digital body being a pro
>SLR with a  film back. Why? Current body design is optimized for
>handling film. If I slap a digital back on the EOS3 then I will be
>carrying the film transport motors all the time with me... Doesn't
>make much sense.  Also there is a question of a mirror: do we need a
>mirror on a digital SLR? On one hand mirror is great, on the other
>hand, you can't see anything duing the exposure time and it blocks the
>CCD sensor depriving you of things like real time exposure
>compensation preview, panorama stitching etc. Pentax actually came out
>with a ZLR that uses a fixed pellicle mirror instead of a mirror, just
>to address these issues.
>SO the question is: will manufacturers dump the existing 35mm lens
>standard and start making new designs that are built for digital from
>the ground-up and are smaller, lighter and more convenient? Unlike the
>APS, there might be a lot of reason to switch at this case. Who won't
>like to carry a full-feature SLR body of a size of Leica with 2-3
>small f2.8 or f2.0 zoom lenses that cover focal range equivalent to
>20-300, all or a fraction of the weight of a current 35mm system?
>Manufacturers would certainly love to make us pay for a new set of
>lenses. Plus, since these will be smaller, they will be cheaper to
>manufacture since you won't have to machine these huge 77mm size front
>elements.. So the digital equivalent of a typical Canon L lens may
>cost $400 instead of $1200. Canon certainly demonstrated previously
>that if you give people compelling reasons to switch to a new mount,
>they will do it.
>
>Alex

Date: 18 Jun 2001
From: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: milking the base? Re: digital vs film and legacy engineering

I think the OEMs like NIKON and CANON will continue to try and milk their base of users with intermediate camera models using their proprietary lens mounts, but mainly with goals of tapping the much larger digital market

see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999 

Digital Cameras:
year  worldwide  nikon%  value (yen) nikon%
1997   2,120     1.6     80.3        1.7
1998   3,170     3.2    143.4        4.1
1999   5,090     6.4    227.9        8.9
2000*  9,100    -       400
2001* 12,000    -       500
(*=forecast)

and vs SLRs:

Nikon and Japanese MFGer Sales: 

fiscal year  SLR   compact lenses digital
1996/3       620     1,600  740   -
1997/3       800     1,680  890   -
1998/3       850     1,790  1,000 30
1999/3       940     1,630  970   100
2000/3       890     1,710  980   410

======

which basically is saying that SLRs are stuck at 8xx,000/yr sales, with single digit growth or declines; while digital sales are running circa 40%+ per year, and projected to outsell 35mm SLRs by 15 to 1 or better;

-========

The majority of digicam buyers are not SLR owners or active users; so they don't have any reason to buy a larger and heavier digital camera to use 35mm SLR lenses they don't own. Bad news for 35mm SLR users, as their lenses probably will only work on some intermediate design bodies, but not be high enough resolution for the soon to be made higher resolution chips per Schneider etc. white pages etc. A big feature of current digicams is small size, and I doubt that will be sacrificed to be compatible with our 35mm SLR lenses, espec. not by mfgers of digicams other than nikon ;-)

in short, I think today's 3MP and future 5MP (the 16 megasensor chips) cameras are dead ends, not enough resolution to compete against future true 16 or 64 MPixel (48 Megasensor..) cameras, 35mm SLR lenses wrong coverage and resolution and large weight/cost versus smaller digicam lenses; and lack of electronic features of future digicam mounts etc.

bobm

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: "Anthony Atkielski" atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr
Subject: Re: Best printer for photos?

Michael writes: 

> many have told me the naked eye can't
> tell the difference between 1440 and 2880.

At a distance of 25 cm, the human eye can't distinguish anything finer than 600 dpi, and even that requires ideal conditions--300 dpi is more reasonable, under good conditions, and it can fall to much lower values in less than optimal viewing situations.

The purpose of the high dpi counts is to allow a larger number of gray levels or color levels, not to increase resolution. Since ink-jet printers typically use opaque dyes or inks, like offset printing, the number of levels of any color that can be printed is a function of the number of dots available for each half-tone spot. For example, if you want 256 levels of gray or red, you need a square of dots that measures 16 dots on a side. With a printer that can print 2880 dots per inch, that means you can print images with a maximum resolution of 180 pixels per inch.

Most ink-jet printers are 1440 dpi, which translates to 90 pixels per inch at 256 levels. If the printer uses 121 levels, it can reach 130 pixels per inch. And so on.

It is a common misconception that the dpi rating of a printer corresponds to resolution. In fact, the dpi rating is at least an order of magnitude higher than the actual resolution.

The highest resolution in digital printing comes from dye-sublimation printers. These printers use transparent dyes that can be overlaid atop each other, and so the number of dots per inch of which the printer is capable also corresponds to the number of pixels per inch that are printable. So a dye-sub printer rated at 300 dpi actually provides twice the usable resolution of an ink-jet printer rated at 2880 dpi. This is why dye-sub prints often exceed ink-jet prints in visual quality, although ink-jet prints are catching up (and they have many other practical advantages over dye-sub as well).

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: "Anthony Atkielski" atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr
Subject: Re: Best printer for photos?

The weak link for ink-jet printers is in the ink, not the paper. Most ink-jet inks fade fairly quickly (within a couple of months to a couple of years), no matter what paper is used. Epson addressed this with the 2000P, which uses pigment-based inks (instead of dye-based inks) that do not appreciably fade even after years of display. Unfortunately, pigment-based inks aren't as brilliant as dye-based inks (at least initially--they look a lot better than dye-based inks after a few years, though!), and they exhibit metamerism (a tendency to show a slight shift in color depending on the light with which they are lit). Still, a pretty that turns to garbage after 24 months.

...

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: "Anthony Atkielski" atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr
Subject: Re: Best printer for photos?

Dr. Ancheta writes: 

> To my frustration all of my prints
> faded after 3 months.

Consider the Epson 2000P, which uses pigment-based inks that are relatively fade-proof. 

> What I do now is digitalized my photo
> thru scanner then have it printed in a
> traditional photo paper.

Photo paper will fade, also, after a decade or more (still two orders of magnitude better than most ink-jet printers, of course). The longest lifetime has been attributed to Fuji Crystal Archive paper, I believe.

Date: 19 Jul 2001
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Digital future (was: LF sales, # of users)

FWIW in a discussion a few weeks ago with a friend who chairs one of the PMA groups that monitor these issues he stated that their projections are not even as close to as dire regarding the disappearance of film as some of the doom and gloom sayers would hae us believe. I don't recall the actual numbers but the gist of PMA's current thinking is that:

1) Digital will not totally replace film anytime in the foreseeable future.

2) Within the next decade inexpensive digital cameras will largely replace film based point and shoot cameras ... with the exception of the single shot throwaway cameras which they expect to remain strong.

3) The increasing popularity of digital cameras couled with an increasing "bang-for-the-buck" will have major inroads into all but the top end and specialized uses of 35 mm cameras within the next ten years. This will also lead to a reductionof the emulsions available.

4) Digital will have less of an impact on medium format and even less on LF during this time and it could be many more decades if ever before it becomes a strong factor in these markets. With the exception that the number of emulsions will shrink as they also disappear fromt he 35 mm market.

Again, this is my recollection of the conversation ... I believe you cna get detailed info from PMA.

Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: Mark Bohrer lurchl@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Leica fiscal report for 2000/2001

Given semiconductor product yields, bypassing defective cells is something all manufacturers do with large repetitive circuits like memory and CCD sensors, where the same circuit cell is replicated millions of times. In production testing, defective cells are bypassed and spare cells patched in to take their place. The spare cells are placed on-chip for precisely that purpose. The larger the memory or CCD chip area, the more random defects in the silicon become a problem, so all large circuits have spare cells to literally get around these defects. Otherwise, yield on a six, eight or twelve inch silicon wafer would be an economically unacceptable (and incredibly expensive) one or two chips (die) per wafer. The cost could be as much as $1000-$2000 per sensor or memory chip. This is also partly why it's been imperative to get Pentium CPU chip areas down as small as possible for the large die area involved. Poor yield (and huge chip area)

would make them prohibitively expensive otherwise. Test and chip package costs on those buggers are high enough already!

(I've spent 23 years in the semiconductor industry as a design engineer; that's why I know a little bit about this stuff.)

you wrote: 

>For the price of a Leica, I don't want defective cells bypassed, I want a  CCD
>without defective cells.  I know that such CCDs are made.  If I'm going  to pay
>thousands of dollars for the camera, I want everything of the same
>quality, not
>a camera built like a tank with a CCD no better than some cheapo digicam.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Bohrer" lurchl@ix.netcom.com
>To: leica@topica.com
>Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 
>Subject: Re: Leica fiscal report for 2000/2001
>
>
> > I know folks who've used D1s for a couple years now with no problems,  and
> > there are a lot of older Coolpix 950s still out there. Also, the CCD
> > itself, if properly tested by the manufacturer and designed to bypass
> > defective cells, will be very reliable. It has no moving parts, and
> > overvoltage stress/failure isn't usually a problem for electronics in  a
> > battery-operated system like a camera. Mechanical (moving) parts are  much
> > more likely to fail.
> >
> > you wrote:
> > >Mark Bohrer writes:
> > >
> > > > So if Leica lacks opto-electronic expertise,
> > > > they may be able to structure a deal with
> > > > somebody who has that expertise, and co-develop
> > > > a digital SLR.
> > >
> > >What other company would be able to match Leica's standards for
> > >quality?  You'd
> > >have an indestructible camera body with a semi-defective CCD that  fails
> > >after a
> > >year.
> > >
> >
> > Mark Bohrer
> > www.kokophoto.com

Mark Bohrer
www.kokophoto.com
Pro mountain bike racing on the web

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE: digital M

Jay Burleson wrote: 

>instead a super high end M digital that uses existing lenses
>and similar body shape.

Well... you can put the guts of any number of available digital cameras into a body similar to the M shape. This DOES NOT make it a "digital M." And you WILL NOT be able to utilize the high resolution, high definition, and high contrast, of Leica M lenses. You would get digital images, but they will be no better than most other $1500 digital camera.

If you simply research the physics, the geometry, and the make-up of a digital sensor, how it is scanned, what the voltage levels are, etc, it should become quite clear that hoping for a breakthrough in capturing a zillion pixels instantaneously, running color space conversion, PRNU, interpolation, JPEG, and getting a file out of a camera large enough to compete with real film (100mb) is still a pipe dream.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Digital Leica and reality 

> HE also wants to keep the quality of analog
> film, but in a digital world.  This requires a sensor of size 1.5  BILLION
> pixels.

I hate misinformation like this. It does not take 1.5 BILLION pixels to give the same quality of output as analog film.

You can also only print digital images, well, digitally, so let's do the arithmetic, backwards.

Analog film, for the most part, can print a very nice 8"x10"...so let's upsize that to 13"x19" for the sake of argument. A very nice B&W printing system, Piezo, uses a quad tone ink system, and it's own driver to produce near or equal to, chemical prints. It needs grayscale data that is 240PPI up to about 480PPI, and you really don't get much more from it by giving it more data, especially in a 13"x19" print.

You may say "but the printers print at 1440 or 2160DPI"...yes, they do, but that's printer dots, not pixel information sent TO the printer...there is NOT a one to one correspondence between data resolution sent to the printer driver, and the output resolution. One is PIXELS per inch, and one is DOTS per inch. Printers can only print dots of a single color at each point, so it takes many dots to represent the tones.

OK, now that that's out of the way, 480PPI for a 13"x19" print is 480PPI x 13" x 480PPI x 19" = 56,908,800 pixels. A far cry from 1.5 BILLION.

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Nikon Coolscan 8000 

> From: "Lawrence Smith" 
> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] Nikon Coolscan 8000
>
> Bob,
>
> try scanning an image with stormy skies at 16x multisampling and see if  it
> shows up.  If you scan at 1x, it almost never is visible.
>
> Lawrence

I have a neutral gray test slide made for scanner testing. I scan it and then use Photoshop to analyze it. So far no banding, and I have tried 16X sampling. I think it is in electrical interference problem.

I've heard of studio shooters who have to shut off things like air conditioning, refrigerators, etc. when shooting with scanning backs on 4 X 5 cameras.

Bob

Date: Thu, 3 May 2001
From: "Tommy Huynh" tommyphuynh@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I Want To Switch To Pentax But Wont 

> That would be the world of Kodak, who makes that claim with their
> current 3.5 megapixel cameras.   And I did qualify the remark by saying
> it excluded Chrome.

"As we've reported in the past and have deduced from our own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and ISO 100 color print film can capture the equivelent of a 40 megapixel sensor. That's an order of magnitude more than a 3.3 or even 4MP sensor..." - Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55. 

>   High resolution film only looks good within a stop or 2 of proper
> exposure.  Digital cameras show you before hand if the shot will look
> good or bad.   A poorly exposed  negative yields worse results than a
> properly exposed megapixel camera, and the  auto-exposure of most of
> them are very good.

How can you compare properly exposed digital images to underexposed silver? Talk about apples and oranges. BTW, there is no preview with digital SLRs. I completely agree though that the preview or immediate review ability of digital is a HUGE benefit to the quality of your photos.

Date: 04 May 2001
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I Want To Switch To Pentax But Wont


High resolution film only looks good within a stop or 2 of proper exposure. Digital cameras show you before hand if the shot will look good or bad. A poorly exposed negative yields worse results than a properly exposed megapixel camera, and the auto-exposure of most of them are very good.

I guess this statement proves you don't have any credibility. Have you ever actually used a digital camera? Those little LCD screens are not calibrated, and certainly don't show an accurate enough view of what you will get (other than composition) to determine if the shot is good or bad. I've determined that for myself hundreds of times. "A poorly exposed negative yields worse results than a properly exposed megapixel camera" ??? No shit, Professor.

From: David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does CCD age?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 

Rudy Garcia
<rudyg@jps.net> writes
>hiry@csua.Berkeley.EDU
>wrote:
>
>> Does a CCD age? ie, as time goes by, does its sensitivity decreases?
>> much like CRT tubes?
>>
>> Assumes no mechanical wear and tear, does a digital camera take less
>> good pictures as time goes by?
>> In conventional 35mm photography, this issue does not exist because
>> the lens hardly changes with time and the film is pretty much 'new'. A
>> 35mm SLR can easily last 10 years.
>>
>> Can a digital camera lasts that long? (technological advances aside)
>>
>> Just curious.
>
>A CCD device ages, just like any other integrated circuit.
>
>If the electronics are properly designed, so the CCD device is not
>electrically stressed or subject to electrostatic discharge, etc. It
>should last for many many years.


The question that chiry *didn't* ask, though, is more interesting. How
long will the LCD viewing screens on the back of the cameras last? AIUI,
these screens, especially colour ones used in modern digital cameras, will fade over time, and will fade much more rapidly if exposed to
daylight. I have never owned one (but I have been warned by retailers
that the similar screens used in miniature TVs fade in this way. Does
anyone have any personal experience or expert knowledge?
--
David Littlewood 

 

From: jrhone@sprintmail.com (JR)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,JonathanFranklin@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645AF questions vs an Nikon F100 

Charles Pezeshki <pezeshki@mme.wsu.edu> wrote:

> This simply is no longer true. Pro SLR digital cameras with a 5 Mpixel chip
> are amazing machines. THe new prosumer cameras are almost as amazing.
>
> Buying 35mm now doesn't make much sense for someone not looking for the
> special things 35mm cameras can do, like this person.
>
> But hey-- YMMV! 

Sorry Charles, all the test resuslts show that even the new Nikon D1x
which is the highest resolution Pro SLR right now, still doesn't capture
as much detail nor have the resolution of most ISO 100 speed films. So
the reason to buy a 35mm camera over digital is quality, price,
convenience, ease of use, etc....

Charles lets look at the average consumer. They go out and buy a $300
(2 megapixel?) digital camera. The average consumer isn't going to drop
$2,000 on the top prosumer camera, nor $5,000 on the top digital. The
saleman says, hey it's easy and simple to use. So they buy it. Load up
the flashcard and then say, what do I do now? They have to download the
images to a PC, then print them out, right? How long do you think that
will take the average consumer? 1 hour, 2 hours? I would say to download
and print 36 images even with no editing would take maybe 5 or 6 hours.


You say no problem, because it's cheaper, right? OK...let's look at that
one. The average consumer may not have a photo quality printer, but we
will assume they do. The ink and photo paper may cost them $25 for 36
prints....Don't think so? Add up the ink costs, $50 for a set of black 
and color, you can probably get 3 sets of prints from 1 set of ink
cartridges. Thats .41 cents per print in ink. The paper will cost you
$15-20 for 50 sheets. That's .30 cents per print in paper. .71 cents per
print x 36. $25.20 . It only took them 5 hours and $25 to do what would
cost them under $10 to do with 35mm film in under an hour, $14 with the
price of film. What happens when Grandma wants a set? Double prints a
few dollars more at the lab, another 5 hours and $25 more.


That's ok if the quality is better, right? No way. Not even close
with the amount of money spent. You would have to spend at least $700-800
on the camera to get comparable quality on 4x6 or 5x7 prints, and still
have the same costs on printing. The 35mm cost, $100-$200 for the
camera. If they want even better results spend $400 on the camera. You
will still have better pictures than the $800 digital camera. Period.


Then what happens when you get that one really good picture. That soccer
game winning goal for the championship and you want your son to remember
that day for the rest of his life with a big blow up...Do you think that
the $300 digital camera (probably 2 megapixels at best) will give a great
enlargement? Better than 35mm? nope. 8x10 may be the biggest you can
go, but it will not be great looking at all. So all that money and time
was spent for what? To have poorer quality pictures. This is assuming
that you use the highest quality settings on the camera. Most consumers
probably wouldn't because it eats up space on the flashcard much faster.
So if they go in standard mode on the camera, the quality is even worse.
Now if you need images for the web and never print...ok then digital
has an advantage. If you just wanna email grandma an occasional
picture...digital is great. But for the average person, a digital camera
is more trouble than it's worth. My fiance has a Canon digital camera and
on vacations, she buys a disposable camera. And I have a photo quality
printer (Epson 2000p), photoshop, PC, everything she could need, but it is
far easier and cheaper to her to just drop 20 bucks and get some
snapshots...


Now saying all that, I am not downing digital cameras, they have come a
long way and soon the format will have the quality of 35mm. Digital backs
on medium format cameras now exceed 35mm film qualities. But right now it
is more costly, less quality, and in order to upgrade, you need to buy a
whole new camera. So in a few years to get that 35mm picture quality they
still have to buy a new camera. So why not go 35mm now and get the
picture quality, ease of use, simplicity and convenience and move to
digital when the quality is there, cost of printing has dropped, and it is
easy and convenient.


JR 

  

From: "Rapp, Timothy" Timothy.Rapp@marconi.com>
To: "'rmonagha@mail.smu.edu'" rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>
Subject: Re: Film versus Digital Cameras 
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 

Hi Robert,

I found your comparison of Film vs. Digital camera's today and wanted to
just send you a couple of thoughts....

I don't know how long ago you wrote it, but I was constantly thinking, as I
read your comparison, that you did not realize that digital photography has
a different paradym than film photography - that you do it differently.

People who have a digital camera...

1. ...do not print out every picture.  In fact, I may take a dozen digital
shots where I would have taken just one or two film shots.  I will pick the
best one or two out of the dozen and delete the rest.

2. ...enjoy their digital pictures on the computer monitor.  Most of my
archives are either on CD-R and/or large hard drive and can be viewed in
slide show format on a 17" monitor for great enjoyment of family and
friends.  With even minimal jpeg compression, disk requirements are very low
and picture quality is fantastic.  Most enjoy viewing a "roll of film" with
all the pictures brightly lit at approx 8x10 on a computer monitor, than
traditional 3x5 or 4x6 prints.  (of course you need to be near a monitor,
but i don't know anyone that doesn't have a computer at their home....heck
you can even view them on a tv)

3. ...can get prints cheaply if they choose.  You can get 4x6 prints at
Costco for 20 cents each; or a 8x10 for $1.99.  You can either email your
images to them or show up with a CD-R or your memory card.  

4. ...often already have a need for a home computer.  It serves as the home
finance tracker, receipe database and most importantly for children to
complete their homework.  Often times the home computer is required to
complete homework assignments for even grade school.  If you already have
the computer and need to keep it upgraded for other reasons, then you cannot
consider the home computer in the cost of digital photography.

I could go on, but I think I've covered all of my dissagreements.....

Thanks for listening,
Tim Rapp

Timothy E. Rapp
Software Engineer, Marconi Communications
mailto:timothy.rapp@marconi.com




From: "Rapp, Timothy" Timothy.Rapp@marconi.com>
To: "'rmonagha@mail.smu.edu'" rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: Film versus Digital Cameras 
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 

Robert,

One last "experiencial" point....my buddy sent away for a 14x17 enlargement
of a picture of his family he took with his Coolpix 990 (3.3 megapixel at
superfine jpeg compression - ie. lossy).  He showed it around at work, full
of well educated engineers, and we were totally impressed with the quality.
The general consensis was that it looked fantastic, and must have cost close
to a hundred dollars.  The truth was it only cost $20 from a wellknown
internet shop.  Perhaps to a trained eye, one could see the imperfections,
and truth be told, it did look best from a couple of feet away.  But, it was
good enough for any of us....

-Tim

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Rapp, Timothy  
> Sent:	Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:12 PM
> To:	'rmonagha@mail.smu.edu'
> Subject:	Re: Film versus Digital Cameras 
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I found your comparison of Film vs. Digital camera's today and wanted to
> just send you a couple of thoughts....
> 
> I don't know how long ago you wrote it, but I was constantly thinking, as
> I read your comparison, that you did not realize that digital photography
> has a different paradym than film photography - that you do it
> differently.
> 
> People who have a digital camera...
> 
> 1. ...do not print out every picture.  In fact, I may take a dozen digital
> shots where I would have taken just one or two film shots.  I will pick
> the best one or two out of the dozen and delete the rest.
> 
> 2. ...enjoy their digital pictures on the computer monitor.  Most of my
> archives are either on CD-R and/or large hard drive and can be viewed in
> slide show format on a 17" monitor for great enjoyment of family and
> friends.  With even minimal jpeg compression, disk requirements are very
> low and picture quality is fantastic.  Most enjoy viewing a "roll of film"
> with all the pictures brightly lit at approx 8x10 on a computer monitor,
> than traditional 3x5 or 4x6 prints.  (of course you need to be near a
> monitor, but i don't know anyone that doesn't have a computer at their
> home....heck you can even view them on a tv)
> 
> 3. ...can get prints cheaply if they choose.  You can get 4x6 prints at
> Costco for 20 cents each; or a 8x10 for $1.99.  You can either email your
> images to them or show up with a CD-R or your memory card.  
> 
> 4. ...often already have a need for a home computer.  It serves as the
> home finance tracker, receipe database and most importantly for children
> to complete their homework.  Often times the home computer is required to
> complete homework assignments for even grade school.  If you already have
> the computer and need to keep it upgraded for other reasons, then you
> cannot consider the home computer in the cost of digital photography.
> 
> I could go on, but I think I've covered all of my dissagreements.....
> 
> Thanks for listening,
> Tim Rapp
> 
> Timothy E. Rapp
> Software Engineer, Marconi Communications
> 1000 Marconi Drive, Warrandale, PA  15086
> Voice: 724-742-4666  Fax: 724-742-6800
> mailto:timothy.rapp@marconi.com
> 



From: "Jaan Peets" jaanp@attcanada.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital M6?
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 

At the risk of being seriously flamed, combining Leica optics with a
technology that currently yields a fraction of the information of 35 mm
makes little sense. When digital cameras (soon?) yield 20MB or so of useful
info per shot, I can see it. Right now, optics are far from the limiting
factor.

The current issue of View Camera magazine has a series of articles on
digital large format, and I was deflated to see the jaggies and pixels even
from large format scanning backs costing $30,000.

Some day, but not now.
"brian" brianc1959@aol.com> wrote...
> The appearance of the excellent Nikon D-series cameras has certainly
> made it easier to convince (con?) myself that all the money I've spent
> on lenses over the years has been a good investment.  However, I
> suspect that I'm missing out on some very good Leica optics.  Just
> curious about your opinion - would there be sufficient interest in a
> digital M6 (say 10MP or so with all of the optical and mechanical
> qualities of the film version) to justify developing one?  How about a
> version with a super high-quality electronic viewfinder and a series
> of lens adapters that would allow the manual-mode use of any SLR or
> rangefiner lens ever made (Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc.)?
>
> Brian




From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital M6?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 

> The telecentricity (angle of light) issue may rule out some of the
> wide-angle M lenses, but the exact extent of this problem isn't clear
> to me.  Proper use of microlens arrays on the CCD can increase the
> acceptance angle dramatically.

Certainly the problem is more acute as focal length decreases. According
to the folks I've talked with, matching microlens arrays help out a lot
but have to be matched to the dispersion characteristics of a particular
range of focal lenths carefully. Compensating for a range from 21mm to
135mm, the Leica M lens range, is not possible with a single array unless
you also limit the size of the CCD to something smaller than the 24x36
format gate. Considerations of cost of manufacture, etc, also weigh in on
the design. 

The problem is not totally insurmountable and is approachable by several
means, but on balance it may not be practical to use those existing
lenses.

> BTW, the ultimate resolution of a sensor with 5 micron pixels is
> exacly 100lp/mm, not 40lp/mm.

Hmm. I didn't do the math myself, how is that calculated?

> Also, CCDs are no more sensitive to dust than film is.  The final
> image contrast is essentially the same, after all.  The problem is
> that the CCD coverglass is exposed to open air for long periods of
> dust, and will gather much more dust than the typical single frame of
> 35mm film.

There are several ways that CCDs can be more sensitive. Remember that with
film, a bit of dust on a particular frame doesn't exist on the next frame
due to the mechanical transport of the film. Dust can weld itself to the
CCD receptor or cover glass. The motion of the film in the lens chamber
itself moves air which helps to dislodge dust and allow it to drop to the
bottom of the chamber. Et cetera. 

The long and the short of it is that I've given up on the notion of a
digital body using Leica RF lenses. I didn't invest in Leica M cameras and
lenses with a nod to their use as a digital camera system in the future,
so why worry about it? 

I think a better solution will be lenses and digital receptor built as an
integrated system. Leica is engaged with Panasonic to do this now, the
fruits of that collaboration will likely point the way to the future
digital cameras with Leica lenses, for their imaging qualities.

Godfrey




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital M6?
Date: 3 Jan 2002 

Hi Tony:

I agree that good 35mm lenses aren't fully utilized yet by available
CCDs, but your figure of one third is a bit low I think.  The
horizontal resolution of the Nikon D1x is 84 line pairs per
millimeter, which exceeds the off-axis capabilities of many lenses,
especially when used wide-open or near wide open.  Three times 84 is
about 250 line pairs/mm, and I'm aware of only a handful of 35mm
lenses that will resolve much more than 200 line pairs/mm, and these
do so only near the optical axis at an optimum aperture (and
re-focused for that optimum aperture).

Look at it this way:  If the D1x resolution were doubled in the
vertical direction to get back to square pixels you would have about
11megapixels total.  If you then cover an entire 24x36 image area with
these pixels you are over 20 megapixels, which really would begin to
exhaust the capabilities of most current lenses.  Nevertheless, the
highest spatial frequency in this case is still the same as it is in
the current 5.5MP D1x.

Also, even at 3-6 megapixels a superior lens will yield a superior
result because of higher contrast at lower spatial frequencies.  Most
users of the lower resolution Nikon D1 and Canon D30 cameras will
attest to this.  I think this has mainly to do with the tendency of
digital cameras to enhance color fringing problems in comparison to
film.  Color fringing tends to start degrading the MTF of a lens at
roughly 20-30 line pairs/mm for most 35mm lenses that suffer from it.

Finally, and I almost (but not quite) hate to bring it up, the bokeh
of a lens shows up clearly on even the lowest resolution digital
images.  I had major problems with it in lowly VGA images.

Brian 


Anthony Polson acpolson@hotmail.com> wrote 
> brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:
> 
> > The appearance of the excellent Nikon D-series cameras has certainly
> > made it easier to convince (con?) myself that all the money I've spent
> > on lenses over the years has been a good investment.  However, I
> > suspect that I'm missing out on some very good Leica optics.  Just
> > curious about your opinion - would there be sufficient interest in a
> > digital M6 (say 10MP or so with all of the optical and mechanical
> > qualities of the film version) to justify developing one?  
> snip>
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> There is a fundamental problem here.  No digital "35mm" camera yet made
> has a CCD resolution that is any better than about one third of that of
> any Leica optic.
> 
> You might as well use any Nikon, Canon, Minolta or Pentax lens, because
> the CCD will never be able to see the difference.  Neither will you, nor
> anyone else.




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital M6?
Date: 3 Jan 2002 

Jaan:

The need for good optics with digital cameras is more important than
you realize.  The Nikon D1x sensor, for instance has 4000 pixels in
one inch along the horizontal direction.  That translates to about 84
cycles/mm.  Only the best lenses can take full advantage of this
camera.

Brian


"Jaan Peets" jaanp@attcanada.ca> wrote 
> At the risk of being seriously flamed, combining Leica optics with a
> technology that currently yields a fraction of the information of 35 mm
> makes little sense. When digital cameras (soon?) yield 20MB or so of useful
> info per shot, I can see it. Right now, optics are far from the limiting
> factor.
> 
> The current issue of View Camera magazine has a series of articles on
> digital large format, and I was deflated to see the jaggies and pixels even
> from large format scanning backs costing $30,000.
> 
> Some day, but not now.
> "brian" brianc1959@aol.com> wrote...
> > The appearance of the excellent Nikon D-series cameras has certainly
> > made it easier to convince (con?) myself that all the money I've spent
> > on lenses over the years has been a good investment.  However, I
> > suspect that I'm missing out on some very good Leica optics.  Just
> > curious about your opinion - would there be sufficient interest in a
> > digital M6 (say 10MP or so with all of the optical and mechanical
> > qualities of the film version) to justify developing one?  How about a
> > version with a super high-quality electronic viewfinder and a series
> > of lens adapters that would allow the manual-mode use of any SLR or
> > rangefiner lens ever made (Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc.)?
> >
> > Brian




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital M6?
Date: 4 Jan 2002 

Hi Bob:

If you actually measure the limiting resolution by photographing a
test chart you will find that it really is about 84 cycles/mm, not
35-40.  At around 50 cycles you start to see traces of color aliasing,
which gets progressively worse until you reach the maximum resolution.
 I can send you some test images if you want.

Regarding Schneider, I think their talk about the telecentricity
requirement is perhaps a bit overblown.  Consider that many CCDs will
work with f/1.4 lenses, which requires an acceptance angle of at least
21 degrees.  I've designed and tested production digicam lenses with a
similar off-axis incidence angle.

I think its interesting that Schneider also markets the Horseman
Digiflex camera body, which allows the use of any Nikon F-mount lens
with a wide range of medium format digital backs.  No Nikon 35mm
lenses that I'm aware of are telecentric.  However, the least
telecentric of them (such as the 20mm f/2.8 and a few others) do have
a chief ray incidence angle of about 21 degrees. I wonder if thats
just a coincidence?!

Brian


rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> for most digital sensors, you need a grid of 4 sensors RGGB to get a color 
> pixel; few digicams are used in greyscale modes really. The resulting 
> resolution is thus more like 35-40 lpmm max.  Larger sensors = lower 
> resolution but more light sensitive (more area), so we lose again.
> 
> Also, dust is more of an issue with some sensors as the active sensor size 
> is only 35% or less of the chip area, versus 100% of a film emulsion is 
> light sensitive. 
> 
> schneider optical web site has a white paper explaining all of this, and 
> their need to design digital lenses to different parameters (telecentric)
> 
> regards bobm



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
From: "radiojohn" yeahsure@nospam.invalid>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 

There are special LF lenses already redesigned for digital use only. 
Olympus  is steadfast in their claim that 35mm lenses do not produce as good
a result as lenses made for the smaller chip size and sensor characterisitcs
of CCS and CMOS chips.

By the time a digital camera can be affordably made that accepts 35mm
lenses, not enough people will want one.  It's a bit like trying to get up
interest in an Exacta adapter for a Canon EOS.

The same will be true with MF.  Right now most of the stuff is overpriced
and somewhat pathetic.  But it is not going to adapt to current MF hardware,
it is going to (eventually) phase it out and replace it.

As the number of film users (especially MF and large format) decrease, labs
will shut down the film side and chemistry and film will become too
expensive.  Already it is very hard to have a custom print made from a 6x9
negative because not enough people use that format. The same trend will
continue.

Like it or not, it's happening.  Maybe 10 years out, but it's happening.

John


 > Robert Monaghan wrote:
 > >
 > > ...
 > > incidentally, there are lots of reasons why current medium format
lenses
 > > for film are a BAD MATCH to digital chips of 16 MP, so while backs will
be
 > > available and cheap, the competing digital cameras will probably be so
 > > small and have better matched optics for much less than any pro med fmt
 > > rig. So I wouldn't plan on using any current film oriented optics on a
 > > future 16 MP or denser digital camera. In any case, the lack of
electronic
 > > lens databus lines will compromise many potential features in the
future.
 > >
 > > just some more thoughts ;-)
 > >
 >
 > Bob;
 >
 >  You have perked up my interest. So before I drop $30K into a 'blad,
 > lenses, and a Kodak 16MP back... Would you please elaborate on your
 > comments above.
 >
 > TIA
 > Charles



From: "Tom Bloomer" bloomer@snip.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 

Yes, you are correct.  I am thinking like an advanced amateur.  In a studio
environment, production work flow is the most important factor.  In fact the
last company that I worked for is now in the process of converting their
studio to a complete digital work flow.  They will spend about $0.5Million
to accomplish the effort.  I am a network architect by trade, and I worked
as a technical advisor to the photo department when they were planning the
conversion.

They are dumping their film processor, Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 large format
systems and their Hasselblads to move in to a complete digital work flow.
They should be totally digital in about 2 or 3 more years . . . making the
entire transition over a period of about 6 years.  They will likely be
restaffing as well because it is easier to hire new "digital photographers"
than it is to retrain their existing staff.  To their advantage is the fact
that they will significantly reduce their time to market for their catalogs
and flyers.

They have already invested $400,000 in a "digital asset management system" -
a server farm with dedicated terabyte disk and tape robot storage capacity
and an on-line digital image catalog and work flow tracking system.  Once
they get there they will have invested almost $1million.  In addition they
already employ a full time staff of IT professionals like me to keep their
LAN, WAN, PCs, mainframe and associated systems up and running.  They have
significantly added to their IT expertise requirements and increased their
support and maintenance spending for proprietary software designed to
integrate manage the new technology.

How many studios can afford to make that kind of investment?  Even if the
cost comes down by an order of magnitude?  There is a lot more complexity to
a total digital photo environment than one sees at first glance.  The
photographer has to learn about the technical aspects of networking,
storage, digital photo editing and retouching, or one has to hire that
expertise and rely on a vendor to deliver results.

Working as a network architect and systems integrator, I have seen the pain
first hand.  For the big ad-agencies and high production studios, the time
savings in the work flow may justify the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).  But
what about the mom & pop studios?  What about the freelancer?  The learning
curve is very steep and the technology to compete with film is very
expensive.  It is less expensive to buy a high end CCD scanner like the
Imacon or the Nikon 8000 then it is to purchase a digital camera system to
replace your film technology investment.  How many small studios and
independent photographers will choose to take this route first?

Bottom line, do you really think film will disappear in 5 years?
--
Tom Bloomer
Hartly, DE

"radiojohn" yeahsure@nospam.invalid> wrote 

 > 16MP does not even begin to capture the amount of detail in medium format
 > transparency film.  It may match or surpass 35mm, but to think that it
will
 > match medium format is ridicules.  What the digital industry is hoping is
 > that we drop our standards to accommodate their technology before they
 > approach the capability of film.

But you are forgetting that many of the images shot with these "new" digital
cameras are ending up as very small images in catalogs and folders.

The practical consideration is that the current backs and cameras are
getting the job done faster and cheaper.  This has nothing to do with fine
art, lines per millimeter, film area, etc.

Obviously the current gear is not designed for the big wedding portrait.
But for ever one of those, there are thousands of small images shot for some
Wal-Mart throwaway insert.

In short, you are thinking like an advanced amateur, whose needs are totally
apart from many pro needs.

John




From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping prices of med fmt gear.. Re: ATTN: R MONAGHAN
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 

Were you really puzzled about why Kodak, Agfa, et al are so focused on
digital? It's because the dollars compared to traditional photography are
huge, they're gigantic, there's no comparison between the two. People
typically buy maybe two or three good cameras in their life time. Darkroom
equipment lasts forever, lenses last forever. Unless it breaks down, with
film based equipment you buy good quality and it lasts a life time. Compare
that to digital - new computer every couple years, new monitor every couple
years, update Photoshop every couple years, new printer every couple years,
new camera every couple years, the list goes on and on. And the cost is
thousands of dollars more than traditional stuff cost, plus you need more of
it. I only dabble in digital but I've probably spent about $5,000 on the
most basic hardware and software in the last three or so years and if I get
serious about it I'll spend much more than that and, more importantly, I'll
have to do it over and over again every few years.

So the photography industry, which used to be stuck with making this
equipment that didn't cost much (compared to digital) and was so good that
people didn't need to replace it very often, has all of a sudden hit the
jackpot with digital. At last, something that becomes obsolete every few
years and that costs a fortune to replace. That's the reason, and it's the
only reason, why companies like Kodak and Agfa are trying to get out of
traditional photography equipment and into digital as fast as they can and
it's why film will some day become a niche item.

"Huib Smeets" huib_smeets@hotmail.com> wrote...
> Hi,
>
> Ah! I always was puzzled about why companies like Kodak and Agfa are
> so focused on digital: I always thougth: if they sell one, good
> digicam to the consumer which will last him for(almost)ever and
> knowing less images beeing printed and more beeing viewed at by using
> a monitor, so no need for consumables like paper and film, where's the
> profit for those companies?? how can they sustain their turnover,
> there has to be a replacement for film and paper sales (the
> consumables).
>
> But reading about disposables, I now understand what the bussiness
> model will be like: the inkjetprinter/polaroid business model, cheap
> camera's whithout an image sensor and relative (in)expensive
> consumables. Profit will be made on the consumables, the hardware
> probably given away at almost no costs.
>
> To take pictures you have to buy a digital film cartridge, a sensor
> with enough integrated write-once storage integrated into it for a
> number of X exposures. It will be sold to us as: very convenient as
> you do not need expensive storagecards, no computer and no printer for
> taking a picture, it will be small enough to carry dozens around, it
> is inexpensive enough to drop it of at a lab to be processed (they
> need a living too). The writeonce memory will be sold as: no more data
> loss due to human error!. Other benefit: Investment protection: when
> higher resolutions or higher speeds get available: no need to buy a
> new camerabody, just buy the newer cartridge! If one or more
> sensorpixels are defect, no need to for costly repairs on the body,
> just interpolate the missing data and load a new cartridge.
>
> It will be very appealing to "Joe/Jane Sixpack" as it is so familiar
> to what he/she is used to now: no mind-boggling computer stuff, just
> brain-dead load, shoot and get it processed routine.
>
> History repeats itself!
>
> Huib.
>
> Ps. I know we are getting completely off-topic!
>
>
>
> rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
>
> >
> > re: digital
> >
> > the president of national semiconductor, who make the Foveon 16
megapixel
> > chips, says they " " expect to make DISPOSABLE 16 MP cameras in the
> > midterm (ie, ~ 3 to 5 years). Buying a $20,000 Leaf or other digital
back
> > for medium format now makes sense if your volume will pay for it in more
> > sales (faster turnaround to demanding clients) or materials costs,
within
> > the next year or so, but that's maybe 1% of photographers out there
> > (mostly catalog types etc.). If you really want to see some serious gear
> > depreciation, tune in when the $100 16 megapixel disposable cameras come
> > out and pulverize the digital backs (4 MP) on hassy etc. ;-) ;-)
> >
> > incidentally, there are lots of reasons why current medium format lenses
> > for film are a BAD MATCH to digital chips of 16 MP, so while backs will
be
> > available and cheap, the competing digital cameras will probably be so
> > small and have better matched optics for much less than any pro med fmt
> > rig. So I wouldn't plan on using any current film oriented optics on a
> > future 16 MP or denser digital camera. In any case, the lack of
electronic
> > lens databus lines will compromise many potential features in the
future.
> >
> > just some more thoughts ;-)
> >
> > grins bobm
>




From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: digital versus film
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 

The answer to this is pure business. I was speaking to some contacts at
Nikon recently. 

Film scanners are high precision devices that are costly to develop and
manufacture. They have to be sold at a high enough margin to keep them
profitable. The growth in sales of digital cameras is outpacing the growth
in sale of film scanners by a substantial factor, as is the improvement in
quality as well. 

>From their perspective, the price/performance/quality/market growth matrix
is highly biased in favor of digital cameras such that potential market
expansion in the film scanner space is relatively limited, almost
regardless of price point. That's going to keep the price point on film
scanners higher than th consumer priced flatbed scanners. 

Godfrey

baranick@shen-heightsaccess.net (RJ>) wrote:

> What we need is a good MODESTLY PRICED film scanner.
> I see dozens of sub-$70  flat-bed scanners.
> Surely, the industry could come up with a good $100 film scanner.




Subject: Re: digital versus film
From: Edward Craft ecraft@premise2020.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 

Andy White wrote:

> I am talking about SLR digital cameras.  Digital cameras do much better in
> low light, and if you need the speed, digital is better
> 
Andy,

This hasn't been my experience with a Canon D30. The camera operates poorly
in low light conditions in every respect. Image quality in long exposures,
especially night photography, is quite bad. I'm not sure what you mean by
speed. If you refer to ISO speed, the D30's images are roughly as noisy
(grainy) as equivalent film speeds, which is a remarkable achievement for a
digital camera. If you refer to frame-rate, the D30 keeps pace with some
film SLRs but not at its highest quality setting. Did you have in mind a
particular camera that has advantages in these respects over film?

Regards,
Edward Craft




Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
From: Bernard Ferster b.ferster@att.net>
Subject: [HUG] B&H Digital Source Book

I have just received the B&H Digital Source Book. It is chock full of all 
sorts of useful information and,alas, for there are no wealthy 
photographers, mouth watering stuff of all kinds. B&H did a great job in 
assembling this book.

One of the most interesting gadgets is the Kodak back for the Hassy, the 
DCS Pro Back Plus. Sixteen Megapixels! All sorts of magical features!

Have any of you had hands-on experience with this? The entry in the B&H 
Digital Source Book claims that it is useable in "location" applications. I 
would want to use it "in the field", literally, for landscape and wildlife 
photography. Will it function easily out of the studio?
B.F.




Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Space
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>



> From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Space
> 
> I believe the volume of dust carried by the Martian atmosphere makes the
> sky an orange shade, Bob.  Better take some Fuji film along!


You know, by the time a human sets foot on mars Fuji and Kodak will probably
be out of the film business.

With the "big two" moving so fast into digital, I was very surprised to get
a press release from Agfa yesterday announcing that they are getting
completely out of digital, and discontinuing all of their digital cameras
and scanners to concentrate on their core business.

That was a real surprise!!

Bob




From: "Jriegle" jriegle@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Pentax cancels the 6MP digital SLR
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 

A full frame CCD would likely be expensive. Very expensive. Some suggested
the camera would have cost $7,000. But probably would have been in the
8 -10K range for early production samples. Pentax plans on releasing an SLR
that's more for their target market (lower priced). It was probably a smart
move. If this didn't fly it could have devastated Pentax.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0110/01102401pentaxdslrnomore.asp

Unfortunate though. Could have been a step towards larger CCDs in the near
consumer market down the road.

John




From: Anders Svensson anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax cancels the 6MP digital SLR
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 

supercow wrote:
> 
> Why is full frame more expensive ? Most electronics is moving towards
> smaller... the smaller the chip, the more expensive it gets because
> it's more difficult to scale the components and such.
> Now why would spreading an existing amount of pixels/ccd
> elements/whatever over a larger area mean higher cost ? Lcd screens
> are expensive because it's hard to get enough items that have up to
> three dead pixels (depending on manufacturer). I get that.
> But I'd say that it'd be more easy to produce ccd's with less
> elements/mm2. And then increase resolution from there.
> 
> Can anyone explain ?


Basically because making CCDs become harder the larger they
get. It's a statistical problem, based (actually) on surface
area and the likelyhood of a disqualifying error in the
chip. With todays technology, some computer chips from a
wafer are faulty from the start and have to be discarded.
Makers speak about yield and refer to the number of circuits
projected onto the wafer vs the number of actually working
circuits that come out. As the errors are local and of a
random nature, the odds for getting a working chip becomes
larger, the smaller they are. So a big chip becomes much
harder to make if it's going to work as expected because the
odds of getting a fault is a function of area. If every
other small CCD will be acceptable (a 0.5 probability), a
four times as large CCD would just come out acceptable with
a 0.06 probability (every 16 times). I don't know the
standard size of a common CCD that is in use today, but I
think there will be more needed than four, to cover 24x36 mm
as well. 

Now, in computer screens and CCD chips, we can accept a few
faults, which to some extent negates the yield problem. But
we still cannot accept too many "blind spots" in a
photographic CCD. 

-- 
Anders Svensson
mail: anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se



Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

Agfa was hived off into a separate company several years ago, and
at the moment is up for sale again.  A recent deal for the purchase
fell through at the last minute for unknown reasons.  I may have
mentioned here that they sent out a press release last week announcing
that they are dropping out of digital completely to concentrate on
their core business of film and photo paper.

Bob


> From: "B. D. Colen" bdcolen@earthlink.net>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient
> 
> I believe 'Igee Farben' did indeed own Agfa, along with a boatload of
> other companies....Unless they've spun it off recently, AG Bayer - once
> part of Igee, owns Agfa. I once visited Bayer HQ in Leverkusen (sp),
> where it has been since before the war...amazing, chilling,
> place....fabulous manicured grounds - no need to ask who manicured them
> during the war - and above the massive main entrance doors to the main
> stone building is a protruding hunk of stone - which is where the eagle
> and swastika used to sit....




From: dhaynie@jersey.net (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax cancels the 6MP digital SLR
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 

supercow supercow@not.forfree.at wrote:

>Why is full frame more expensive ? Most electronics is moving towards
>smaller... the smaller the chip, the more expensive it gets because
>it's more difficult to scale the components and such.

Nope. Not even remotely. Ok, sure, a new chip FAB gets more expensive.
The cost of a silicon wafer (about the size of an LP record, or
smaller, depending on the technology) doesn't change relative to the
number of die you can fit. So, all else being equal, when you do a 2:1
shrink (say, 0.25 micron to 0.13 micron), you can fit four times the
number of die per chip. So the cost goes down.

>Now why would spreading an existing amount of pixels/ccd
>elements/whatever over a larger area mean higher cost ? 

The problem is simple: defect density. On any given wafer, there are
some number of imperfections, just due to the fact that the crystals
aren't grown under perfectly clean conditions, only "mostly perfect".
Let's say for a minute you have a CCD of size N^2, and based on your
defect density, one out of every four CCDs fails. That means the $4000
(give or take) in wafer cost, plus the IC process and test costs
themselves, have to be spread across 3/4 of the possible die on that
chip, not all of them. 

Now let's assume you build a CCD of size (2N)^2, eg, four times the
physical size. Given that 4x increase in size, and your given defect
density, you may well find that you get NO(!) working CCDs from a
given wafer (statistically, this could happen, if the defects were
evenly distributed, rather than random). When you do get yield, it
won't be much. So the cost of the CCD is dramatically more than the
cost of one 1/4 the size. 

Now, hopefully they get more than 75% yield on the smaller chips. And
at least as proof of concept, Kodak and Hasselblad are both shipping
photo products with larger-than-35mm areas imagers, today. Of course,
you'll spend some $10's of thousands for that Kodak back for your MF
camera, but it does illustrate that such huge imagers are possible, if
not necessarily practical. 

>Lcd screens
>are expensive because it's hard to get enough items that have up to
>three dead pixels (depending on manufacturer). I get that.

Same basic deal -- defect density. An active matrix LCD glass is
largely a parallel device. Each pixel has its own driver, and the
glass still works if one of these fails. That fact actually lowers the
cost of the LCD panel, since, if one bad pixel killed the display, you
couldn't sell it, it would have to be scrapped. A CCD is largely a
serial device -- one big-ass analog shift register (eg, each pixel
connects to the next), charges passed down a serial chain to the
single A/D converter that gives you your digital image. A defect in
any one of those pixel circuits CAN kill the whole CCD (it may not,
depending on what the defect actually kills, but it can). 

There's a good change this will go away, as we transition from CCD to
CMOS sensors. If you look at an advanced CMOS sensor, such as the one
in the Canon D30, you'll see that it's largely a parallel device: each
pixel sits next to its own private A/D converter. One dead pixel
doesn't kill the others (and given good image processing, a lone bad
pixel shouldn't even be noticed in a large imager). 

So the effect of defects in large sensors will eventually be reduced.
Today, it's still fairly tragic to that die, and of course, the larger
the die, the larger the target. 

>But I'd say that it'd be more easy to produce ccd's with less
>elements/mm2. And then increase resolution from there.

The ability to shrink the sensor is limited by the wavelength of light
-- too small, and you'll have diffraction effects spoiling its use as
an imager. So getting big is the only way to add more pixels, after a
point. 

Dave Haynie       | Chief Technology Officer, Merlancia Industries
dhaynie@jersey.net| "




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 vs. digital
Date: 31 Oct 2001 

Roger:

I assume that when you write "100lines/inch" this is the same as
"100cycles/inch.  Even your 3x Nyquist sampled example shows artifacts
on a slightly tilted target.  I think that the real question here is
not whether artifacts exist, but how much impact they have on an
actual image.  Based on earlier discussion in this thread I think we
both agree that the aerial image formed by a diffraction-limited f/11
lens covering a 24x36mm format has approximately the same amount of
information that a f/45 lens covering 4x5inch format.  A sensor
capable of sampling at three times Nyquist at the Dawes limit would be
about 700 megapixels.  Simply put, this is simply way too much, and it
is a ridiculous standard by which to judge any real sensor.  At the
Dawes limit there is no detail because the MTF is zero, so I don't see
how it makes any sense to talk about aliasing artifacts.

If your target wasn't tilted, then there wouldn't be any artifacts at
all at the Nyquist sampling rate and beyond.  As I'm sure you know,
for a real-world digital sensor using a Bayer type color filter
pattern this isn't true, and there are chrominance artifacts that
begin to be noticeable on a pure vertical or horizontal target at
around 1.5x Nyquist.  Real sensors also use anti-aliasing filters
which reduce the MTF to approximately zero at the Nyquist frequency. 
Since any aliasing artifacts occur in a frequency region with very low
MTF, the appearance of these artifacts will not very noticeable.  I
recently did a large number of lens tests using a Nikon D1x,
photographing a large test target containing numerous logarithmic
resolution charts.  Since the cell size of the D1x sensor in the
high-resolution direction is 5.93 microns, the Nyquist frequency is
1/(2*0.00593) = 84.3 cycles/mm = 4283dpi.  In my images of test
targets the appearance of detail at 3x Nyquist sampling (about 28
cycles/mm) is extremely high contrast with only a minute amount of
chrominance aliasing.  Test images and real world photographs show
meaningful detail far beyond this limit, which I feel is far too
conservative.  My D1x images do in fact show some meaningful detail in
the 70-80 cycles/mm range, and the chrominance aliasing pattern is
indeed centered on the Nyquist frequency of 84.3 cycles/mm.

Your 3xNyquist sampling requirement will certainly eliminate any Moire
patterns due to aliasing.  However, in order to avoid sampling at
higher frequencies you would have to use a very strong anti-aliasing
filter.  This will drastically reduce the quality of the image.  In my
view, the effect would be far worse than having a sharp image with
small areas of aliasing.  There are very good reasons that camera
manufacturers design anti-aliasing filters to cut off at the Nyquist
frequency and not at 1/3 of the Nyquist frequency.

Your scanner comparison was interesting, but beware of drawing too
firm a conclusion because the scanning optics can play a big role in
the quality of the scan.  This is particularly true of flatbed
scanners.  I've done some scanner lens design as part of my consulting
work, and I've also visited some of the factories in China where the
lenses are manufactured and tested, so I'm all too aware of some of
the shortcuts that are taken here.

With regard to ultra-high resolution stitched digital images, the only
way I could convince you of their quality would be to show you a
print, which doesn't seem practical at the moment.  The files are too
big to upload to my email server.  I did write a tutorial which can be
found at:  http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/workshop.html if you
are curious.

Brian


"Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net> wrote 
> I've been working--just now getting a chance to get back.
> 
> brian wrote:
> 
> > Roger:
> > I feel that you're getting a bit testy, and I'm not sure why.  To
> > criticize photographs you haven't seen in order to back up your
> > calculations seems immature to me.
> 
> I'm sorry, you are correct, I shouldn't criticize
> photographs I haven't seen.  But on the other hand
> how state your numbers are correct even though I
> have photos and data posted for you to see that
> clearly show at least I am able to get detail
> well beyond what your numbers suggest is possible.
> Have you looked at the data and do you understand it
> and agree or disagree with it?
> 
> I've added two pages relevant to the discussions in
> this thread to my website:
> 
> A comparison of an HP7400C 2400 dpi scan to a
> 3300 dpi drum scan.  The drum scan shows more detail
> but the flat bed HP does pretty good, producing a
> 300 megabyte file:
> 
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/hp7400-drum_compare.htm
> 
> A scanning test to illustrate image detail versus
> Nyquist sampling.  (Yes I know this is not at the
> Dawes limit--that is not what I'm trying to illustrate.)
> The tests show that you need 3x Nyquist sampling to
> record detail accurately without sampling bias (aliasing).
> Thus to sample an image with 100 lines/inch, you
> need to sample it at 600 dpi (Nyquist sampling =200 dpi)
> (scale this to your favorite image detail):
> 
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/sampling1.htm
> 
> Roger Clark
> Home page photography:
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark




From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 4 x 5 vs. digital
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 

I agree with most of what you said.

brian wrote:

> Roger:
> I assume that when you write "100lines/inch" this is the same as "100cycles/inch.  Even your
> 3x Nyquist sampled example shows artifacts on a slightly tilted target.  I think that the
> real question here is not whether artifacts exist, but how much impact they have on an actual
> image.

Yes, lines/inch = cycles/inch.

Check the sampling page again: it has new stuff:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/sampling1.htm

I added an example of an actual image.
My conclusion is 2 to 3 pixels per cycle at the Dawes
limit pretty much gets all the detail, but 2 pixels
per cycle at the Rayleigh limit is prett close too.
This assumes the scanner has a high MTF at that level
and is not limiting the result.

> Based on earlier discussion in this thread I think we
> both agree that the aerial image formed by a diffraction-limited f/11 lens covering a 24x36mm
> format has approximately the same amount of information that a f/45 lens covering 4x5inch
> format.  A sensor capable of sampling at three times Nyquist at the Dawes limit would be
> about 700 megapixels.  Simply put, this is simply way too much, and it is a ridiculous
> standard by which to judge any real sensor.

I agree.  The example above is 3 pixels/cycle at the
Dawes limit, which is 1.5x Nyquist.  A 4x5 RGB image
is about 650 megabytes and fits on a CD.

The reason 3x Nyquist is not needed is because of the
MTF limit of the system.

> At the Dawes limit there is no detail because the MTF is zero, so I don't see how it makes
> any sense to talk about aliasing artifacts.

Actually, there can still be aliasing artifacts.
For example, a star image (or other small bright spot)
can fall at the corner (or edge) of two pixels,
so in the digitized image, the star appears larger,
and can appear to shift position depending on how
much energy falls into adjacent pixels.

> With regard to ultra-high resolution stitched digital images, the only way I could convince
> you of their quality would be to show you a print, which doesn't seem practical at the
> moment.  The files are too big to upload to my email server.  I did write a tutorial which
> can be found at:  http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/workshop.html if you
> are curious.

Thanks.  I'll check it out.

When I don't have time for the 4x5, I'll shoot
arrays of 35mm frames and stitch them together.
I can at least get to 6x4x5 cm quality, and perhaps
to 6x7.  But it takes a lot of time later,
which I don't have enough of!  So I have many
arrays sitting waitng to be stitched!
A neat advantage is the incredible depth of
field that can be achieved because you can change
focus with each frame (but that also makes
stitching harder).

Roger




From: ss@randomc.com (Steve)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: No more Pro film cameras?
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 

Paul Rubin phr-n2001d@nightsong.com> wrote:
>Anthony Polson acpolson@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > What MF cameras can do has nothing to do with professional use of 35mm.  
>> > My guess is professional MF will outlast professional 35mm.

>> How do you square your last comment with the fact that sales of digital
>> backs for MF SLRs are *booming*?

>Is there such a thing as a full frame MF CCD?  I guess when there is,
>MF film's days will also be numbered.  8x10" will be around longer ;-).

The ones I've seen lately are 645 sized (If you call the full framed, I 
certainly do).  But new ones are coming out like the H20 from Phase One 
and its a full 6x6 frame size.  The H20 is roughly 16 Megapixels. 
Ultimately, it still won't beat Velvia for final enlargement size, but 
within its enlargement limits (still quite good) it shows less grain and 
looks quite smooth.  I've spent a lot of time with the 645 sized back 
and the convenience far outweighs film for a lot of commercial work.  
(proof prints in 15 minutes for instance).  I haven't heard anyone from 
the fashion side of things embracing film yet.  Its all in what the 
clients ask for.  When fashion clients start asking for digital, fashion 
will go that way.  That'll be sooner than later I think.

Steve



From: Anthony Polson acpolson@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 

Paul Rubin phr-n2001d@nightsong.com> wrote:

> Anthony Polson acpolson@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Decision time is fast approaching for whether 35mm SLR manufacturers
> > will risk alienating their established user base by introducing lenses
> > that are specifically designed for smaller-than-25x36mm CCDs.  Olympus
> > have already officially announced their intention to do so.
> 
> Nikon has already made SLR lenses with smaller-than-full frame image
> areas, namely the IX Nikkors.  I keep wondering why the D1 can't use them.

That's a good point.  

Perhaps they are consumer-grade zooms that would not do justice to a
D1(H) or especially a D1X.

Hmmm.  I wonder why did Nikon, when designing the D1X, double the number
of pixels in *that* direction?  It only has ~1000 pixels vertically
which means 333 data points per 24mm.  That's somewhere between VHS and
S-VHS resolution and therefore not very impressive at all.

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson



news-
From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Nov 2001 Subject: Re: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell

>Subject: Re: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell
>From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com 
>Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2001 5:41 PM
>
>David Kieltyka daverk@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what Pentax's real reasons were for cancelling their digiSLR.
>> If problems with the CCD itself were a reason then maybe Contax will indeed
>> be forced to do likewise.
>
>Usually chip problems get resolved sooner or later.  Of course with 4 MP
>cameras like the Canon G2 now well under $900, and 5.24 MP cameras like
>the Minolta Dimage 7 under $1300, I don't understand the appeal of a very
>high-priced camera with only one extra megapixel.

SNIP

Its not so much the extra mega pixel that makes a difference, or the fact that
newer 6MP full frame sensors are indeed full frame and can be used w/ the
manufacturers (or third party) lenses, but the fact that larger pixels can be
used to gather light which makes for more light sensitivity and/or less noisy
images in lower light levels - in other words, even if you had a new ES30
Olympus capapble of delivering 6MP (but using a smaller sensor w/ more densely
packed pixels) and a Nikon/Canon (or Pentax/Contax) body that also used a 6MP
sensor (but w/ a larger full 35mm frame sized sensor), apparently the larger
sensor should give cleaner/less noisy results and possibly better color
distinction or other factors besides resolution that affect image quality. This
is only a guess though, anybody feel free to correct me on this, but it seems
reasonable...

Can't wait till two years from now when they'll be plenty of 6MP digi cameras
(most likely new rangefinders or ZLRs as opposed to used digi SLRs, which might
keep more of their value at much more than a thousand dollars, probably closer
to two thousand dollars...) for way under a thousand dollars, hopefully...

:-)

But by that time there will be 12MP and 16MP full frame sensor digi SLRs in the
$5-6,000 range...


Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Digital options?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 

Lars Haven wrote:

> > But what are the digital options with a Hasselblad.  Are there any at
all?
> > And has anyone seen the new Canon EOS 1D? It looks pretty amazing.
Trying
> > to figure out....digital or Hassy...either way it's serious $$$
> >
> I have been lurking on this fine list for a while now. Time to de-lurk.
>
> I have seen at leat one digital option. See www.imacon.dk in the products
> section. I do not have any idea on prices or availability, but I expect
> the things will be expensive.

If you want to go digital without using film there are plenty options too.
In fact, i don't know any manufacturer of digital backs that doesn't offer
Hasselblad as camera platform, even Rollei!
CreoScitex's Leaf C-Most (6.6 MegaPixel, approx. Euro 10,250);
Heidelberg's Colorcam (6.3 MP, Euro 22,000);
Imacon's two types of Flexframe (6 and 16 MP, Euro 23,000 and 27,500);
Jenoptik's Eyelike (6.3 MP, Euro 19,000);
Kodak's Pro Back Plus (16 MP, Euro 28,000);
Megavision's S3 and S4 (6 and 16 MP, Euro 18,000 and 21,500);
Mosaic Imaging's Luma (6 MP, Euro 20,800);
PhaseOne's Lightphase and H20 (6 and 16 MP, Euro 22,000 and 26,500);
Rollei's Gamma C6 (6 MP, Euro 22,500);
and Sinar's Back 23 and Back 44 (6 and 16 MP, Euro 28,500 and
20,900/27,500).

Imacon produces very high quality scanners to scan your negatives and slides
as wel. Nikon and Polaroid too make good scanners (not quite as good as the
Imacon, but plenty good enough). Minolta is joining them, but i don't know
enough about their latest product to comment.
All scanners produce considerably (!) more MegaPixels than any of the
current available backs.




From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] Imacon Scanner and scanning question in general
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 

I consider it the "lie" of the digital camera industry.  This is only true
of single shot arrays, not of scanning camera backs.  Scanning camera backs
are basically the same as a film scanner and use either three passes, one
for each color, or three sensors, again, one for each color...so you get
true RGB data for each pixel.

The one shot digital cameras (as opposed to scanning digital cameras) use a
pattern of four sensors to get color information.  This pattern is typically
a "Bayer" pattern, which is RGBG, two Gs for contrast.  So, if you take a,
let's say, a 2k x 3k sensor, one half of the sensors is Green, or 3M
sensors, 1/4th are Red, or 1.25M, and the other 1/4th are Blue, or 1.25M.

A typical color pixel is made up of 3 - 8 bit colors, or 24 bits.  So, if a
6M sensor gives you 18M bytes (6M bytes for each color), or 6M 24 bit
pixels, then the data is being "made up" (though it is of course based on
actual data), so %75 of the data in the 18M byte file is not original data.

This has nothing to do with bit depth by the way, that's a different issue.

> Interesting!  Can you elaborate in terms of the sensor array and
> bit depth?
> Is this true of all digital cameras?
>
> >
> > Well, to compare apples to apples, you have to realize the 2.3M pixel
> camera
> > has 2.3rds of the color information interpolated (not real data,
> > algorithmically "made up").  The 80M scan you get from your
> Hasselblad has
> > %100 of the data intact...




From: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy digi backs
Date: 21 Dec 2001 

check the latest Brit. Jrnl of Photography review on the new CMOS chip 
C-leaf series. You have to have the volume, the clients needing fast 
turnaround, and the facility with software etc. to make this financially 
feasible.

an interesting stat was that dropping the price from $25k to $15k 
increased the potential medium format pro market size from a small 
percentage (5-10-15%) to over half the potential owners. So getting the 
price below $15k is critical...

HTH bobm



From: Todd Maurer maurert@ameritech.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: huge -36% drop in LF/MF 1999 sales in Japan attrib to digital
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 

I happened to read the notoriously named "digital issue" of view camera.  My
first actual reading of that magizine.  Not sure yet if a subsciption is in the
works or not.

I am not in any way opposed to digital and I am now using a digital dark room.
I take the picture with e-6 film, send the ones I like in for high res scans and
am diigital form there.  To date there isn't an original capture device that
allows the  capture of an image that matches 4x5 film quality, is priced for the
amature, and is backpackable.  However that day is less getting closer.

While the submitter below takes the article as proof that the day is not far
away, I took it as how close that day is.  A device that captures moving quarter
pixel increments means that the day of a device capable of the same quality need
only be 16 times as dense.  In computer terms that is 2-4 years.  That's capture
of the original image, but what of getting that image back home form the field?
A CD-R media (one disc) is less than the cost of film. DVD-R could become
cheaper and more compact than that.  Today CD-r drive can record 650 MB in 6
minutes.  That's two images of 48bit information large enough to print 22x26
images at 300dpi.  While drives and batteries are heavy, CD-R media isn't. ;)
Then get the cost to $500 from today's $10K and I'll be happy.

NOTE CD-R is "old" technology.  Writing rates and media size and thus battery
consumption could already be much smaller.

That day isn't tomorrow, but it will probably come within the next 5-10 years.
The question I have is will this technology lend itself to the swings and shifts
we large format photographers are used to.

There a 35mm format digital camera might have an advantage in more than just
size.  Today 35mm cameras are built aroung the idea of the need to transport a
roll of physical film.  Once the image is being captured on a chip, I can
imagine the chip being mounted on a stage that tilts, swings and shifts.  This
doesnt't accomplish front swings and tilts but it is an advance.  Yet Canon has
a lens that gives the front movements.  I could even imagine an AF matrix that
could be told (with eye movements) which three points to focus on and thus
establishing a desired plan of focus.

Todd


Jaan Peets wrote:

> This is GOOD news!
>
> As all this "obsolete" pro gear is being dumped onto the marketplace, there
> will be wide availability to those who appreciate it! I have my VISA card
> ready!
>
> Having seen the digital issue of View Camera, and barring some
> printing/production problems, my sense that digital is not "there" yet seems
> confirmed. One article with terrible photos (fuzzy and "pixelly"), and
> another with what seemed ok, but both involving megabuck technology - am I
> the only one to walk away with the impression that film is *very* far from
> dead?
>
> Not wishing to have an engineer post a 10 page mathematical treatise .....
>
> If a 35 mm neg contains at least 20-odd megabytes of info (variously
> attributed to Kodak), therefore a 6X7 runs into 100+, and large format above
> and beyond, then at least for field photography, there as yet seems no
> competitor yet on the horizon for conventional film.
>
> I cringed yesterday at my local camera store as a salesman blithely steered
> a customer away from an SLR, indicating that nowadays, digital is equal to
> 35 mm......... OUCH!
> "Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote 
> the related point is
> that I believe older backup gear is now being sold by
> > pro users to finance entry into digital market. So less demand (going
> > digital), more supply (selling to finance digital), so prices are down?



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: To go digital or not to go digital?
From: "John Stewart see REAL email address in message." crema@frother.gov.invalid>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 

I wrote an article on this topic that was published in Imaging Magazine a
couple of years ago. The crux of the problem is this:  Johnny and his wife
are living in 2050.  They find some "CD" disks from 2001 in grandma's trunk.
grandma says they are wedding and vacation pictures.  Where do they go to
retrieve them?

I have a Commodore 64 disk with some (very early) digital captures made with
a primitive "ComputerEyes" setup.  Where can I get that disk read, which is
only 15 years or less years old?

This serial-transfer to the next big media idea is great, if you happen to
be an enthusiast.  But what if you are not?
John

 > >
 > >I do jump to your side when it comes to concerns (big concerns) about the
 > >long term survival of digital images.  I don't like the fact that the photo
 > >industry has been hijacked by the computer industry, as the computer folks
 > >often cannot see past 18 months.  And all this talk of copying to the new
 > >media each time an upgrade comes along is rubbish.
 >
 > You are grossly exaggerating. How long has the CD-rom been around? How long
 > have the typical file types/formats for images been around? Certainly alot
 > longer than 18 months. Everything digital so far has been transferable to the
 > next type of hardware with more than a reasonable amount of time, especially if
 > it was so universally used as todays CD-roms, CD/CDRW,etc, are.



From: "Jacques van Oene" j.vanoene@chello.nl
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: NASA technology helps weekend photographers look like pros
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(202) 358-1979

Keith Henry
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
(757) 864-6120

RELEASE NO. 01-086

 For Release:  Aug 21, 2001
NASA technology helps weekend photographers look like pros

If a picture is worth a thousand words, new image-enhancement technology
jointly developed by NASA and industry will increase the average
photographer's vocabulary many times over.

This new development will especially help weekend photographers who use the
increasingly popular digital format. Digital images of family, friends or
one's favorite hobby can be corrected for many common problems with help
from this award-winning technology.

The technology, called Retinex Imaging Processing, could be used to enhance
the billions of images captured each year by the growing use of low cost
digital color cameras, color printers and desktop and internet publishing
programs.

The process was originally developed for remote sensing of the Earth by
researchers at NASA Langley Research Center and Science and Technology
Corporation (STC), both in Hampton, Va.

TruView Imaging Company, an affiliate of STC, has licensed the technology
from NASA and plans to market it in the form of a software product for home,
professional and industrial use by the end of the year.

With it, amateur photographers, armed with nothing more than their personal
computers and a desire to get the most from the images they capture, will
have the ability to increase the brightness, scene contrast, detail and
overall sharpness of images with much more ease than they can today.

What distinguishes this technology from existing image enhancement
technologies is that it makes corrections automatically, yet allows the
end-user to manipulate the image as desired. As a result, the average
photographer is more likely to use the technology and use it successfully.

It won't correct every image, but was impressive enough to win a NASA Space
Act Award as one of the space agency's top inventions of the year for 1999.

"What makes Retinex technology so valuable is that every image can stand a
little

improving, especially dark, low contrast images," said Glenn Woodell of NASA
Langley, one of three inventors of the technology.

Dan Jobson, also of Langley and the technology's principal investigator,
teamed with co-inventors Woodell and STC's Zia-ur Rahman to modify the
technology for commercial applications.

"STC thinks consumers will find this technology so easy and gratifying to
use that people who would never consider doing anything more than snapping a
picture will let Retinex finish the job," said Rahman.

The realistic beauty and visual impact of photographs can be diminished,
damaged or ruined by a variety of possible problems. For example, colors and
details can be lost or suppressed in shadows or other low light level zones
in a picture. These same scenes, when viewed directly by the human observer,
are vivid by comparison to the recorded image. Consequently, the user loses
both the visual quality and emotional intensity of that captured memory.

"Existing image enhancement methods used to correct these limitations are
either insufficiently powerful or require tedious and extensive manual user
interactions," said Marisol Garcia, Langley's Retinex commercialization
project manager.

NASA Langley has demonstrated the software-based technology for
general-purpose applications such as home photography, as well as
specialized applications such as surveillance imaging, medical imaging and
space-related imaging. The latter includes severe high-contrast images of
on-orbit Space Shuttle operations and Earth observations from space.

The technology is currently being refined for video image enhancement, where
the technology's high-speed, automatic correcting features should make quick
work of an otherwise tedious and extensive process.

For publication-quality still images, visit the World Wide Web at:
http://dragon.larc.nasa.gov/retinex/pao/news/

- end -




--
Jacques :-)

www.spacepatches.com

www.jacqmans.com




From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Blown away!
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 

Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> One day digital will actually be as good as they are saying it is now.
> That won't be tomorrow, or a year from today, but several years from
> today.  And it will me several more years before it will be available at
> a reasonable price, comparable with 35mm film cameras.

There's yet another point:

We can use conventional cameras which are 10, 20, or 30 years old and
get results which can't be told apart from those obtained with a more
modern camera. There may be a little less comfort or automation but the
quality is there.

For very little money, a beginner or someone of limited means can buy a
complete second-hand SLR system with a selection of lenses and all
accessories needed for top-notch results.

Even though spares for some models are no longer available from
manufacturers, a lot of independent camera repair services still have
stocks or use parts from other broken bodies. I've just recently had a
CLA done and a few parts replaced on my 40 years old Contarex. 

The results from last year's generation of digital cameras will always
look naff.

And try to find someone who will be able to repair a E-10 or a Coolpix
950 in only ten years from now. But not to worry, noone will want to
have it repaired.

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 4 Aug. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses



To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Re: Adaptors for M42 lenses on digital cameras -
	was spotmatic battery covers


> From: "Kelvin Lee" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg>
* Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 
> To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Re: Adaptors for M42 lenses on digital cameras - was
> spotmatic battery covers
> 
> Yes, you can use M42 lenses on EOS bodies. That's how I got started even
> before I had an M42 body.
> 
> The issue is if the EOS D30 is so electronic that it needs the electronic
> coupling to operate.


Nope.  I'm using M42 lenses on my D30 all the time.  No problem at all,
other than dimmer viewing when you stop the lens down.  Some of the shots
I've run in Shutterbug were done with the D30 and my 200mm f/2.8 CZJ.

As soon as my machinist friend has the time to finish it, I plan to begin
using my Zeiss lenses for my RTS system on the D30 with a custom adapter.

This will save me from duplication in my lenses.

Bob



From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: A prediction on the decline of 35mm -- circa 1972!
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 

The marketing machine that the digital manufacturers have unleashed is a
classic shell game. For example, it is frequently reported that sales of
digital cameras are booming but what is never said is that not every digital
camera sold is a Nikon D1x. The majority of the digital camera units sold
are the cheap, low resolution models which do not deliver near the image
quality that the hyped-up user has been expecting. I suppose that is why
there is a 50% return rate on these cheap models. If the consumer shells out
a few more hundred dollars for an upgraded model that is chalked up as
another sale but the return is never acknowledged in the sales figures.

If we looked back to the dawn of the 35mm camera (which was called a
miniature camera in those days) I am sure there were those early adopters
who predicted the demise of large format view cameras. And I am sure they
had the same smirk on their faces as the digitheads do now. However, large
format is still around.

It is nice to say that digital photography is some "new branch of
photography" that will peacefully co-exist with earlier technologies but the
rhetoric from the digital side is hardly so benign. Which is why this
tangential discussion is appropriate in this thread because we see the same
thing being repeated with digital as we saw in the '70s with the Instamatic.
I think that the film users and the digital users would get along quite well
if the digital users would stop with their "We will bury you!!" propaganda.

"Chris Brown" cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com wrote 
> Meryl Arbing marbing@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >You don't have to go back all the way to the 70's for predictions of the
> >death of 35mm by an inferior alternative. Just look at digital. They have
> >done a horrendous marketing blitzkrieg and have managed to plant the
> >expectation that "Yes, digital is replacing film." in people's minds. They
> >have even managed to fool some "professionals" who also, it appears "can't
> >tell the difference between good, mediocre and awful quality" They are
> >counting on the consumer not being able to tell either so they can deliver
> >something "that is 'good enough' and has the lowest product cost".
>
> I'm surprised at just how long this took to come out. I half expected it
> within a few minutes of the original post.
>
> Of course there are very obvious reasons why the rise of digital cameras and
> the experience of alternate film formats are not even close to being
> analogous. If it comforts you to think this way, then by all means carry on.
> 35mm film in particular isn't going anywhere soon and it would be foolish to
> suggest that digital photography will serve as a complete replacement for it
> any time soon - the two technologies each have strengths and weaknesses that
> the others don't. However, the suggestion that the advent of digital
> photography is:
>
>
> >just a question of "fashion over function". People tend to gravitate to the
> >latest hot trend even if it is functionally inferior to the old familiar
> >technology!
>
> ...using such failures as disc film to support ones argument is simply an
> exercise in self-delusion. All the other things that have been mentioned
> have been attempts to replace an established packaging of a certain
> technology (photographic film) with another packaging of the same
> technology, usually motivated by cost-reduction. Digital cameras represent a
> new branch of photography, not just yet another way of putting film in a
> canister.
>



From: two23@aol.com (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: ex. 45% drop in new hassy 20x prices Re: huge -36% drop in LF/MF

>>It may be that all the losses are in MF and LF is growing, or the reverse,
but my 
bet is their analysis was right - namely, that the hoopla about going digital
and costs has made that the upgrade path for folks wanting more than 35mm can
give, rather than old fashioned non-autofocus MF and LF gear? ;-)>>


   One of my friends that is a long time pro photographer (commercial mainly)
told me he hardly ever uses his Hasselblad since buying a D1 and now D1x.  He
said 20x30 blow ups are equal from each, and many clients actually prefer the
digital.  I'm hoping I don't get stuck with all my Bronica gear!  I hope to buy
one more LF lens (300mm or 360mm) to complement the 90mm f5.6 I already have,
but would rather put money towards a used D1 than towards more LF lenses. 
Definitely have bought my last 35mm body and very unlikely to buy anymore
Bronica items.



Kent in SD



From: "Graham Stewart" graha.ms@spam.me.and.i.will.kill.you.graha.ms>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: huge -36% drop in LF/MF 1999 sales in Japan attrib to digital
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 


"Scott Holt" holtsc@bellsouth.net> wrote 
> "Todd Maurer" maurert@ameritech.net> wrote 
>
> ...
>
> > I am not in any way opposed to digital and I am now using a digital dark
room.
> > I take the picture with e-6 film, send the ones I like in for high res
scans and
> > am diigital form there.  To date there isn't an original capture device
that
> > allows the  capture of an image that matches 4x5 film quality, is priced
for the
> > amature, and is backpackable.  However that day is less getting closer.
> >
>
> I actually wonder if that day will ever come... its not a technology
issue,
> but a market issue. What is the potential market size for such a device?
> Is it large enough to entice a manufacturer into making a device that
> is priced for the amature?
>
> I don't think I could back this up with numbers, but I'll make a bold
> prediction that R&D efforts in digital will slow significantly long before
> R&D investment produces a 4x5 quality device priced for the
> average amature. I just don't think there is anyway that the
> business case could be made... even if the core technologies
> are significantly cheaper than what's used today.

Well unfortunately one aspect of semiconductor manufacture that falls well
short of any moore's law type trend is the defect rate. I cant remember any
real numbers but if i recall correctly an 8" diameter wafer will have an
average of perhaps 10 defects - and when you are making cmos sensors from
16mm areas of silicon, you will have a fairly high yeild rate in that you
can cut hundreds of chips from one wafer and only have perhaps 10 defective
ones. When you try to cut a 4x5" piece of silicon you are stuck with
requiring a wafer where the only defects are on the outside of the chip -
this will give an abysmally low yeild rate - not to mention the phenomonal
cost of making a chip hundreds of times the size of a regular image sensor.

Sadly standard market economics will not help us here - the consumer market
will be happy with smaller ccds since they require less power, less size and
smaller lenses and since feature sizes are falling megapixel numbers will
increase without the need for big ccds/cmos's.

Personally i cant see these technologies providing much for LF.

The one saving grace could be that intel are working on new chip packaging
(primarily for cooling reasons) but it's feasible that they could make a
cmos sensor which ran right to the size of the package - with the
connections to the back rather than sides. If this could be done then why
not make a 4x5 sensor out of dozens of $5 ones?

Graham




From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: huge -36% drop in LF/MF 1999 sales in Japan attrib to digital
Date: 16 Jan 2002 

Robert Monaghan, rmonagha@smu.edu writes:
> I also think that film will keep its place for some
> time, as the cost of larger arrays may not justify
> volumes needed to get prices down (hundreds, not
> millions). The features can't get much smaller
> without noise problems; if you make the chips
> bigger, the quality goes up but the yield goes
> down and the costs go up - fast

    Something to chew on: in scientific imagers one of the
major areas of improvement is the readout speed.  The poster
child application is streak cameras taking images a
humungous numbers of frames a second, but you could use the
same technology to speed up sub-pixel scanning, and to use
signal averaging to get more than 8-bits per pixel -
analagous to 1-bit converters in audio.

    Once the readout speed of *line* CCDs gets high enough
that you can move them across the focal plane at the same
speed as, say, the shutter curtains on a Speed Graphic,
developments in area CCDs become irrelevant.

    Then of course, there's polymer-based electronics, which
can be screen-printed onto whatever size sensor you like.  Buy
the stock now while you can....


Struan



From: NickC n-chen@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm Film Is Dead????
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 

Brad Cooke wrote:
> 
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > "Steve" ss@randomc.com> wrote 
> > > Go look and see the vast number of F5s and EOS1Vs
> > > on the auction block.
> >
> > High-end photo equipment has been readily available for as long as
> > photography has existed.
> >
> > Note also that film equipment tends to hold value quite well, whereas
> > digital cameras are worthless before you finish signing the check to pay
> > for them.
> 
> Indeed... though I noted that the price of an almost brand new EOS 3
> dropped by a significant margin as soon as the 1V was available.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Brad Cooke 

Have you checked the going price for a Nikon F2as or a Nikon F4, in
about a 9 condition? It's surprising. The camera stores where I trade
have already acknowledged that used digital cameras which were sold
new in the $200 to $400 area have almost no resale value and they will
not take them in trades. 

Nick 



From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: disposable 16 MP digicams in 3 yrs? Re: 35mm Film Versus Digital - +  Micromachine
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 

  I've read about a Photoshop plug-in that corrects for barrel distortion -
by camera model number! You tell it "Nikon 995 please, and it corrects the
distortion. I don't know how well it works, but that it works at all is
pretty amazing.

--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Or thrill to sights you've never seen before  all that often
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro's Home page
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html

"Joseph S. Wisniewski" wiz@netfrog.net> 
> Sean Golden wrote:
> >
> > "res09ooq" res09ooq@verizon.net > wrote 
> >
> > > Affordable and quality digital cameras will be here not before too
long.
> > > I just hope that they will still need the good optical lenses to take
good
> > > pictures.  I don't mind throwing away my 35mm camera body and
replacing it
> > > with a digital body but I hate to see my several thousand dollar
lenses
> > > become useless.
>
> > I have the same opinion as you on camera body vs. lens.  I haven't yet
seen
> > any digital technology that replaces optics, and I don't see any on the
> > horizon.  Manipulating electromagnetic fields to tolerances smaller than
an
> > atomic radius is pretty tricky stuff, and we are quite fortunate that it
can
> > be done with lenses and mirrors in the first place.
>
> Maybe not, but it's very possible for digital technology to alter optics
> substantially.
>
> For example, it's quite possible for a digital camera to correct for
> horrible amounts of distortion, even to the point of transforming a
> fisheye lens into a wide angle with perfectly straight lines. If the
> lens manufacturer allows lens designs to have more of the kinds of
> distortion that digital cameras can compensate for (barrel distortion,
> corner light falloff) they can optimize the lenses to reduce the
> distortions that digitals can't compensate for (soft corners, chromatic
> aberrations, etc.).
>
> And, I can see all this IS and VR lens stuff going away, as the motion
> compensation moves into the cameras signal processing.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Joe
>




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: large format film vs. ccd
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 

brian wrote:
> 
> A 4x5 frame at f/90 can only contain about 5-10 megapixels worth of
> information because of diffraction.

Does anyone out there really routinely shoot at f90 on 4x5?  I know I
don't.  In fact in all my years shooting 4x5 landscapes, I've never even
attempted a single exposure at f90.  Tried f64 once, but the diffraction
effect was so bad, I never tried it again.  I generally shoot between
f16 and f32 - most often in the f22 - f22 1/2 range, occasionally f32
1/2.  And even then, with modern lenses and film, diffraction is the
limiting factor in overall sharpness.  On very rare occasions, I will
stop down as far as f45, but only when absolutely necessary.  I'd say,
rough estimate, 85% - 90% of my 4x5 images are shot at f22 - f22 1/2. 
The remainder is probably divided about equally between f16 and f32 with
less than 3% beyond f32.

I'm not real up to speed on the latest digital SLRs, but exactly how are
you getting 30 - 60 megapixel images from a D1 (I assume you're
referring to a Nikon D1 and not some 4x5 digital back)?  According to
the specs I've seen, it's a 2.74 megapixel camera.  Are you using
something like Genuine Fractals to "grow" (a.k.a.: interpolate) your
2.74 megapixel images into the 30 - 60 megapixel range?  I'll let you do
the math for the theorical diffraction limited maximums, but the last
drum scan I had made from a 4x5 transparency (shot at f22) resulted in a
256 MEGABYTE file (which I still don't believe approaches the
theoretical diffraction limit, nor the practical on film limits for 4x5,
but was good enough for my purpose).

I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and say "digital will never be
as good as 4x5", but it's not there yet (at least not in an affordable,
easy to transport form) - not even close.  For now, a 4x5 sheet of film
is still a more cost effective, more compact capture and store medium
than any ccd/memory/hard disk.  Plus, I don't need a computer to view my
images.  All I need is a light source and my own two eyes.  Again, I'm
not anti-digital - just pro-quality.  I am doing my fine art prints
digitally these days (drum scans and Lightjet output), but for capturing
the images out in the field, I'd much rather carry a box or two of
Quickloads/Readyloads than a $20,000 digital back, a lap top computer
with enough processing power and disk space and enough batteries to run
it all.  Might be "practical" (assuming you can shoot in enough volume
to justify the cost) in the studio, but not in the field - yet.

Kerry
-- 
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/

Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/



Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Paradigm Shift
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

> From: "Conrad A. Weiser" radimus@paonline.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Paradigm Shift
> 
> And next they'll be throwing a fit if you hand them a roll a film and didn't
> email in the image files straight off the digicam.  :)


That's already the case.  All of the magazines I work for these days want me
to either send them digital files on a CD or FTP the files to them.  Even
Photomagazin in Moscow has me FTP the images.  Most production departments
would be lost if someone actually sent them film.  I love this since the
originals never leave my office these days.

Bob




From: Chad Irby cirby@cfl.rr.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 

Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com> wrote:

> A pro who was using med format may have found his customers are 
> willing to give up some quality to get the "instant" results that 
> digital can provide?

I know that some local pros have done just that.  On the other hand, 
however, the ones I've met who have done this weren't all particularly 
"professional" photogs.  I had one spend a half-hour trying to convince 
me that the muddy, fuzzy 11X14 prints that he was showing me were "as 
good as medium format," when they most severely were *not*, and were 
really not even as good as a lot of touristy 35mm shots.

I've had friends go to some "pro" digital shops for portraits, and were 
much less than thrilled with what they got for their money.

On the other hand, the number of established studios going half-assed 
digital has opened up the field for "new" guys with good 35mm and decent 
medium-format gear, and I'm starting to have people seek me out for 
photo work.  B&W shots, at that...

-- 
cirby@cfl.rr.com




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 

John Stafford wrote:

> I think e-bay reflects the new market, but it is not responsible for
> it.

Indeed. We shouldn't overestimate the Internet, it isn't that big at all.
The New Economy balloon has burst, what, two years ago already?

> Digital is pulling a lot of people out of the film market.  IMHO,
> those who are abandoning MF _at this time_  in favor of digital
> image-capture simply have impoverished standards for quality.  So be
> it.

Yes. And considering that MF (despite the large number of MF amateurs)
really is a professional's realm, the reasons for this decline in MF sales
will be found to be the relaxing of standards and the embrace of digital by
the professional's customers, mostly stemming from ignorance combined with a
blind trust that digital = high tech = new = fashionable = better.

I had a perplexing experience last week that i think illustrates the point
very well. When in a meeting with a publisher of glossy magazines i
mentioned that i like to use MF for general use, LF when needed, they were
startled by that and started mumbling about how the photographer they had
worked with before had used one of these new small digital cameras (i know
the photographer: it's a 5 MP Nikon D1X) and expressing their worries about
image quality going down. Yes, they said "down"!

Yet the worst thing of it all (at least for a MF fan) is that this 5 MP
pixel can indeed deliver almost enough punch for the task...




From: tomlyons@melbpc.org.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital camera to replace polaroid for test shots
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 

Anthony Polson acpolson@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Ray Paseur" ray@nondashaol.com> wrote:
snip snip

The digital is more likely to replace the polaroid camera than film.

When the Land Cameras became an instant hit the company wanted to kno
why and they did a survey.  Theyw ere shocked to learn almost 70% of
the people said they bought it to do nude pictures of their partners
or girlfriends!!!

I think its much the same today

BUT there is a problem.  The number of households that have computers
has now dropped under 30% and obviously you need one to work with the
images.  Kodak seems to be leading the pack with a stand for the
camera that plugs into their printers and you don't need a computer.

When these become cheap, digital will wipe out the instant film
camera.

THOM




From: Kevin Bjorke bjorke.despammed@squareusa.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Shooters follow Publishers follow Printers
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 

In the past two years almost all printers in the U.S. have switched to 
digital pipelines. So magazine, catalog, etc publishers who deal with 
those printers have HAD to switch from delivering phyical data to 
delivering digital files to the printer (that is, if they want the best 
rates). This in turn means that any material they receive from their 
advertisers is encouraged to be in digital format, and so on down the 
line... this is all so that turnarounds are faster so that the as space 
sales reps can make irresponsible promises and the clients can change 
their minds and the ADs can blow their deadlines even more egregiously. 
The photographers in the middle are forced to follow this market, since 
THIER clients are now expecting faster results and the publishers have 
laid-off the in-house scan guys anyway.



From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Passing along Leica rumors


Folks seem to always forget that the Nikon, Canon, Contax, etc, cameras
that look like normal SLR's and use SLR lenses are just that. A look alike.
They are made this way to give the many decades of SLR photographers peace
of mind. The only commonality in the bodies is the lens mount, the SLR
eyepiece, the leatherette, the tripod screw hole, etc. The entire guts of
what was a film SLR are thrown out and replaced with CPU's, ASICS, memory,
glue chips, boards, ribbon cable, connectors, LCD's, external memory dock, 
etc.

The Japanese companies have been designing and manufacturing digital
cameras for nearly two decades. Leica has been making mechanical film
cameras since before I was born (and I'm old!) For a Japanese "digital"
camera company to try and design, produce, market, and sell a mechanical
film camera would be fool hardy. For Leica to design, produce, market, and
sell a digital camera would be fool hardy.


But a melding of a Japanese electronics company and Leica would make sense
for future digital cameras. Remember the first R cameras were built on a
Minolta body. Minolta (or Panasonic, Sony, etc...) could use an R8 shell
and manufacture the necessary electronics to fit within an, albeit,
slightly modified shell. Leica could supply the lenses. A Leica R8 shaped
shell with R mount and stuffed full of someone else's electronics. Leica
and Panasonic are currently marketing joint consumer level digital 
cameras.

But for Leica to take on the digital camera giants thinking that they can
skip two decades of massive digital R&D, production, marketing, and sales,
is just completely lame.

And also, don't forget, there are but a handful of digital sensor
manufacturers. All digital sensors basically work the same way, some are
interlaced, some not, most are bayer pattern, and the number of pixels are
limited by chip fab technology. This is why the Kodak and Hasselblad-Foveon 
cameras have three sensors and a very expensive image splitting prism to
rout the image to three sensors in order to get full resolution in the RGB
domain. For a high resolution digital camera, think v-e-r-y d-e-e-p 
pockets.

So here we are again. All manufacturer's digital cameras are basically the
same. All 4mp cameras will deliver the same image quality. It's the backend
software that makes a difference in what you see. Affordable sensors are
still 1/2" square. Maybe 3/4" on the high end consumer models. This still
turns your 28mm lens into a 50mm lens. The sensor is still the great
equalizer and you will not in any way be able to tell a Leica lens from a
Panasonic or Sony lens.

So I'm still having trouble figuring out why this great desire to own a
"Leica" digital camera. When all is said and done, it is no different than
a dozen other Japanese cameras. By the time you get finished with the image
in Photoslop, the image won't resemble the original scene anyway. It will
be a creation of camera interpolation, PRNU, color space conversion, JPEG
core algorithms, application software massaging, and finally, Photoslop on
your desktop.

Where'd we lose the Leica?

By not using film.

Jim
....




From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Dfinity was:  New M ??  OT

The reason the Dfinity is delivering 16.8 mp is because it has three 5.6 mp
sensors behind a very expensive 3-way image beam splitting prism. That's
three sensors in one camera with a huge amount of electronics to support
them. This is the only way to get high resolution, separating out the RGB
colors so that each color is at full 5.6 mp resolution. But it still isn't
16.8 mp of color image, it's 5.6 mp of color image. If they used one
sensor, it would be 5.6/4 = 1.4 mp of true resolution. Single full color
sensors have one red, two green, and one blue pixel for every "color"
pixel. So the true resolution is divided by four. The Foveon has one red,
one green, and one blue sensor.

CMOS sensors have come a long way over the past two years. Two years ago
they were really crappy. The push for them was because they are cheaper to
make, take less power to run, etc. It has nothing to do with the number of
pixels per sq. in. That is a limit of the semiconductor fabrication process
and the fact that "each" pixel, regardless of whether it is CMOS or CCD,
requires a photo transistor, exposure gate, storage capacitor, readout
gate, and a few other miscellaneous parts. This takes a lot of space. And
if you try to build them smaller, the noise goes up, the fidelity and
dynamic range goes down. Not exactly what photographers want. So the lower
limit for a good photograph is around 3 sq. microns for a pixel. That's 36
sq microns for a complete color pixel. Really big compared to film. And is
why sensors equalize out all lenses. A Leica lens will be equal to a Sony
lens. You will not be able to distinguish between them when using a 
digital
camera.

Jim
....



Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001
From: "Terry Dawson" terry.dawson@att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: To go digital or not to go digital?


"JB" incamera@btinternet.com> wrote 
> I really DONT want to ignite a Film vs Digital debate as I'm sure its  been
> done to death already but purely from the view of someone in the field  of
> photography to make a living I'm wondering whether now is the time to go
> completely digital and invest the Hassy and Olympus gear plus what I may
> have spent on an LS8000ED scanner for a D1X and a range of Nikkors (and  wave
> goodbye to Polaroids, transparencies and processing/scanning costs
> altogether).
>
> What do you think?

I sold my blads 20 years ago and went into computer science.  Now, in
retirement, I'm a "working amateur"  ;-)  I was lured back into photography
by digital cameras and, of course, my comfort level with computers.  I still
have a couple of vintage 35mm SLR and some very nice lenses but, to put it
bluntly, I'd need a darn good reason that I cannot imagine right now to haul
all that heavy metal around again.

Of course, there are paradigm shifts involved, which I tried to address in
this brief article:

http://digital.photography.home.att.net/writings/ruready.html


--
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/


Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001
From: "Tom Coates" tecoates@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: To go digital or not to go digital?


The main business issue is keeping your customers happy while you manage
your learning curve. This year, they're learning too. Next year, they'll
know (or think they do) and will expect you to know as well. This is a
good time to phase in the digital, perhaps to (partly) replace the 35s.  
Doing so now may expose new markets as well.

As you know, if you wait, you'll be in a position in 2002 where your
customers are teaching you what you could have taught them in 2001. This
is not good. You have much more invested in your customers than in your
equipment. My answer to your question is yes, replace the 35s now. Plan to
be shed of all your film gear or scaled way down by the end of the year.
Prepare for a learning curve, even if you are already facile in Photoshop.
Prepare also to use film/processing savings to depreciate/amortize your
new digital gear quickly. Don't buy a film scanner. Sell faster service
and better quality, not lower costs. Become efficient quickly and you can
withstand cost pressure when it comes.

My $.02 (what's that in Euros?)

Tom




From: "David Glos" david.glos@uc.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Blown away!
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001

James Grove jpgrove@blueyonder.co.uk wrote 
> ahriman@nospam.com says...
> >
> > Don't be so sure - I had the opportunity to look at some results from a
> > Nikon D1x and compare them with results shot through the same lens (a Nikkor
> > 80-200mm f2.8 AI) on an F4 body on Provia 100 a couple of weeks ago. The D1x
> > actually captures more detail than the slide film - I was sceptical too
>
> Yes but if you zoom in to the pixels and grain you see that the
> slide is far sharper! I have seen this with my own eyes, unless its my
> eyes!
>
> --
> James Grove
> james@jamesgrove.co.uk


Let us stop comparing apples and oranges and try a real world test. My
friend just bought a D1x to add to his rather extensive and expensive
collection of Nikon toys. Sometime in the near future, I am going to load
up a roll of E100S or Provia 100F in one of his F100's and using some of
the best optics that I can get my hands on (28-70/2.8 AFS, 85/1.4,
80-200/2.8 AFS, etc.), take virtually identical photos with film and the
D1x. Yes, I fully understand the difference in area between sensor and
film, and will likely keep my view point the identical, and simply change
the focal length to get similar framing. The next step will be digitizing
(Nikon LS2000) several of the slide images, and printing the results out
on his Epson 1280, along side the D1x images. Just for grins, I will
probably take a couple of the chrome images, and make wet R3000 prints
(note, I have some pretty good optics for my enlarger, and it DOES make a
difference).

Based on some initial trials, it is quite likely that I find the film
results to be marginally sharper (at 8x10) when using quality darkroom
practices and optics. Likely, I'm not the only one that has had soft
prints made from sharp chromes and negatives. That said, some initial
Epson prints that I have made from the D1x are quite satisfying, and 
perfectly acceptable for wall hanging along side the best of my darkroom output.

Will digital replace film soon. Not likely, but ignoring the body of work,
some good, some bad, being completed by the current crop of digicams is
akin to burying your head in the sand. Even the rather steep entry price
of a D1x or D30 can be easily justified by the average press photographer
shooting 10 rolls per day. And, there are a lot of computer savvy
consumers, that don't really need or want prints, who are perfectly happy
with the shots they get from their $500-800 consumer digicams. Are they
better, in real world quality than a $145 Yashica T4? Not really. But for
that class of user, the extra step of digitizing their film is one they
don't want to be bothered with. Yes, you can go to Ritz, or many other
places now, and get a CD with your prints, for a total cost of $15-18 per
roll (including: initial cost of film, developing, prints and CD), plus
the extra step of having to go to the store. For the cost of 40 rolls of
film, you can justify the cost of your consumer digicam, although, I fully
understand that is 20 years of work for many casual snap shooters.

Try to keep an open mind, and enjoy the best of both worlds. As a
professional engineer, scientist, advanced printer, and wedding
photographer, I have to admit that my initial dance with direct digital
photography (my father-in-law made me buy a CoolPix950 for his web sale
efforts) left me non-plussed. I never find myself pulling out the 950 for
fun, it simply is too low in quality, and too irritating to use. However,
my recent spin with a D1x has left me wondering how I might be able to
realistically justify adding it to my bag of tricks.

David Glos



From nikon mailing list:
From: "Thom Hogan" thom_hogan@msn.com
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 
Subject: [Nikon] re: CCD question

> Just curious, why large CCD sensor (like in D1) is considered better
than small CCD sensor even with smaller number of pixel. For example D1
has 2.7M pixels compare to Coolpix with 3.3M pixels or other P&S with >
4M pixels.

Quite a few reasons, actually. But the primary ones are simple:
1. The larger photosite size generally means that noise is lower, as the
ability to collect photo electrons increases with surface area and the
likelihood that electrons propagate to adjacent cells is lower.

2. Larger sensors require larger lenses. The 35mm lenses used on a D1
are far higher quality than the lenses designed for the Coolpix. In
general, it's darned hard to control aberrations in small elements,
especially when you have to mass produce them in consumer quantities.

3. The CCDs used in most consumer cameras (such as the Coolpix) were
designed for video use, and stills are a second mode for these chips.
That's not bad in itself, but it has dictated certain design decisions
that impact the way the chips are used (one part of the shutter lag in
consumer cameras is the "flip" from real-time video mode to still
collection mode).

4. You need to get power to the photosites and data from them. The
smaller the sensor is, the more area gets devoted to power and data
lines, all else being equal. The result is physically smaller photosites
(see #1).

5. All current digital cameras use a filter array over the sensor. That
filter ends up being part of the optical chain, and the smaller the
filter, the tougher it is to produce in high quality (there may even
start to be some wavelength-related issues when the individual filters
become extremely small).


As I said, there are more reasons. But those are the ones most often
cited.

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
www.bythom.com


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 
From: "Kent Gittings" kent@ism.com
Subject: RE: Pentax cancelled digital SLR and how about Minolta?

I'm on both lists. Apparently the consensus is that Phillips could not meet
the projected chip yield for both Contax and Pentax so Pentax opted out.
They look like they may show a newer sub-35mm chip 35mm lens SLR digital
with somewhere between 3.5 and 5.25 MP at the spring PMA show that is
reported to cost at or below $2000. No name for it yet and no word on if it
will look like the latest MZ-S  body like the other one. Meantime they are
pushing the new Optio line of high res miniature digital cameras that are
hardly larger than a pack of cigarettes and come in 3 MP (#330) and 4.13 MP
(#430) models (8.5 ounces with media and built in rechargeable Lithium Ion
battery) ($699 and $799 list respectively). One slick feature of the 430 is
that the little 1.6" LCD screen can display nine images simultaneously while
allowing you to zoom in on one of them and blow it up on the screen by
itself. I think they are trying to leverage their normal lead in P&S cameras
where they make a lot of their money. A good shirt pocket 4 MP camera is a
very sellable item in today's market. Remember they have only 7 35mm SLR
cameras in their lineup but have 25 P&S cameras. So your know what their
target has to be to keep the old customers before they worry about new 
ones.

Meantime they have 1 or 2 new 35mm bodies coming out, one called an MZ-L and
one called an MZ-6 which looks like it is a direct competitor for the Maxxum
5. Also the new 645n II AF pro camera with mechanical MLU and a couple of
other new features is going to be out around the end of the year.
Pentax just may have too many irons in the fire right now to do all they
want to do.

Kent Gittings
...




From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 
Subject: [Contax] Digital camera sensors and pixels...

I haven't seen this discussed here before, but one thing you should be aware
of with respect to single shot (as opposed to scanning) digital cameras.

The sensor IS 6M SENSORS, it is NOT 6M PIXELS.  I know they claim it is 6M
pixels, but it is really NOT true, and I will explain why.

These CCD or CMOS sensors us a colored pattern of typically RGBG (two Gs for
contrast).  What that means is that 1/4th of the sensors are Red, 1/4th are
Blue and 1/2 are green.  That means that a 6M sensor has 1.5M Red sensors,
1.5M Blue sensors and 3M Green sensors.  This pattern is called a "Bayer"
pattern, and each grouping of the four sensors are grouped in a 2x2 array.

As you know, a single color pixel has all three colors as part of the
"pixel", and just having one of the color components doesn't make it a
pixel.  It has to have each of the RGB components, in order to be called a
color pixel...  Typically, a pixel is 24 bits, with 8 bits for Red, 8 bits
for Green and 8 bits for Blue.

But...if you only have 1/4th of the sensors Red, 1/4th of the sensors Blue,
and 1/2 of the sensors Green, how do you get 6M 24 bit pixels?  What they do
(to put it very simply...it's actually a little more algorithmic than I am
describing, but this works fine to understand my point) is interpolate (make
up additional data based on the existing data) the color information of all
four pixels over all four pixels, and that means the REAL resolution of the
sensor is NOT 6M PIXELS...  They take four 8 bit pixels and "make" 4 24 bit
pixels...so %66 of the information in the resultant image data from the
camera is not original data, but data that was "derived".  It's kind of a
dirty little lie, I can only guess that they hope most people just won't
understand.  Personally, I believe it is VERY dishonest.

Film and flatbed scanners don't work this way, nor do scanning film backs.
They either do three passes, one for each color, or use a tri-band sensor,
and they get full resolution color information.



From: "Paul Magwene" p.magwene@snet.net
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: Re: [Contax] Digital camera sensors and pixels...
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 

.....

Well, just to be precise - there ARE 6M pixels.  A CCD is essentially a
monochrome device, and there are 6 million little pixels sitting there
detecting incident light.

What Austin is refering to is the design of the Color Filter Arrays (CFAs)
which sit above the actual CCD pixels.

other good stuff about Bayer filters and interpolation snipped>>

I'm not sure how the necessary interpolation of color information when 
using
CFAs factors into the whole resolution equation, but we're now getting
beyond my feeble understanding of CCD tech, so I leave further comments to
the engineers.

Here's some good refs:


http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s%253D1009%2526a%253D2486,00.asp
http://www.kodak.dk/US/en/digital/pdf/ccdPrimerPart1.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/pdf/ccdPrimerPart2.pdf

Cheers,
Paul



From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 
From: "Colin" CJV@home.com
Subject: RE: [Leica]: Vs: digital

I was at the Photo Expo in New York on Friday.  Canon had an interesting
digital photography exhibition.  They stuck a model in a small studio
setup, gave a photographer a D30 (Canon's "consumer" digital SLR, of
modest specs), and started taking pictures.  The D30 does not use
special lenses; it uses EOS lenses.  The photographer was using the
28-135mm zoom.  Moments after the picture was taken, it was transmitted
to large video screens for the audience to see.  The photos were then
printed out on one of Canon's high-end wide-paper printers.  They came
out poster-sized, perhaps two feet by three feet - larger than anything
I'd try with a 35mm camera.  They  passed the prints around; the prints
were beautiful - lovely color, lovely contrast, nice sharpness, even
from very close up.  The photographer explained that he was using only
jpeg's, and not RAW or whatever images.  The guy printing the stuff out
said all he did was about 30 seconds worth of Photoshop work - a little
resize, a little crop, a little sharpening.

I'd like to be able to do this with my M camera, or something similar.

But you're right, in the end the pictures had all these false pixels and
stuff.  It was awful.  I can't believe they went in public and
humiliated themselves with that technology.  Really appalling.

C.
http://www.availabledark.com


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us; 
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Vs: digital


 George Day wrote:

>"not compatible"?  Whatever. Seems to work just fine for the well over
>90% of photojournalists shooting Nikon and Canon digital.  I'm sure it
>would be quite adequate.  These are lenses, not spiritual beings.


Unfortunately, George, you are not aware of the technology involved in
digital sensors and lens resolution/MTF frequencies. Instead of me
attempting to explain all of this to you, go to:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/white/kina.htm


and see why Schneider (and Rodenstock, and others) make lenses DESIGNED FOR
digital sensors.

Then go read about the Nyquist limitation at:

http://www.opus1.com/~violist/help/nyquist.html

Nyquist's theorem: A theorem, developed by H. Nyquist, which states that
an analog signal waveform may be uniquely reconstructed, without error,
from samples taken at equal time intervals. The sampling rate must be
equal to, or greater than, "twice" the highest frequency component in the
analog signal.


In terms of lens resolution on digital sensors, it means that there must
be at least twice as many pixels per mm as the maximum resolution (lp/mm)
of the lens. If this is not true, the information gathered will be either
partially or completely in error, and always aliased. See figure 4 in the
Schneider white paper. Modern Leica lenses have more resolution than can
be handled by digital sensors. They cannot make pixels small enough to be
at a frequency twice that of the resolution of Leica lenses. Five square
microns is about the limit of a pixel that can record enough light to
produce a quality dot. And don't forget that it takes four pixels to
record a single COLOR dot (pixel).

The problem is that folks who do not understand the limits of digital
electronics vs analog signals are moaning and groaning as to why Leica
doesn't get with it and produce a digital M mount camera. They could
certainly OEM a high level digital camera and put an M mount on it. But
why? They would also have to but a resolution reducing filter behind the

lens in order to produce good digital photographs. So why bother? The
Panasonic Leica digital camera soon to be on the shelves has a Leica
lens
which is specifically designed to match the resolution capabilities of the
digital sensor.

There is no full size digital sensor made with a pixel size small enough
to take advantage of Leica lenses. Actually the reverse is true. Leica lenses
will cause the recording of false information via these sensors.

There is certainly more to it that simply bolting an M lens on to a camera
containing a digital sensor.

Over and out!

Jim



From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] digit stuff for those interested

I was told, off line, the following:

"Fact is, your bringing up digital 4x5 lenses, when talking about a Leica, is
just ludicrous and you should know it."

Since I wrote a response, I decided to share it with the group.

The parallel is that the "film" 4x5 lenses are too sharp, their MTF is too
high for digital sensors, just like MTF of Leica lenses is too high for
digital sensors. So Schneider (and others) designed a set of lenses with a
MTF that is matched to digital sensor spacing. And wrote a white paper
explaining the facts and why they had to do this. Which is why Leica will
not mount an M lens on a digital camera. They have designed new lenses for
their partnered (Panasonic) cameras. The Canon and Nikon SLR lenses that
are used on their respective cameras are not redesigned, but the cameras
contain low-pass filters to "dumb down" the lenses before the image gets 
to the sensor.

The bottom line is that all lenses are equalized by digital sensors. A
leica lens is no better or worse than a Sony or Olympus or whatever lens.
The things we buy Leica lenses for are lost in the digits. In film, a 1
micron square silver halide grain contains 20 Billion silver halide
molecules, each capable of being hit (exposed) by a photon. It only
requires three being hit to produce a developable speck. A digital sensor
pixel (the minimum recording spot) is 5 microns square (25 sq. microns vs 1
sq micron) and will ultimately report a light level of 0-255 (256 levels)
for this whole vast area of 25 sq. microns. This is why Leica lenses out
perform most other lenses on film, but are no better than anything else on
pixels. And why film can record deep shadows and bright highlights in the
same scene. Digital sensors cannot. All fine detail (Leica's strong point)
is completely lost. Digital cameras are digital cameras. Their integration
into a film camera body by Canon, Nikon, Kodak, & Fuji is simply to give
professional photographers a known base to start from. The professional
level digital cameras from Olympus and others that don't look like
traditional SLR's and have non-interchangeable zoom lenses produce
photographs equal in every way to the SLR interchangeable lens cameras.
They just aren't "familiar" to the pro photographer.

Astro photographers have the same problem. But instead of dumbing down the
lens, they shift the sensor half a pixel in four quadrants, take four
exposures, and then analyze the result with software to pick up points that
fall in between pixels and to differentiate double stars from single large
objects. A static CCD sensor cannot record these (and other) phenomenon.
And without either dumbing down the lens MTF or taking multiple exposures
and processing the results via software, serious aliasing occurs that is
not fixable with software without producing other artifacts. None of these
problems occur using film. But film has to be processed and scanned to get
the image into a computer for analysis.

Basically, digital cameras are digital cameras. The digital sensor is the
great equalizer. All lens/camera brands sharing similar sensors and price
will perform equally. Only the post processing software can make a visual
difference. Lens performance is completely lost. And it will remain this
way as long as the 5 micron square pixel is the smallest obtainable.

Jim



From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Vs:  Re:  Digital Dreams - lengthy


Actually, I referred to a Schneider white paper. I haven't read anything
from Rodenstock.

Backs and cameras that utilize normal interchangeable lenses, have low-pass
filters built-in to the sensor to make sure that the MTF of the sensor is
at least twice that of the lenses. This way aliasing and other Nyquist
artifacts are not a problem.

I believe that I stated the other day just how difficult it is to get the
data out of the Philips sensor, intact, and sent on its way to the PRNU,
interpolator and color space converter stages. And, of course, a 6mp chip
will have a very low yield, which will keep the price of good chips way up
there.


All the best!

Jim

Raimo Korhonen wrote:
>Dunno about snobbery but I did read the Rodenstock article recommended by
>Jim and an interesting piece it is: it describes quite thoroughly why
>ordinary good quality photographic lenses are not good for digital photography.
>It fails, however, to describe why the said lenses are good for digital
>photography. This is a failure, because ordinary good quality lenses are
>successfully used - and Rodenstock seems to be the only optical company
>implying that inferior optical quality gives better quality digital
>photographs - and even they do not explicitly state that their Digtar 
lens
>line actually is inferior. The other company having introduced lenses for
>digital photography - Sigma - only says that these lenses have better
>evenness of illumination suitable for digital photography and shorter
>focal lengths with larger apertures. Nikon, Canon, Contax support their
>normal lens lines, so did Pentax. And Kodak Pro Back uses Hasselblad body
>and lenses, not known for poor resolution or contrast.
>Aliasing is a problem in digital photography but it can be dealt with. And
>CCD development is so far from theoretical limits that the chip that makes
>Leica lenses usable for Rodenstock style - as opposed to more practical
>approach - digital photography probably is not very far away. In the mean
>time somebody should put his/her Leica/Canon EOS lens adapter to work and
>try Leica lenses on a digital EOS. I´d bet that the results would not be bad.
>BTW I read from another list that the problems with the Philips 24x36 CCD
>chip are not in the chip itself but complex programming it´s use requires
>- and price. Might be true?
>All the best!
>Raimo
>Personal photography homepage at
>http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen



From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re:  digit stuff: Underkill

 Mark Rabiner wrote:

>By the way can you output digital pictures you take with digital cameras to
>slides? Just curious.
>If you did do they look any good?

At www.photoaccess.com you can order slides and prints. They're OK for text
and drawing presentation stuff but marginal for full scale photographs. I
guess after looking at slides made with a Leica, anything else looks
marginal! So maybe they are good???

:)

Jim



From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: RE: Was: Screw mount leicas - now digital M and R?


All lenses are equalized by digital sensors. A leica lens is no better or
worse than a Sony or Olympus or whatever lens. The things we buy Leica
lenses for are lost in the digits. In film, a 1 micron square silver halide
grain contains 20 Billion silver halide molecules, each capable of being
hit (exposed) by a photon. It only requires three being hit to produce a
developable speck. A digital sensor pixel (the minimum recording spot) is 5
microns square (25 sq. microns vs 1 sq micron) and will ultimately report a
light level of 0-255 (256 levels) for this whole vast area of 25 sq.
microns. This is why Leica lenses out perform most other lenses on film,
but are no better than anything else on pixels. And why film can record
deep shadows and bright highlights in the same scene. Digital sensors
cannot. All fine detail (Leica's strong point) is completely lost. Digital
cameras are digital cameras. Their integration into a film camera body by
Canon, Nikon, Kodak, & Fuji is simply to give professional photographers a
known base to start from. The professional level digital cameras from
Olympus and others that don't look like traditional SLR's and have
non-interchangeable zoom lenses produce photographs equal in every way to
the SLR interchangeable lens cameras. They just aren't "familiar" to the
pro photographer.

Astro photographers have the same problem. But instead of dumbing down the
lens, they shift the sensor half a pixel in four quadrants, take four
exposures, and then analyze the result with software to pick up points that
fall in between pixels and to differentiate double stars from single large
objects. A static CCD sensor cannot record these (and other) phenomenon.
And without either dumbing down the lens MTF or taking multiple exposures
and processing the results via software, serious aliasing occurs that is
not fixable with software without producing other artifacts. None of these
problems occur using film. But film has to be processed and scanned to get
the image into a computer for analysis.


Basically, digital cameras are digital cameras. The digital sensor is the
great equalizer. All lens/camera brands sharing similar sensors and price
will perform equally. Only the post processing software can make a visual
difference. Lens performance is completely lost. And it will remain this
way as long as the 5 micron square pixel is the smallest obtainable.

Jim



From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 
From: Rick Housh rick@housh.net
Subject: Re: Going digital

Sover wrote:

>I've just learnt that there is a CD-R, by Verbatim - metal AZO, which has  a
>100 year archival life instead of the normal 5/10 years life. (So they
>claim, but who will still be around in 100 years time?) The  cost of this
>CD-R is the same as the normal ones. Hence, archiving high definition
>digital images is not a worry anymore. It seems that the day of me
>replacing all my Nikon MF gear with digital is getting closer. Perhaps  too
>close .....

Kodak and Fuji have been claiming a 100 year life for awhile, too.  I'm
very much into digital, but I still take that with a large grain of salt.  
If you read the fine print, that claim applies to disks that are not
exposed to UV, or subjected to damage from physical handling.  My
experience with CD-RW disks has been much worse, and I've had some of the
newer Kodak CD-R disks with the 100 year claim fail after a couple of
weeks from scratches incurred when a drive door closed improperly on them.  
Duplicate backups are a must. I make new copies every year or so, and I
keep the really valuable ones on a separate backup tape, also.  The real
permanence of CD media lies not in its physical durability, but the fact
that digital copies suffer no generational degradation, so you can recopy
them to new media whenever you feel it is desirable, without loss of any
quality at all from the original image.  This adds another bit of
insurance - when the technology leaves CD's behind transferring the images
to media for the new technology will not cost you any image quality
either.

- Rick Housh -



From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 
From: Michael Briggs michaelbriggs@earthlink.net
Subject: Going digital --> life of digital media


On 14-Dec-01 Sover wrote:
>
> I've just learnt that there is a CD-R, by Verbatim - metal AZO, which has a
> 100 year archival life instead of the normal 5/10 years life. (So they
> claim, but who will still be around in 100 years time?)
....
> Hence, archiving high definition digital images is not a worry anymore.
......

In my professional life I have been involved with storing large quantities of
digital data on various media.   What I have learned by bitter experience:

1) the media doesn't last as long as the manufacturer says,
2) after fewer years than you expect the hardware to use the media is no longer made,
3) the work of copying all of your data to the latest media is very large.

Of course, maybe the manufacturers are right about CD-R, and maybe CDs are so
popular that drives will be made for the next century.

Film also deteriorates.  On the other hand, properly processed and stored B+W
film has a proven track record of many decades.   (Some silver negatives are
more than a century old, but plastic film base is "only" decades.)   Color film
has been quite bad, but is now supposedly much improved.  Another
consideration: a color film that has faded by 10% is still very usable, while a
digital file that has 1% of its bits corrupted is probably very close to useless.

--Michael



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 
From: Bill Rainey wrainey@hiwaay.net
Subject: OT: 35mm VS Digital Printing Costs

Just for my own personal curiosity I decided to create a spreadsheet to compare
the costs involved in printing out digital images on my new Epson photo printer
VS using 35mm film.

The variables for the film were:
        1) Fuji Superia 400, 4-pack, 24 exp rolls
        2) 1-Hour processing at Wal-Mart w/ single prints

The variables for the digital printing were:
        1) Only genuine Epson ink carts and glossy photo paper
        2) Print sizes are full-frame from my Oly C-3030 at 3.75"x5"
        3) 6 prints per single 8.5"x11" sheet of photo paper
        4) Avg 40 pages per color cart (based on other Epson users' feedback)
        5) Avg 120 pages per black cart (same as above)
        6) Prices based on local CompUSA and Atlantic Exchange pricing

The cost-per-print results were as follows:

        35mm: $0.31
        Digital (supplies from CompUSA): $0.20
        Digital (supplies from AtlEx): $0.15


As you can see, the price difference was not staggering if the Epson
supplies were puchased locally, but the difference was substantial when
supplies were purchased mail-order. Plus I was using fairly cheap color
print film in this comparison (Superia 400 is what I normally use for
"snap shooting")  instead of the much more costly professional-grade color
print films.

Will these results make me give up film? Not hardly! BUT.... it will make
me grab the Oly much more often for those "snapshot" occasions and use the
35mm only for more serious use!


Just some food for thought. Your mileage on inkjet supplies may vary greatly,
and mine may too over time, but this is a good starting point based on 
what others are getting from their Epson printers using basically the same 
setups...

Later,
--
Bill Rainey
wrainey@hiwaay.net
http://home.hiwaay.net/~wrainey/




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 
From: "mikelip2002" mlipphardt@ameritech.net
Subject: Re: OT: 35mm VS Digital Printing Costs

Soem time ago, I went through the same exercise, but came up with
different answers for your typical snapper;

Let's set up equivalent SLR systems.  Nothing exotic - something like
I took on vacation with me.  Prices taken from Adorama as of today...

Maxxum 7 no vertical grip - keep it cheap(?  Not HTsi cheap, but not
too bad either) and compact - $650
50mm f1.7 lens - $77
24-50 f4 - $380
28-200 Tamron - $280

Equipment cost - $1387

20 rolls of film + processing - $150


Total - $1537

Digital - I will have to massage the lenses here a bit to come close
to the fields of view of the Maxxum system.

Canon D30 $2,999
20-35 - $419
35 f2 - $299
What the heck - throw in the Tamron despite the fact the wide angle
end won't be as wide.  It's not that much money - $280.

Total equipment - $3997.  More than twice the hardware costs of the
Maxxum system.  We also need storage.  That I need help with.  I
don't want to store the shots with any kind of lossy compression, so
I suspect that leaves RAW as my only alternative.  Since I don't haul
a notebook computer to offload files from the camera when I'm on
vacation (add another couple thousand bucks for that, if you want) I
need non-volatile storage for 720 RAW files.  Ouch.  The camera comes
with a 340 meg microdrive.  That takes 85 shots in RAW format.  Lets
compromise - go with "Large/Fine" and get about 250 images on it.  We
still need three microdrives.  Lets get the most bang for our bucks
and get a 1 gig microdrive.  Add $450. Not too bad.  I paid more than
that for an 80 meg hard drive for my 386SX-20 (remember those? :).

Total including storage;  $4447.

Let's get some pics out of this thing now.  Need a computer, a good
printer, descent paper, ink, etc.  I have all that, so we'll write it
off.  Add it in if you want - about $2000 intial investment.  Epson
premium glossy paper costs me about 50 cents a sheet.  I can get 3
4x6 prints on a sheet.  Each print costs me therefor about 17
cents.  .17 x 720 - $122 for paper, not counting the cost of carts.
Carts cost me about $20 each for color - times two carts - $40.


Total processing costs (not counting time spent) = $162.

Recap;

Initial investment = $4447 not including the computer system, spare
batteries for the D30, etc.

Consumables = $162.

So what does this little exercise tell me?

1)  Getting started with a digital SLR is expensive, if you want a
system with performance close to that of a good film based SLR.

2)  Getting your prints is more expensive than going to a lab and
having them printed for you.  Not to mention time consuming.


I think I'll stay with film for now :)

Mike




From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: RE: [Contax] Digital camera sensors and pixels...
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 

> All technology is limited by is the vision or
> lack of vision of the design engineers involved.

And physics...

>     There is no way that film can and will ever be able to even
> approximate what digital can capture. Period.

Well, that isn't true.  It's simple physics.  In order to even come close to
gathering the information that film contains, the sensor elements would have
to be 1/4th the size of a film grain (or 1/3rd), and that is physically
impossible.  Even if you used three sensors with a prism (alignment issues
aside), each sensor element would have to be the size of a film 
grain...and simple physics makes that improbable yet even possibly 
impossible.

There are many reasons.  First and foremost, each sensor has to be able to
detect just so much light...and make it smaller, it gets less light.
Second, is each sensor needs some form of communications to get the
information out of it...today we use wires.  These wire take up just so much
space...and then the third reason, signal to noise ratio...the smaller the
sensor, the worse the SNR is...simple age old analog problem.  This issue is
why the Canon D30, with the same number of pixels is FAR FAR better than the
point and shoot cameras with the same size array.  The Canon array is spread
out, with large pixels...and gets far better SNR than the little 1/1.3
consumer arrays get.

>     Rather, a single shot exposure gets us far closer to the
> "real time" of the film shutter. And, a full frame ccd/cmos
> that precisely fits the image circle of the best lenses available
> (Zeiss, Leica, Canon L), the need to scan is eliminated! :)


Well, that's not quite right.

The Zeiss, Leica etc. lenses MTF is too
high for digital sensors. So Schneider (and others) designed a set of lenses with a
MTF that is matched to digital sensor spacing. And wrote a white paper
explaining the facts and why they had to do this. Leica even designed newlenses for
their partnered (Panasonic) cameras. The Canon and Nikon SLR lenses that
are used on their respective cameras are not redesigned, but the cameras
contain low-pass filters to "dumb down" the lenses before the image gets to
the sensor.

The bottom line is that all lenses are equalized by digital sensors. A
Zeiss lens is no better or worse than a Sony or Olympus or whatever lens.
The things we buy great lenses for are lost in the digits. In film, a 1
micron square silver halide grain contains 20 Billion silver halide
molecules, each capable of being hit (exposed) by a photon. It only
requires three being hit to produce a developable speck. A digital sensor
pixel (the minimum recording spot) is 5 microns square (25 sq. microns vs 1
sq micron) and will ultimately report a light level of 0-255 (256 levels)
for this whole vast area of 25 sq. microns. This is why top end lenses out
perform most other lenses on film, but are no better than anything else on
pixels. And why film can record deep shadows and bright highlights in the
same scene. Digital sensors cannot. All fine detail (high end lenses strong point)
is completely lost. Digital cameras are digital cameras. Their integration
into a film camera body by Canon, Nikon, Kodak, & Fuji is simply to give
professional photographers a known base to start from. The professional
level digital cameras from Olympus and others that don't look like
traditional SLR's and have non-interchangeable zoom lenses produce
photographs equal in every way to the SLR interchangeable lens cameras.
They just aren't "familiar" to the pro photographer.


Astro photographers have the same problem. But instead of dumbing down the
lens, they shift the sensor half a pixel in four quadrants, take four
exposures, and then analyze the result with software to pick up points that
fall in between pixels and to differentiate double stars from single large
objects. A static CCD sensor cannot record these (and other) phenomenon.
And without either dumbing down the lens MTF or taking multiple exposures
and processing the results via software, serious aliasing occurs that is
not fixable with software without producing other artifacts. None of these
problems occur using film. But film has to be processed and scanned to get
the image into a computer for analysis.

Basically, digital cameras are digital cameras. The digital sensor is the
great equalizer. All lens/camera brands sharing similar sensors and price
will perform equally. Only the post processing software can make a visual
difference. Lens performance is completely lost. And it will remain this
way as long as the 5 micron square pixel is the smallest obtainable.



> Therefore, we are left with how to produce color without
> three shots or infinite shots of varying color filters where
> each filter will reduce the real-time availability of what
> ccd/cmos real estate is present. This is no problem as
> I have already solved it. It is simple and takes little investment
> since present technology is nearly already available.

I don't believe it may end being as simple as you may believe, since there
appear to be issues that you haven't taken into consideration based on
what you have said above.  Perhaps you do have a great idea, and possibly
none of the other people who have devoted their lives to solving this
problem have come up with it...and perhaps you should consider getting it
patented...or perhaps they have thought of the same thing, tried it out,
and found it didn't perform as they anticipated...I really don't
know...but I wouldn't be so prosumptious of what has and hasn't been done
or thought of.  Just because it's not in production doesn't mean it hasn't
been done.  It's also not as simple a problem as some people want to
believe it is.



From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Passing along Leica rumors


Folks seem to always forget that the Nikon, Canon, Contax, etc, cameras
that look like normal SLR's and use SLR lenses are just that. A look alike.
They are made this way to give the many decades of SLR photographers peace
of mind. The only commonality in the bodies is the lens mount, the SLR
eyepiece, the leatherette, the tripod screw hole, etc. The entire guts of
what was a film SLR are thrown out and replaced with CPU's, ASICS, memory,
glue chips, boards, ribbon cable, connectors, LCD's, external memory dock, 
etc.

The Japanese companies have been designing and manufacturing digital
cameras for nearly two decades. Leica has been making mechanical film
cameras since before I was born (and I'm old!) For a Japanese "digital"
camera company to try and design, produce, market, and sell a mechanical
film camera would be fool hardy. For Leica to design, produce, market, and
sell a digital camera would be fool hardy.


But a melding of a Japanese electronics company and Leica would make sense
for future digital cameras. Remember the first R cameras were built on a
Minolta body. Minolta (or Panasonic, Sony, etc...) could use an R8 shell
and manufacture the necessary electronics to fit within an, albeit,
slightly modified shell. Leica could supply the lenses. A Leica R8 shaped
shell with R mount and stuffed full of someone else's electronics. Leica
and Panasonic are currently marketing joint consumer level digital 
cameras.

But for Leica to take on the digital camera giants thinking that they can
skip two decades of massive digital R&D, production, marketing, and sales,
is just completely lame.

And also, don't forget, there are but a handful of digital sensor
manufacturers. All digital sensors basically work the same way, some are
interlaced, some not, most are bayer pattern, and the number of pixels are
limited by chip fab technology. This is why the Kodak and Hasselblad-Foveon 
cameras have three sensors and a very expensive image splitting prism to
rout the image to three sensors in order to get full resolution in the RGB
domain. For a high resolution digital camera, think v-e-r-y d-e-e-p 
pockets.

So here we are again. All manufacturer's digital cameras are basically the
same. All 4mp cameras will deliver the same image quality. It's the backend
software that makes a difference in what you see. Affordable sensors are
still 1/2" square. Maybe 3/4" on the high end consumer models. This still
turns your 28mm lens into a 50mm lens. The sensor is still the great
equalizer and you will not in any way be able to tell a Leica lens from a
Panasonic or Sony lens.

So I'm still having trouble figuring out why this great desire to own a
"Leica" digital camera. When all is said and done, it is no different than
a dozen other Japanese cameras. By the time you get finished with the 
image
in Photoslop, the image won't resemble the original scene anyway. It will
be a creation of camera interpolation, PRNU, color space conversion, JPEG
core algorithms, application software massaging, and finally, Photoslop on
your desktop.

Where'd we lose the Leica?

By not using film.

Jim
....



From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Dfinity was:  New M ??  OT

The reason the Dfinity is delivering 16.8 mp is because it has three 5.6 mp
sensors behind a very expensive 3-way image beam splitting prism. That's
three sensors in one camera with a huge amount of electronics to support
them. This is the only way to get high resolution, separating out the RGB
colors so that each color is at full 5.6 mp resolution. But it still isn't
16.8 mp of color image, it's 5.6 mp of color image. If they used one
sensor, it would be 5.6/4 = 1.4 mp of true resolution. Single full color
sensors have one red, two green, and one blue pixel for every "color"
pixel. So the true resolution is divided by four. The Foveon has one red,
one green, and one blue sensor.

CMOS sensors have come a long way over the past two years. Two years ago
they were really crappy. The push for them was because they are cheaper to
make, take less power to run, etc. It has nothing to do with the number of
pixels per sq. in. That is a limit of the semiconductor fabrication process
and the fact that "each" pixel, regardless of whether it is CMOS or CCD,
requires a photo transistor, exposure gate, storage capacitor, readout
gate, and a few other miscellaneous parts. This takes a lot of space. And
if you try to build them smaller, the noise goes up, the fidelity and
dynamic range goes down. Not exactly what photographers want. So the lower
limit for a good photograph is around 3 sq. microns for a pixel. That's 36
sq microns for a complete color pixel. Really big compared to film. And is
why sensors equalize out all lenses. A Leica lens will be equal to a Sony
lens. You will not be able to distinguish between them when using a 
digital camera.

Jim
....



From contax mailing list:
From: Michael Londarenko mikel@deleted
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
Subject: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time

Ok. Let's sort it all out. When I'm talking about digital SLRs or any
digital cameras COMPARABLE to 35mm format I'm certainly not talking about
digital backs for medium/large size cameras. And since the original
discussion started with 35mm and Contax N1 Digital in particular I see no
point bringing PhaseOne digital backs into discussion.

Now getting back to track.

1. "Media"

CCD/CMOS sensors have all one thing in common. They record light. They
don't know the "color" of the light hitting them. In modern common digital
photography two types of such sensors are used - full-frame and interline. 
(that applies for production of digital backs
also. See more on this below)

2. Human eye resolution.

When we view prints/slides/whatever, we're basically limited to resolving
power of our eyes. And it stands at about 10lp/mm (ideally). I.e. 10 black
and 10 white lines per millimeter is our limit. Really good print made on
full-color thermal printer at 300/305dpi provides pretty smooth picture 
for
our eye. And that's 12 full-color dots per millimeter which is only  6
lp/mm. (Schneider and quite a few other companies take this parameter as 
the
most important one). However, if you will take print made at LightJet
printer on resolution of 400dpi and compare it to print made at 305dpi,
unless you're blind you will see the difference :)

And the idea is, that when you print image from digital file, you need
enough resolution to provide these 6 lp/mm or more. Thus the "pixel" sizes
need to be small enough and their count big enough.

3. CCD/CMOS resolution.

        When manufacturer of any digital camera says that they use
5Megapixel CCD matrix they literally mean 5 Megapixel. They didn't say that
these 5 million pixels can record any color! They only said that the total
number of photodiodes on the matrix is 5 million. So, I see no confusion
here :)

        To get around monochrome nature of CCD, manufacturers use color
filters which are usually applied as a dye on the surface of each
photodiode. This means that each cell within the CCD will be able to record
only one specific color. And this is why the actual image produced by the
digital camera is nothing but interpolation of values of photocells
recording different colors. However, if we take Bayer pattern as example
(although  it doesn't matter, it applies to CMYK pattern CCDs also) for each
4 photodiodes which record the light there will be two photodiodes which
record green light,one photodiode which record blue and one which records
red. [ And this is due to characteristics of our vision only. Look on the
technical details of photographic films and you will see the same 
principles there too ]

        BUT, each of these 4 "pixels" don't produce 1 final pixel! They
*DO* produce 4 pixels on the final image! And it's achieved by using
algorithms, which simply calculate the actual full-color value for each
pixel of the final image based on the color values recorded by
corresponding photocell AND neighboring photocells. This is true for both
types of CCD sensors used in digital cameras - interline or full-frame.
And this is why all of digital cameras will never be able to completely
solve the problem of "noise" on the picture (it's not only the issue with
electrical properties!) or artifacts. Simply put,
interpolation(+demosaicing) algorithm alone makes huge difference but will
never be able to compensate for missing information.


4. Interline CCDs and Full-frame CCDs.

        As I already said, two types of CCDs are used in digital cameras
today. The difference is following. To record the light hitting each of
the photodiodes you need electronics surrounding it which will do it
(shift registers).

        a. In interline CCDs such electronic stuffing actually occupies
around 70% of the entire pixel area. So, the fill-factor for the actual
photodiodes is around 30% only. Thus, to compensate this CCD manufacturers
put a layer of microlenses on top of the CCD which would capture more
light and then focus it onto the photodiode (that's by the way the reason
why early digital cameras had so many chromatic abberations) effectively
increasing the fill factor to 70%. Due to the nature of interline CCDs
it's most commonly used, since it allows you to have "electronic shutter"
and getting LCD preview and video feed. That's because recording
start/stop times for the CCD can be controlled by software (which simply
controls behaviour of shift registers and starts/stops recording at any
time). [each line of the CCD can be "shifted" in parallel
(simultaneously)]

It's very hard to make interline CCDs of large-enough size to get closer
to the quality of good 35mm SLR cameras (photodiode size stays almost same
as the overall size of CCD grows).

        b. Full-frame CCDs. These are a little bit different. There are NO
shift-registers and lots of electronic components around each photodiode.
Fill-factor is around 70% and thus no microlenses are used, which produces
cleaner image. It's also easier to make them of larger size (but still not
24x36mm) and requires use of mechanical shutter in the camera, since
entire image is shifted to serial register in full. Hence the full-frame
name.

5. Digital databacks for medium format cameras. E.g. PhaseOne


        One thing about them is that they're mostly irrelevant :) For the
price of $16,000 for PowerPhase (listed) for scanning back one can get
himself full medium format outfit with lenses and accessories. But they're
irrelevant not only because of the price but also due to fact that they
have very little to do with what's known today as digital photography and
NOTHING LIKE THAT exists in digital SLRs found today. And that was the
main topic of discussion and I don't know how did it drift to digital
backs :)

However, everything said above regarding CCDs applies here too. "Scanning"
back PowerPhase is also using CCD which is also manufactured using same
standards, the only difference is that it's a tri-linear CCD array which
actually "scans" entire frame at high speed. Thus very high TRUE
resolutions are possible (7000 x 7000, right?). And although not
technically the same, the technology used for producing such array is
roughly the same as used in full-frame CCDs.

"One-shot" backs look more like modern digital cameras, since they use
matrix with photodiodes, each painted with colour dye. Bayer pattern is
used and the rules of the game apply. And up to my knowledge these are
full-frame CCDs.

6. Large-size CCD sensors.

        The truth is, there are no digital SLR cameras on the market today
which use CCD size comparable to that of 35mm film. They come closer to
the size of APS frame, but not 35mm frame. Philips is the only
manufacturer known to me that produces CCDs of the standard 35mm size -
24x36mm. There was only ONE camera announced two years ago that would use
it. It was Pentax Digital SLR. But in February 2001, Pentax announced that
it's backing off from the original plan. The whole R&D proved production
of such camera to be economically ineffective (and it was planned to be
priced at or around $6000). Contax N Digital is supposed to have same
Philips sensor and by almost all of the specs looks identical to Pentax
Digital SLR (which is why I think Contax simply partnered with Pentax for
this). However, THERE ARE NO digital SLR cameras on the market today which 
use the same frame size. And I
have doubts that COntax debut in this field would be any good.


7. Optical issues.

        In order to really compete with film SLR cameras, high-quality
digital cameras need to be capable of producing high-quality image
corner-to-corner (due to pixel size, frame size, etc) and thus require
optics which would be able to do that. Optics used in film cameras always
has highest resolution in the center and drops to the corners. If we take
Canon D30 as example here is what we get:

Effective resolution - 2160 x 1440
Effective frame size - 22.0 x 14.9 mm

Which means - 2160 / 22 /2 = 49 lp/mm


For most lenses currently used even in professional photography 40lp/mm in
film plane is excellent result.

So, do your math :)


I hope I clarified everything that I wanted to say. I won't be able to
continue to discuss it more, since we've got some stuff going here, so I
will be out-of-sync with the list for next couple of days.


Mike.



From contax mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
From: Carter Olson olson@dendrite.pharmacy.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: RE: [Contax] The Digital Way (was: More Holiday Trip Photographs)

Austin,

Probably you have read Irwin Puts' Leica Newsletter series.  Anyway He has
a rather long and detailed discussion of digital lense requirements.  This
was a response to those who thought a Leica M might be easilly converted
to a digital camera using those excellent lenses.  He pointed out in
detail that this would not be the case either for converting the camera
type or for using these high resolution lenses for exactly the same
reasons you stated.  You and Erwin are in complete agreement.  Erwin's
discussion is very convincing and detailed.  For example it points out the
need for as parallel light hitting the sensor as possible and as a result
the difficulty of taking advantage of some of the best wide angle lenses.

You have made some interesting comments about digital sensors as well,
including crosstalk comments and element size affects.  Do you have
information regarding signal to noise affects versus element or diode
dimentions.  For a given lens and it's light dispersion, the smaller the
diode, with consequently a smaller cross sectional area, the fewer photons
will hit the diode generating a smaller signal per diode.  The dark
current for a diode is related to its temperature which affects signal to
noise and the dynamic range of the detector.  Of course people have used
sensor cooling to increase signal to noise for years but that is a tough
trick for a portable camera.  In addition you alluded to but weren't quite
specific when you commented about the need for 2 green sensors.  Do you
have information regarding the sensors' photon efficiency versus
wavelenth, which can vary a lot, which might also help your point. I
haven't used digital cameras, but before I retired, my lab built spacially
resolved spectroscopy equipment using solid state detectors, so I 
appreciate your discussions and attempts to clarify a rather extensive and
often out of context set of misconceptions that are flying around.
Equipment manufacturers with their publicity hype can do a lot to confuse
and missrepresent issues.

Sincerely,
Carter Olson


 Austin Franklin wrote:

> > Austin,
> > I agree with everything you say re current digital backs but feel
> > the comments on
> > lens "Dumbing down" to be inaccurate.
> > If you look at
> > http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/digital_photography/
> > You will see lenses designed for digital use.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Well, why would you need a higher resolution lense for digital when a
> digital sensor element is far far larger than film grain/dye clouds?  To  me,
> that's just common sense that you don't need better lenses for
> digital...whether they hurt or not, is up for debate (and what that  paper I
> referenced you to was about)...but I can absolutely tell you that the
> optical requirements for digital imaging sensors (available today) are  far
> less than for film.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin




From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

Hi Michael,

> I see no
> point bringing PhaseOne digital backs into discussion.

It was because of sensor size.  Those backs use sensors that are near the
size of a 35mm frame, and therefore show what is capable within the same
size as a 35mm frame.

> And the idea is, that when you print image from digital file, you need
> enough resolution to provide these 6 lp/mm or more. Thus the "pixel"  sizes
> need to be small enough and their count big enough.


You need enough of them true, but the size does not need to be small.

> 3. CCD/CMOS resolution.
>
>       When manufacturer of any digital camera says that they use
> 5Megapixel CCD matrix they literally mean 5 Megapixel.

That is wrong.  The sensors used in these cameras do NOT give 5 M COLOR
PIXELS.  If the camera was B&W, which they are NOT (they are color), then
it would be true, but the fact is, they use FOUR sensor cells for color
information.  A COLOR pixel is made up of three colors, Red, Green, and
Blue.  And as such, the SENSOR array does NOT give 5M COLOR PIXELS, it has
1.25M of Red sensor elements/cells, 1.25M of Blue sensor elements/cells
and 2.5M Green sensor elements/cells, and FROM those the firmware/hardware
in the camera interpolates the color information to give you 5M PIXELS
from the camera, but in no way shape or form is the SENSOR ARRAY giving
you 5M COLOR PIXELS.


Look at this another way.  The sensor gives you 5M bytes of data...and the
camera outputs 15M bytes of data (5M pixels at 24 bits/pixel)...so obviously
all that extra data didn't come from the sensor, it was made up between the
sensor and the output file...

> They only said that the total
> number of photodiodes on the matrix is 5 million.

NO!  They CLAIM 5M PIXELS, and as I said, a pixel IS Red, Green and Blue
when you are talking color pixels.  The number of photo sites IS 5M, but
they are NOT pixels, they are photo sites.

> BUT, each of these 4 "pixels" don't produce 1 final pixel! They *DO*
> produce 4 pixels on the final image!


Yes, the sensor gives you, say four 8 bit values...and the firmware/hardware
interpolates this into four 24 bit values...but that does not make the
SENSOR ARRAY a 5M pixel array...

> And it's achieved by using
> algorithms,
> which simply calculate the actual full-color value for each pixel of the
> final image based on the color values recorded by corresponding photocell
> AND neighboring photocells. This is true for both types of CCD
> sensors used
> in digital cameras - interline or full-frame.

Absolutely not true.  "interline" sensors (linear) do NOT interpolate any
of the color information.  They physically have three sensors per "spot"
that they are sampling...unlike the full frame sensors which use four
"spots"  to get one piece of color information.


> Simply put, interpolation(+demosaicing) algorithm alone makes huge
> difference but will never be able to compensate for missing information.

But there IS no missing information when using linear sensors...

> It's very hard to make interline CCDs of large-enough size to get
> closer to
> the quality of good 35mm SLR cameras (photodiode size stays almost same  as
> the overall size of CCD grows).

Absolutely not true.  These linear sensors are far easier to make, and
give far better performance than full frame.  There are 10k linear sensors
available...and their yield is much higher, since only 10k sensors have to
be "good", as opposed to the full frame sensors, which, have to have the
entire matrix working...and the matrix is a LOT more than 10k.  A 3k x 2k
full frame sensor is 6M sensor elements.


>       b. Full-frame CCDs. ... It's also easier to make them of larger size
> (but still not
> 24x36mm)

See above.  I do not believe they are "easier to make", since their yield
is much lower.  What do you base that claim on?

> 5. Digital databacks for medium format cameras. E.g. PhaseOne
> But they're
> irrelevant not only because of the price but also due to fact
> that they have
> very little to do with what's known today as digital photography

That depends on what circles you travel in!  We don't consider digicams
real digital cameras... ;-)


> and NOTHING
> LIKE THAT exists in digital SLRs found today.

Well, kinda...the Leaf Lumina...it isn't a reflex, but it uses 35mm lenses
(Nikon mount)...

> And that was the
> main topic of
> discussion and I don't know how did it drift to digital backs :)

Because we were talking about sensor size, and digital backs do have
sensors the right size for use in a 35mm camera, but between the cost of
them, and the amount of support circuitry required, they really don't work
for 35mm, and MF can garner a higher price tag, as well as can be
larger...

> 6. Large-size CCD sensors.
>
>       The truth is, there are no digital SLR cameras on the market today
> which use CCD size comparable to that of 35mm film.


Well, you said digital SLR, and the Hasselblad is an SLR, and it can use
digital backs that are the same size as 35mm film.  I won't pursue this,
since I take it you are talking 35mm SLR...

> And I
> have doubts that Contax debut in this field would be any good.

Why do you say that?

> 7. Optical issues.
>
>       In order to really compete with film SLR cameras, high-quality
> digital cameras need to be capable of producing high-quality image
> corner-to-corner (due to pixel size, frame size, etc) and thus require
> optics which would be able to do that. Optics used in film cameras  always
> has highest resolution in the center and drops to the corners. If we  take
> Canon D30 as example here is what we get:
>
> Effective resolution - 2160 x 1440
> Effective frame size - 22.0 x 14.9 mm
>
> Which means - 2160 / 22 /2 = 49 lp/mm
>
> For most lenses currently used even in professional photography 40lp/mm in
> film plane is excellent result.

Well, any decent color film can give you up to 130-140lp/mm resolution,
which is almost 3x (actually 9x) the resolution of that sensor...AND a
35mm frame is 2.6 times larger than that sensor!

Obviously, in order to accommodate a film resolution of 130-150 (and some
are up to 200lp/mm, and even further...320 for TechPan, and Gibabitfilm is
NINE HUNDRED!), you need a lense that can provide that resolution...and
the top end Contax and Leica (as well as others) can do that (for all but
the Gigabit, which I don't know what lense was used for that test!).

Please read carefully page 9 of the Schneider paper I referenced.  It
clearly states, and shows why, there is a need for a brickwall or low pass
filter when using digital imaging sensors.  I'll quote a small portion of
it here:

"Naturally, we are not interested in the reproduction of [this] false
information..." talking about the example they gave above it where because
of how the test target lined up with the sensor pattern, the resolution
DECREASED.

It goes on to say "We must therefore pay attention to the total modulation
transferred (from lense and image sensor) at the maximum line pair
number...is sufficiently SMALL, so that these disturbing patterns are of
no consequence.  Otherwise, it can happen that good optics with high
modulation are judged to be worse than inferior optics with lower 
modulation."

I assume you are aware that if you have a sensor that has pixel width
equal to one line of a 40 lp/mm test pattern, and you look at a 40 lp/mm
test pattern, such that the pattern falls right between the sensors...you
will not see the test pattern at all?  You will only see gray, since each
sensor sees half a black bar, and half a white bar, which makes gray.  It
is because of this, that digital sensors can only ACCURATELY resolve
around 2x the sensor element width...that way no matter what the alignment
is, you will get reliable results...and that's only on-axis.  Off axis is
another issue.

Regards,

Austin



from contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] The Digital Way
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

> 1.      In regards to the issue that fine optical lenses provide too  much
> resolution for digital capture . . . It is not about film or
> ccd/cmos's in terms
> of the pure physics of it. It's how can photons be captured better, for
> the specific intended use. The more accurate the lense is to capture
> what in reality is being presented by the Universe, the better. Period.

Hi Ben,

Yeah, but that doesn't hold true with digital imaging sensors.  It's a
knows fact amongst digital imaging designers...of which I AM one...

> 2.    In regards to Schnieder's take, I differ in principle for the  reason
> stated above. In that there are limiting factors to the most commonly
> used digital media for capturing light should not compute to the
> accurate lense being dumbed down...

I take it you didn't read the paper?  If you didn't read it, please do.  
If you find some technical flaw(s) with the papers examples of why, then
please point it/them out.

> It's not the
> lenses fault, in this particular regard.

No one is BLAMING the lense...but it is a fact of the SYSTEM, and when
designing any system, one must design with the interactions/constraints of
the entire system!  That's called good engineering.

> So, I most definitely, side with
> Zeiss in their use of low pass filters to adjust the amount of light
> being received.

Above you go on saying it's bunk:

"n that there are limiting factors to the most commonly
> used digital media for capturing light should not compute to the
> accurate lense being dumbed down"

But now you "side with Zeiss in their use of a low pass filter..."?  Argh,
Ben!

> Otoh, I would design a better digital media as I've
> discussed before.

Yes, and so would everyone else...if they could, and those that can,
are...but it takes time and research and money, as well as may or may not
be able to be done.  As well as economics in producing the sensors, and
making a viable product.

> But, maybe dumber is better for some, not me.
>
> 3.    That lenses such as Zeiss do not make a difference between lesser
> resolving lenses. For one example that this is not true, see below
> for a visual and analytical example, comparing the lenses of Zeiss (Sony
> DSC S70), Nikon (990) and Olympus (3030Z) on ccd's with nearly
> identical size and resolution: (Yes, Zeiss makes a big difference!)
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscs70/page14.asp

Well, as shown in the Schneider paper, higher resolution lenses CAN give
you worse results, and I don't see anywhere in the test you referenced
that says anything about the actual resolving power of the lenses.  Also,
as I've said before, it really depends on how the target lines up with the
sensor...


> With digital, it is the
> algorithms utilized for the umpteen interpolations that must be done
> as well

Where are there other interpolations aside from the color information,
assuming you are not resizing the image, and you are not talking about
Fuji cameras?  It really shouldn't be "umpteen", I believe that's a BIT
(sic)  of an exaggeration!

Regards,

Austin



From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

Hi Michael,

> So, you're saying that pixel size of 1mm would be unnoticeable to
> our eyes?
> :)))))) I didn't mean to say that 5 micron size is a lot better than 10
> micron size.

I don't know quite what you mean, but the physical size of the array isn't
what's important for resolution, really...it's obviously the number of
pixels.  Technically, you have two resolutions.  The ability to resolve,
and the number of things you can resolve (spatial resolution I'd call
that).  If you have correct optics etc., and electrical characteristics
aside, an array 10" x 10" with 100 pixels per inch is the same spatial
resolution as an array 1" x 1" with a resolution of 1000 pixels per inch.

Computer monitors have always had the term resolution misused, because 1024
x 768 is NOT a resolution.  Same with digital cameras, and scanners.  Now
the terminology is even more misused!

> > > 3. CCD/CMOS resolution.
> > >
> > >       When manufacturer of any digital camera says that they use
> > > 5Megapixel CCD matrix they literally mean 5 Megapixel.
> >
> > That is wrong.  The sensors used in these cameras do NOT give
> > 5 M COLOR
> > PIXELS.  If the camera was B&W, which they are NOT (they are
>
>
> Stop. Where DO YOU SEE manufacturers claiming that these are
> COLORED pixels?

THE ARE COLORED!  That's how the camera works!  There are 25% red sensor
elements, 25% blue sensor elements and 50% green sensor elements... The
pixels out of the camera contain all three colors per output pixel...and %75
of that information in the resultant output pixels is made
up...interpolated.

> They only claim that they have 5million pixels on the matrix.

It is misleading and dishonest to call them pixels.  A pixel, in common
imaging terminology and when talking about color contains ALL THREE COLORS.

Think about this.  Compare a tri-linear scanning back with a 6k sensor, that
scans 6k...you get 36M 3 color pixels....but a full-frame array of 6k x 6k
gives you 36M SINGLE color "pixels" (not my term, yours).  So how can you
say they are the same?  Both manufacturers claim 36M PIXEL sensors?  
That's why it's misleading and dishonest.

> They didn't
> say that each pixel can have any color. Would the 1440dpi Epson inkjet
> printer have same quality print as 300pdi thermal printer? :)

I don't know, but there is no lie in Epson saying 1440 dots per inch...they
don't say they can print 1440 PIXELS per inch.

> You need to
> know how to read the specs - that was my only point. I don't find the
> statement of "5M megapixel sensor camera" misleading.

Then you have some rogue definition of what a pixel is!  It is simply common
imaging terminology.  Why is that so hard to understand, and why are you
fighting me on this?  EVERY PIXEL in the data files on your computer is
either grayscale, or if it's color contains ALL THREE COLORS.


> > NO!  They CLAIM 5M PIXELS, and as I said, a pixel IS Red,
> > Green and Blue
> > when you are talking color pixels.  The number of photo sites
>
> Note that you're saying "when you are talking color pixels". And the
> manufacturers didn't say it.

Sigh.

> Here we go again. INTERLINE sensors and LINEAR sensors ARE NOT THE SAME
> THING!

I understand that.

> > >       b. Full-frame CCDs. ... It's also easier to make them
> > of larger size
> > > (but still not
> > > 24x36mm)
> >
> > See above.  I do not believe they are "easier to make", since
> > their yield is
> > much lower.  What do you base that claim on?
>
> Less supporting electronics -> less heat and crosstalk, bigger size of
> actual photodiodes, no need for microlenses equals easier to make
> in bigger
> size.

I do not believe that is true in reality.  Do you have any manufacturing
data to support this?  I have seen yield numbers, and what I have seen
(granted the data is a few years old) do not support your claim.

> > > and NOTHING
> > > LIKE THAT exists in digital SLRs found today.
> >
> > Well, kinda...the Leaf Lumina...it isn't a reflex, but it
> > uses 35mm lenses
> > (Nikon mount)...
>
>
> I'm not aware of this one. It's not listed here -
> http://www.creo.com/products/index.asp

Try searching for it, it's around, and has been around for around 6 or 
more years.

> [snip]
>
> > > 6. Large-size CCD sensors.
> > >
> > >       The truth is, there are no digital SLR cameras on the
> > market today
> > > which use CCD size comparable to that of 35mm film.
> >
> > Well, you said digital SLR, and the Hasselblad is an SLR, and
>
> Does Hasselblad make DIGITAL SLR? No. And that's what I said.

Well, yes.  Just because they don't make the back, doesn't mean it's not a
digital SLR!

http://www.hasselblad.com/products/digi_photo.html

> > > And I
> > > have doubts that Contax debut in this field would be any good.
> >
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Too expensive. One of the issues Pentax didn't know how to deal with is
> reliability and performance under different conditions (ambient
> temperatures
> for instance). Time will tell.

But that won't mean it won't be any good, it might not sell well, but the
product may be a very good product!

> ...When it comes to film photography all
> these numbers
> are pure theory, and they're very hard to achieve in practice.

These are actual measured numbers!

> Almost any camera manufacturer will admit that if in real-world  condition
> film can resolve 40lp/mm - it's outstanding result. Ask any
> Hollywood studio
> :)

You can not compare video to still.  The requirements are different.  In
video, interframe noise is cancelled out by the successive frames, since the
same noise isn't in every frame.  Still images only have one image, hence
have a higher quality requirement.

> > Please read carefully page 9 of the Schneider paper I referenced.  It
> > clearly states, and shows why, there is a need for a
> > brickwall or low pass
> > filter when using digital imaging sensors.  I'll quote a
> > small portion of it
> > here:
>
> Schneider has more interest in large-format cameras than 35mm.

But that has nothing to do with what the paper says regarding false data,
which is a fact of digital imaging...as well outlined in the Schneider
paper.

> The only
> real solution
> for digital cameras (SLRs included) is using appropriately ground-up
> designed lenses.

Well, you've been the one arguing for 35mm compatibility, not me!  That's
the beauty of digital, there is no format.  Only film has a format,
digital does not have to.  One other issue with digital is you can't use
very wide angle lenses on a lot of sensors, since the wells are too deep
and you get vignetting.  Another drawback for digital at this point in
time.

> P.S. By the way, just to make sure. When you say low-pass filter do you
> actually mean ANTI-ALIASING filter or what?


A low pass filter passes frequencies lower than a particular frequency and
blocks frequencies that are higher.  Anti-aliasing is different, it's
smoothing the transitions between "colors" typically caused by
"pixelation". Different function IMO.

Regards,

Austin




From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002

[snip]


> I checked various sources now, it looks like what you actually
> call low-pass
> filter is called anti-aliasing filter (by Kodak at least).

Well, what I call a "low pass filter" IS a low pass filter.  It can be used
in many applications, and anyone can call it what they want, but that
doesn't mean that it isn't a low pass filter!

> http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/products/camer
> as/dcsTech
> /antiAliasingFilter/antiAliasing.jhtml

In fact, they say:


"The filter is an optically assembly that fits in front of the CCD and
behind the camera lens.  It eliminates aliasing by lowering the
high-frequency/high-contrast areas in an image that would normally exceed
the sampling capability of the CCD."

And that clearly is a low pass filter, and does exactly what I've been
saying is required to be done for lenses used on digital image sensors,
and also coincides with the Schneider paper.

One thing they allude to is that it's a problem with the Bayer pattern
(color interpolation)...but none the less, it's the same thing, just on a
different plane.

Austin



From contax mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 
From: "Finney T. Tsai" tsai@syntest.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time

?
> P.S. By the way, just to make sure. When you say low-pass
> > filter do you
> > > actually mean ANTI-ALIASING filter or what?
> >
> > A low pass filter passes frequencies lower than a particular
> > frequency and
> > blocks frequencies that are higher.  Anti-aliasing is different, it's
> > smoothing the transitions between "colors" typically caused
> > by "pixelation".
>
> I checked various sources now, it looks like what you actually call  low-pass
> filter is called anti-aliasing filter (by Kodak at least).
> 
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsTech
>
> /antiAliasingFilter/antiAliasing.jhtml

Mmm... have been super busy, do not have the time to
read the posts these days. Somehow this thread caught my
attention today and I thought I would say a few words here.
Sorry if I misinterpret anything as I had only read
the latest few messages.

Mike is right. Anti-aliasing filter should be the real name.
Sampling a high frequency image with a sensor with lower
spatial frequency will bring in the aliasing problem.
Tow possible solutions here: One is to increate the
spacial frequency of the sensor, that is, to increase
the pixel counts within the same area. The second option
is to add in a low-pass filter to remove the high frequency data.
Kodak is the first company (around 1996?) came out a filter made
of lithium niobate whose birefringent nature can serve
the low pass function. You can call it optical low pass filter
but it is totally different from the low pass filtering
algorithm used in the CCD image processing area. The latter
one is done in software mainly to remove noises...etc.
The lithium niobate filter is used mainly to remove aliasing,
color infringing...etc.

So a high frequency image is indeed a headache to sensors.
A lens possessing high resolution power which is able
to deliever high frequency images may present
a potential problem to the sensor; however, everything
is all relevant. As far as the performance of the anti-aliasing
filter is good enough, you surely can increase the lens resolution
power to some extent.

Currently, Kodak is still the technology leader in
the anti-aliasing filter. Sony and Nikon are about there, too.
This also explains why Sony's consumer digicams fitted with
Zeiss lenses usually render sharper images. They just
have better filters. Same for Nikons. If you are interested,
you can check out this webpage and see the anti-aliasing
performance comparison among Canon G2, Sony F707, and
Nikon Coolpix 5000...etc:

   http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C5000/ZRes_Compare.jpg

Not every filter is made of lithium niobate though.
Nikon's D1/D1x is one. I heard that Kyocera developed
a new formula for N Digital's filter. Can't wait to
see how it performs when the camera comes out.

I learnt most of these when I was working with engineers
from Sanyo. Sanyo is doing OEMs for many digicams.

BTW, TSMC does not make any CCD sensors. They are making
CMOS sensors for a few companies though. Same for UMC.


-finney

Postscript:

Oh, I forgot to mention that there are other aliasing problems,
most of them are inherent to nature of Bayer pattern.
Those have nothing to do with the anti-aliasing filter.

Confusing enough? :)

-finney




from contax mailing list:
From: Michael Londarenko mikel@deleted
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002

[snip]


Arrrgghhhh... There are ONLY three different types of imaging sensors
available on the market (plus CMOS, which makes it four). They're:
        a)interline sensors
        b)linear sensors
        c)full-frame sensors

(http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/ccd/products.shtml)


And for application of photography the differences between these four are
very serious.

[snip]


99% of all digital consumer-level photo cameras are using interline
sensors. Very few manufacturers used full-frame sensors for their "pro"
level digital cameras. One of the best full-frame sensors is made by Kodak
- Blue Plus. CMOS is used in Canon D30. Linear sensors are used only in
digital backs.


[snip]

Mike.



From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

Michael,

> Arrrgghhhh...

Agreed... I don't understand what you are trying to get at...I feel the
target keeps changing...

> There are ONLY three different types of imaging sensors
> available on the market (plus CMOS, which makes it four). They're:
>       a)interline sensors
>       b)linear sensors
>       c)full-frame sensors


You are the one who has chosen to use those delineations, anyone else can
choose their own delineations and they can be varied.  One could say there
are only two, line and frame.  One could differentiate sensors entirely by
any specification too...

> And for application of photography the differences between these four are
> very serious.

SOME of the differences are and some are not, and it depends on a lot of
things.  I would not even consider interline for photography (which is why I
don't understand why you keep bringing it in the discussion), they are
technically just full frame sensors.

Different can mean many things, different for the design engineer, different
for how the photographer uses the camera...different cost, different
performance...it depends on what aspect you are talking about.


> And that's why I "brought" interline sensors back in, to point
> you out that
> your following statement is wrong:

That wasn't the question, why did you being interline sensors into the
conversation in the FIRST place?

>       "Absolutely not true.  "interline" sensors (linear) do NOT

Note I also said "linear", meaning as opposed to "full frame" which is
what I was talking about, I apparently didn't proofread what I wrote, and
didn't delete "interline", though I also said "linear", and I was
obviously talking about linear given my comments.  It was a typo.

> Interline sensors don't record true color information. They need
> interpolation and demosaicing algorithms to process the data.


That depends.  If three are used, one per color, then they DO provide true
color information.  Some high end video cameras do use three sensors.  If
using a single sensor, then you are right...and again, they have the EXACT
same "requirements", in this regard, as full-frame sensors, since they ARE
full-frame sensors.

> > Is the Hasselblad an SLR or NOT?  Without a doubt it is.
>
> Hasselblad is SLR. But not digital SLR.

With a digital back on a Hasselblad is it or is it not a digital camera?  
We have already agreed it is an SLR.

> Contax AX isn't a
> true AF system
> camera. Etc, etc, etc.


No, that is opinion.  If a camera IS an SLR, and you put a digital back on
it, it is a digital SLR.

> > > Their lenses for motion-picture cameras (ARRI) can easily resolve
> > > 200 lp/mm
> > > in center. But the actual frequency on film almost never
> > exceeds 40 lp/mm.
> >
> > You are talking about motion picture film here...and how is
> > that relevant?
>
> That is relevant since they use film as a medium.

Are we talking about digital imaging sensors OR film?  I thought we were
talking about digital imaging sensors for STILL cameras.  As you say, 
ARGH!

> > > Numbers like 200lp/mm
> > > are non-achievable with film photography.
> >
> > Sure they are, they just require a tripod and a camera that doesn't
> > vibrate...as in using mirror lockup etc.
>
> No, they're not. Most of the tests made by various manufacturers, photo
> magazines and independents photolabs have achieved no more than 90lp/mm

MOST?  How do you know this?  I find it mostly unbelievable that all the
film manufacturers don't have equipment that can test this out, and they
just make up the numbers!  I also do know that there are some lenses than
have no problem going into the 100+ lp/mm.

> > I thought this discussion is about digital still cameras...
>
> Digital still cameras vs. film still cameras.


Sigh.  As I said, the target keeps a movin'.

> I brought movies in, only to show that even higher-quality lenses for
> higher-quality equipment using film as a "recording" media are
> having a hard
> time of resolving more than 40lp/mm on it.

May be because they are MOVING not still!  Typically, to resolve above
40lp/mm you really need to have all vibration out of the system, and using
a tripod, pre-releasing the mirror etc. works.

Do you believe that using a larger sensor element (same number of sensors)
would solve this problem?

OOC, have you professionally designed any digital imaging systems, or are
you arguing this from an armchair position?


Austin





from contax mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002
From: "Finney T. Tsai" tsai@syntest.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] RE: The Digital Way. One more (last?) time

> > Oh, I forgot to mention that there are other aliasing problems,
> > most of them are inherent to nature of Bayer pattern.
> > Those have nothing to do with the anti-aliasing filter.
>
>
> These are normally corrected by software.

Unfortunately many aliasing problems inherent from the nature
of Bayer pattern can not be fixed at all. The artifacts
on diagonal lines are one typical example.

-finney





from nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: Re: [Nikon] re:digital v film

 Stewart Long wrote:

>As a wedding photographer shooting digital on a Fuji S1, let me give you a
>perspective. In the U.K. the number of digital wedding photographers is
>growing rapidly. Most of the leading people in the business shoot at least
>some digital and many shoot only digital (I am talking about the guys at the
>top of the profession), so the times they are a changing.

In the U.S. the situation is the same. At a presentation at the Canon booth
at PMA yesterday, Denis Reggie, one of the world's leading wedding
photographers, measured by price, fees, quality of work, whatever, is now
shooting 100% digital with Canon 1Ds. He says he can do things he never
could do with medium format, or with film.

Many other wedding photographers shoot absolutely no film any more, even
for the formal group shots.

One of the side benefits they all tout is the faster turnaround time and
easier editing of the take. Frankly, if I were Hasselblad, I'd be very,
very scared.



Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: RE: [Nikon] re:digital v film

Phil Considine wrote:


>Easy, It isn't true. Well to be accurate it is not factual.  It relies only
>on subjective evidence.

Only in the sense that the appearance of *all* photographic work is
subjective.

Top-notch digital images from the current new top crop of digital SLRs (eg,
Nikon D1X, D100, Canon D60) are simply blowing away the quality from
"traditional" film photography, including film-based medium format.

Very, very soon, only hobbyists will continue to insist that film is better
than digital. It simply ain't so. Digital is *far* superior to film. The
current crop of new top digitals have far more resolution than any film.

I suspect those of you who are denying the superiority of digital simply
haven't seen really good work from a top practitioner.




From: Long Stewart Stewart.Long@boots-plc.com
To: "'nikon@photo.cis.to'" nikon@photo.cis.to
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
Subject: [Nikon] re:film v digital

I posted a message a couple of days ago stating that people cannot tell the
difference between prints from the S1 and the Bronica I used to use. This
started a debate that has been well answered by the likes of John Albino,
but I thought I would add my replies to the points as I 'started' it.

Bob wrote:

>Do you mean noone can see any quality difference in a Type C print from a
>medium format negative
>over a digital print from the the Fuji S1????   This is what I am finding so
>much trouble
>envisioning and understanding.  How can this possibly be true?

This is true. Full stop, no ifs or buts. People who are arguing from a
theoretical lines per millimetre, theoretical resolution standpoint really
ought to look at prints and then decide. A photograph made from a neg or
digital file printed anywhere up to 11x14 is indistinguishable unless you
use a loupe from 1cm. People who buy wedding albums don't do that- only tech
junkies who are more worried about proving the flaws in everything
(including just about every Nikkor lens ever made!).

>You are having a lab make the prints from the Fuji
>S1?  What
>kind of prints are they making for you?   Are they not regular digital
>prints, but, instead,
>Type C prints from a laser-exposed negative?

Dunno what a type C print is, but yes, my professional lab makes
photographic prints on Fuji printers from my files. In fact, the same lab
makes prints from your negs using the same printer and same paper. Whenever 
you marvel at the quality of Fuji prints on crystal archive paper, whether
from a digital file or a Hasselblad neg, the machine actually makes a
digital print, in effect. Even the 1 hour places now offer cheap 6x4 prints
from digital, in one hour on Fuji crystal archive paper. Using digital is as
easy as using neg film these days, and as cheap.

Rob Miracle wrote:
>Depending on your arrangements with your lab, they may charge more for
>custom prints where they print your negative until its right.  However,
>when you control cropping, contrast, saturation, retouching and such, a
>cheaper machine print will match that of a custom print.

My experience exactly. By using PhotoShop to burn in the sky, hold the
shadows, add an overall colour, retouch and crop to any daft, non standard
shape I want, I can get perfect machine prints. My monitor and Epson 1290
printer are calibrated to the lab output so I know exactly what I will get
back. Saves me a fortune (but takes more time of course, a trade off I
accept because of the control).

>My experience with digital is with
>scanning 35mm,
>medium format, and 4x5 negs and slides, and photoshopping them, and printing
>them
>on my Epson 1280.   I can get 12x18 prints from medium and large format that
>look very, very good,
>but only about 10x15 from 35mm, from a 2400 dpi scanner.

That is a limitation with your scanner, rather than a problem with digital.
I am talking about digital capture outputted to photographic paper.

A sentiment from Rob that I echo entirely:
>I suspect those of you who are denying the superiority of digital simply
>haven't seen really good work from a top practitioner.

We need to stop arguing about the physics not standing up and look at the
images. The fact that top pros, with big reputations to protect, working in
fields such as wedding photography, where image quality is paramount and
they are being compared to 6x6 and 6x7 neg produced prints on a daily basis
have gone 100% digital means that we need to consider whether the objections
to digital are in the head. It is becoming like audiophile debates, where
theoretical pseudo science is used to convince gullible people that standing
the amp on 3 (not 4, it doesn't work apparently!) little pointy legs
improves sound massively. No one actually does a blind comparison, they just
accept the view of 'experts' (other techno junkies who never enjoy music,
they just analyse it for the clarity of the bass separation).

I will finish where I started, by stating that prints are
indistinguishable.

Nigel Harper, the UK wedding photographer of the year and a great
photographer, showed 2 prints at a seminar. Both 20x16 inches taken of a
bride in a room, one on a Bronica, the other a S1. He invited the audience
of experienced professional wedding photographers to spot the digital
print.

Even from 1 inch (the distance most chose!), most could not decide. These
people shoot medium format every day and they CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE!
Time to live in the real world gentlemen, digital works great and will
replace film for most applications, very, very soon.

Stewart



From: Long Stewart Stewart.Long@boots-plc.com
To: "'nikon@photo.cis.to'" nikon@photo.cis.to
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
Subject: [Nikon] film v digital- some downsides of digital

Ken wrote:

Digital looks like caca if you
overexpose it since the D1H has no shoulder in its characteristic curve;
highlights can take on funny color tints if you shoot it too hot, unlike
film.

it's really hard to understand anyone who refers to film
vs. dig when they don't tell us what film they are discussing.  Print film
sucks unless you print it yourself and digital is way better, but Velvia is
still the Christ Mother Jesus of Film Almighty.



Good points and as someone extolling the virtues of digital, I'll give
some other downsides to balance my enthusiasm.

First, the last point(!) I shoot prints for weddings, so I compare digital
prints to neg produced prints. As I said previously, quality is identical.
If you shoot velvia and project, velvia wins in sharpness and tonal
subtlety. If you print it however, the blacks choke and the digital print
wins. Ken is right, state the comparison to be fair.

Some digital downsides:

Exposure latitude- underexpose as much as you want and rescue in PhotoShop
but overexpose at your peril. Like tranny film, if it ain't captured you
can't get it back. The histogram display on digital cameras is more useful
than the light meter!

Capture rate. Not usually an issue for me but if I take half a dozen quick
shots the camera then takes precious seconds to download it all from the
buffer, which could be crucial- hence the D1h which I presume is always on
tap. Mind you, at full rattle, I have change film every 9 seconds with my
F5, so lots of downtime there!

Has anyone tried long exposures on digital? Not great. The noise builds up
over about 2 or 3 seconds and really deteriorates the image. The new Canon
1D has a clever touch that it can be set to take a long exposure, after
which it then takes another one with the shutter closed and subtracts the
noise from your image. Works 'fairly' well I gather.

Batteries. I now worry about them again. Even my F5 ran for yonks on
lithiums, but digital is kinda battery greedy (and no mechanical save your
arse setting!!!)

Dust. ****ing dust (excuse the language, this one is a nightmare! That red
hot CCD attracts dust like doggy doos attract flies. Pin sharp dust specs in
the same spot on every image. The new Sigma has a glass filter a long way
forward of the sensor so the dust is out of focus and invisible. Why
didn't Nikon Canon and Fuji do that?

and there are more, but these help give balance to the nirvana that we think
digital is. Still love it though and wouldn't go back to silver
impregnated dead cow smeared on strips of plastic!

Stewart





from leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE:  The M7d

I do respect your opinion on many things BD.

But just so you are a little more informed, digital sensors do "not"
require a shutter The shutter is a pulse to the sensor substrate that, in
lay terms, opens the pixels to collect light, then closes them. The pulse
width determines the shutter speed. The camera shutter basically does
nothing. Many cameras have "live" mode where the LCD on the back acts like
a live viewfinder. To do this, the camera shutter, if there is one, is open
in what we used to call "T" or Time exposure. Basically the shutter is
simply out of the way. The sensor is in a decimation mode in that it only
delivers every 4th pixel row and 4th column. This allows the image to be
read out fast enough to update the LCD reasonably rapidly. The decimation
is also to size the image down to the LCD size. Then when you push the
"shutter release", you are simply sending a pulse to the sensor to capture
the image, at full resolution, at whatever "shutter speed" has been
selected. The shutter noise coming out of 99% of the digital cameras is a
.wav file sent to a speaker in the camera.

Jim



from leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re:  The M7d

 Magnessbill@aol.com wrote:

>And that is the reason for the shutter , to protect the CCD when a lens is
>removed. IMHO, the reason for non-interchangable lenses, they don't put a
>shutter in at all- saves money.
>Bill


Correct. And the reason all digital cameras, except those built on a big
SLR chassis, use zoom lenses is because these zooms are designed for
digital and have the lower resolution/MTF designed in. In digital, a
mediocre zoom is every bit as good (actually better) than a prime Leica
lens. So with the zoom and nothing else interchangeable, the dust problem
doesn't exist. This week I'm going to look inside the big Nikon & Canon SLR
digital cameras and personally see what they have in between the rear of
the lens and the sensor. I know there is a frequency cutoff filter to dumb
down the lens, but I'll bet they have a sealed barrier to keep dust off of
the CCD. And if it were far enough away from the CCD, any dust on it would
not be in focus. Like a dusty rear lens element.

Digital sensors are electronic. Trillions times trillions of electrons
passing through it all of the time. This creates a charge in the glass
cover, albeit small. But enough to attract dust. Like the face of your
computer monitor. It's like trying to print statically charged negatives
in your enlarger. An impossible task.

Sealing up a digital camera is actually the only way to keep it hassle
free. LF & MF backs do have covers and require cleaning/dusting before use
unless the print size is only going to be happy snaps.


Those of you that use (or have used) LF know the PITA it is to keep holders
clean and dust free. Even after cleaning, you still have to load them and
quickly store them inside a dustproof bag. I use static free plastic bags.
And when you pull the dark slide to take a photograph, static can be
created, especially with the plastic holders. This is why I use Quickloads
and Readyloads, and the only other film holders that I use are made of wood
(old Graphic holders) or metal (Grafmatic).

My Sharper Image Quadrasomething electronic air cleaner provides me with a
completely dust and static free darkroom. What a joy!!!

Jim





From: "Amardeep S Chana" usenet01.20.asc@gourmet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film is DEAD!
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002

"David Briggs" briggs79iprimus.com.au wrote 
> Im not a photographer, and the only reason i joined this group was to find
> out about F1 photgraphy.
> But I have noticed that portrait photraphers at school have been using
> digital for about the last 4 years. Everyone has noticed that the images are
> grainy and not anywhere near as flattering as digital, so although it may be
> dead FILM is obvioulsy still of a much higher quality.
> Just my two cents

There is a local portrait studio that has switched to digital cameras and
use that extensively in their advertising.  I haven't really seen any of
their work, so I'll keep an open mind.  However, I have seen the results of
some very expensive consumer digital cameras.  Generally they produce sharp
images with enlargements limited according to their resolution.  But their
color rendition seems to be absolutely terrible.  My eyes are not able to
detect really subtle changes in ordinary objects unless I can compare then
directly to the print. But skin tones jump right out as being "off".  In
most of the pictures you'd think the subjects were cadavers.

I only reawakened to photography about a year ago after a 23 year hiatus.
The first thing that came to mind was, "Hey! Let's try digital since we're
starting from scratch."  Well, after extensive investigation I realized that
any digital system would be at best an approximation of a 126 snapshot using
a flash cube.  So now I happily use my set of 35mm systems and enjoy the
heck out of this "DEAD" film.

Amardeep





From: Peter Williams tigerphoto@rmi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Megapixel covernsion - was Re: Film is DEAD!
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002


steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote:
>
> Is there any sort of a chart that compares different film sizes and
> their associated RMS values with a comparable amount of mega-pixels?
> For instance 35mm film with an RMS of 11 is roughly equivalent to 5
> megapixels.

There isn't one from RMS to megapixels, but there is a conversion from
lpmm to megapixels. It's in the back of McBroom's camera guide. I did
the calcualtions, and here are a few ones of note.

First, a few notes.

1) 300 dpi is currently considered "photo quality" output. At that
output, you will get a digital print that is considered a dead match for
a something from 35mm film by most objective viewers. Above 300 dpi, and
you'll get shadow detail fill-in like what you see from medium and large
format negs. But to match 35mm, 300 dpi is considered photo quality.

2) The lpmm conversion method is NOT perfect, as it does not take into
account grain or other issues. So take this as a rough guide of film to
digital conversion.

3) I can't remember the exact equation. I will post it if people are
interested, but for now you'll have to trust me on the numbers.


And now the numbers:

If you used a fine grain film that resolves 100 lpmm, you could
theoretically capture about 34 Megapixels of information on a 35mm neg.
However, let's be realistic - how many lenses out there are capable of
100 lpmm resolution? Even the best ones from Leica usually don't do more
than 85, and most top SLR lenses are in the 65-80 lpmm range.

So I recalculated things based on reality, and found that with lenses
that resolve 65-80 lpmm, you would end up with about 14-22 megapixels of
information on film. This is what I consider the realistic benchmark for
digital photography before it has the capability to match 35mm SLR's.
(To approach medium format, you'd need at least 50-60 megapixels just to
have depth in the shadows similar to what you see in 645.)

But to be honest, that's if you want to completely match film. The more
interesting numbers are the following: how many megapixels are required
to give you a 300 dpi "photo quality" print? Now 300 dots per inch
basically means that you need 300 pixels per inch of resolution for the
given photo size. If you do the math, here's what turns out:

4x6 = 2.1 Megapixels
5x7 = 3.3 Megapixels
8x10 = 7.2 Megapixels
8x12 = 8.4 Megapixels
11x14 = 12 Megapixels

That's the EXACT resolution required for a 300 dpi print, so please keep
in mind that you will likely need an extra 10% to allow for minimal
cropping (just as with film, there is ALWAYS a little cropping). Also
keep in mind that this is the exact mathematical requirement in
megapixels for a 300 dpi print at each size. There is no wiggle room for
people with 2.1 MP cameras to say that they can get a photo quality 8x10
- mathematically, the resolution ain't there. Sure - you might play in
photoshop and end up with an 8x10 that looks kinda good, bit it isn't
300 dpi "photo quality" (and trust me - it shows that it isn't photo
quality).

So, if all you do is print 5x7's, all you need is a 3.6 Megapixel camera
and you're good to go. Personally, I find these numbers the most
interesting. It tells you what megapixels you'll need to make the print.
It doesn't deal with the BS of "does my digital match film". It tells
you if you have enough MP to get a photo quality 300dpi print.

Coincidentally, you'll notice the fact that digital cameras aren't even
close to what film is doing right now. Which is why the top
photographers who do digital are using 4000 dpi film scanners instead of
digital cameras. With a 4000dpi scanner, you'll get about 80-90% of the
information off a 35mm neg, which is why the pros can get photo quality
digital prints.

Just a little food for thought. :-)

-Peter Williams
http://www.williamsphotographic.com





From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixel conversion - was Re: Film is DEAD!
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 


Some corrections to the numbers...

Peter Williams wrote:
<...>
> If you used a fine grain film that resolves 100 lpmm, you could
> theoretically capture about 34 Megapixels of information on a 35mm neg.
> However, let's be realistic - how many lenses out there are capable of
> 100 lpmm resolution? Even the best ones from Leica usually don't do more
> than 85, and most top SLR lenses are in the 65-80 lpmm range.

Resolving one line pair requires at least 3 pixels, so a 100 lpmm frame
contains about 78 megapixels.

The resolutions are probability distributions. They are added by the
squares of the RMS values. Therefore 100 lpmm film and 100 lpmm lens
produce only an 1/sqrt(1/100^2 + 1/100^2) = 70 lpmm image. And that
assumes a good tripod. In practical situations you can seldom expect to
get more than 50 lpmm.
...

> So, if all you do is print 5x7's, all you need is a 3.6 Megapixel camera
> and you're good to go. ...

Digital cameras have monochrome pixels. One four pixel group (2 green, 1
red, 1 blue) is needed to record full colours. In advertisements these
pixels are counted as separate, even though their colours have been
interpolated.

> Coincidentally, you'll notice the fact that digital cameras aren't even
> close to what film is doing right now. Which is why the top
> photographers who do digital are using 4000 dpi film scanners instead of
> digital cameras. With a 4000dpi scanner, you'll get about 80-90% of the
> information off a 35mm neg, which is why the pros can get photo quality
> digital prints.


Film scanners produce full colour pixels, and more bits per colour, even
though the least significant ones are just noise.

-- Lassi
...



From: Chad Irby cirby@cfl.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixel covernsion - was Re: Film is DEAD!
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002


Peter Williams  wrote:

> Coincidentally, you'll notice the fact that digital cameras aren't
> even close to what film is doing right now. Which is why the top
> photographers who do digital are using 4000 dpi film scanners instead
> of digital cameras. With a 4000dpi scanner, you'll get about 80-90%
> of the information off a 35mm neg, which is why the pros can get
> photo quality digital prints.

Of course, you can run into the *other* problem (the one a lot of
digital users don't mention).  Bits.

Sure, you can use a digital camera, or scan in a print, but even with
the new 36/48 bit scanners (12 to 16 bits/pixel), you can't really edit
the resulting image with current software.  Not to mention, of course,
that a "cheap" 48-bit scanner won't give you any more information with
those extra bits (noise and interpolation, mostly).

Optical density is a whole different world, too.  Yeah, you can get a
$500 flatbed with a lot of pixels in the scan, but if you're looking to
match photographs for black-to-white range, you really need a $10,000+
drum/flatbed scanner with *much* higher optical density.

Then you need a printer that can do a good job.  This is getting better,
and is probably the strongest link in the digital photo realm.  Of
course, printing out anything larger than 11x17 starts getting expensive
in hardware and consumables...

And I still haven't seen a reasonable digital camera that can create an
image with more than 24 bits/pixel (8 bits each of RGB)...

--
cirby@cfl.rr.com





from contax mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
From: "Finney T. Tsai" tsai@syntest.com
Subject: Re: [Contax] On lens performance

....


Hi, Ben


The crystalline thing is basically lithium niobate (LiNbO3) based.
Lithium niobate crystals have several unique properties. One of them
is a nonlinearly optical coefficient, i.e. it can act just
like a low-pass filter or a high pass one. The story does not end here.
With different metal dopings, you can create optical gates which
make the filter act a bit like a polarizer. In other words, it is
not just a low-pass filter, it actually does more things.
Sure, you can also control its photorefractive sensitivity as well.
The trick here is how to make everything right to do the anti-aliasing
work for the sensor. Again, for the marketing purpose, you can
call it a low-pass filter as a mean of convenience. Yet for the
real functionality, it is just an oversimplification.

What you talk about the dilemma between the highlights and dark shadow
details is correct. I know a guy who has been working
in the optical industry (lithography and weaponry stuff) for over 20
years.

He said that Zeiss' trick is really on the T* coating.
With so many years of experiences, he could only guess what kind of
materials Zeiss is using... the mix ratio and how to mix things
together.

Well, he does not know.. plain trade secret. The glue among
glass elements is special, too.(this is one thing most people
are unaware of. Gule's optical property is as critical as
glass elements). One thing for sure is some coatings have
a polarity/gating nature. They can keep astray light in bay
as well as reduce the flare. The end result is bold colors with
purity when dark details can be retained.

Companies like Nikon and Canon are there yet. Pentax is a bit closer.

-finney






Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: tims8256 tschooler@cox-internet.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re:digital depreciation Re:

--- In medium-format@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:

>I really see digital as a solution for the mfgers, who now have all
>new kilobuck cameras they can sell us (instead of folks cheaping
>out with a nikon EM equiv.), and new lenses, and new accessories,

This is definitely an opportunity for companies to sell new
equipment, and revitalize a sagging photo market, but its also the
dawn of a new age for photographers, being able to market better, do
more, and do it faster than you ever could with film. You wouldn't
believe how much my sales have gone up when I can sit down with a
Senior and place an order 10 minutes after their session. With the
excitement of seeing the images right away, my average sales have
gone up. I realize that at current prices, it doesn't make sense for
everyone. In 10 years, digital cameras that exceed medium format
film in resolution will be as cheap and plentiful as a Kiev kit is
now. I'd honestly bet serious money on this.






Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: "Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@dlr.de" Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@web.de
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] Digital camera test

Hi folks,

I recently tested my new Olympus E-20P versus some analog Rollei stuff:

E20P, 5 MPixel: Uncompressed TIFF images (15 MByte) or JPEG images, 2.7
times compressed (3.9 Megabyte)
Rollei Micron with Kodak Gold 100
Rollei SL350 with Distagon 2,8/35 and Kodachrome 25

No detectable difference between TIFF and JPEG 2.7 times on "normal,
typical images". This complies with our simulation results on JPEG.

Decent image quality of the Olympus photos, natural colours, excellent
white balance. In most cases I used fixed white balance of 5500 K to comply
with the adjustment of typical professional slide films. Quite powerfull
built-in flash. In fill-in mode, sometimes overexposure.

Shortcoming: The specified chip ISO value is not reached: Instead of ISO
80, the camera only has ISO 40. I am just negotiating with the Olympus
people to figure out a solution. The lens shows signifcant barrel like
distortion in wide angle mode. Camera processsing is slow: Storing of one
image takes 45 seconds. High power consumption.

The intercomparison:
Prints have been compared: Prints of the negative, of the slide; and the
digital images were printed on photo paper by a digital lab service
(Schlecker).

In brilliance and contrast the Olympus beats the Micron, resolution of both
cameras is nearly equal.


The SLR Distagon on the 350 beats clearly the Olympus and Micron on
sharpness and contrast.

However, the slide prints I got were quite bad quality. Using a magnifier I
found that the slides were scanned and then digitally printed on negative
paper. This resolution was worse than the printing resolution of the other
digital prints. Although, the Rollei Distagon prints had much more
sharpness and brilliance than the Olympus.

Summary: The Olympus compares with a good analogue camera, however it does
not yet reach quality of an outstanding Rollei SLR with Zeiss lens. The
Olympus is an excellent piece which I could recommend.


Dirk





From: bhilton665@aol.com (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 02 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Foveon


It will take time for this sensor (or ones similar to it) to migrate to
consumer products, but there's no reason to think it won't migrate down.  How
long that will take and at what cost is the real mystery (grin).  I used to
design computer chips and today's super-expensive mega-chip is next year's
consumer product, looking a bit bland after three years and totally outdated in
five years at the most.  Check out the history of RAM chip bit densities (or
Intel CPU speed and transistor counts) as an example (though the smaller
volumes for CMOS sensors will slow down the ramp up for this chip I'm sure).

Anyone care to graph the pixel count in consumer grade digi-cams the past 5
years and see if it roughly conforms to Moore's Law (that performance doubles
every 18 months)?

>From: jfopie@freenet.de  (John F. Opie)

>Foveon came out with what I think is probably the highest quality in a
>digital format (non-interpolated CMOS analog sensor up to 16
>megapixel), but seems to not be moving towards consumer markets,
>entering instead into a partnership with those friendly folks in
>Sweden who make expensive cameras instead.
>
>Is there little or no chance, then, of a really decent inexpensive
>digital that offers the same advantage that MF offers over 35 mm? By
>inexpensive I mean in the realm of what, say, a P67 body costs.






From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Please KILL the Film is Dead stuff already!
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 


James Cooke wrote:

>> I can't understand why they are so against OTHER people using film to
> begin
>> with. I could really care less if someone wants to waste their money on a
>
> Bloody insecure, that's all. Scared they are wrong.
>

It's like they are trying to convince -themselves- it's "better"?

When I was at the lab the other week, had a guy show me an 8X10 print and
bragged "This was done all digital start to finish, what do you think about
that?" as I was picking up some 8X10's done from 6X6.  All I had to do was
show him a print, say "this was done with a 50 year old rollei" and then
walk away   :-)

--
  Stephe




From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Summary of "film de-volution" thread.
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002


First of all Thanks To All for contributing.

Introduction:  On 2 February I posted a message:

"What is the likely de-volution of film due to digital"

There were about 10 respondents in all (You can find the whole thread,
including the seed questions on google).

The purpose of the thread was to try and get a feeling for film choice
narrowing.

Second of all, this was a very civil thread and no flame war of
consequence erupted.  (A few people entangled themselves in an
environmental debate, and I will touch on that a bit below).

Initial comment is that the opinions that came in were well presented,
but that no "pole" emerged as to what will happen to film choice in the
coming years.  Based on the small statistical sample, this is not
surprising.  I'm also disappointed that some group participants did not
weigh in.

There were opposing points of view and well presented "defenses" for
those POV's, but who am I to judge?

General comments:
--AGFA drops digital research to focus on advanced films.
--Pro E-6 film to narrow to best quality and prices will rise
--Current selection is in fact greater than selection of 10 years ago
--Ilford:
    -Concentrate on Med/large format
    -introduce a new film to challenge K-Portra BW AGFA
    -new "slow" B&W film?
    -new pseudo Scala in E-6?


Digital: some pros make "limited revenue life" images and so digital
will cause them to move away from film to keep customers.  (This is not
necessarily limited to PJ's).

Environment:  A sub thread went into the environmental impact of film
making and developing.  I didn't read the whole sub-thread (there was a
bit of mud slinging), but the main point that the film process  does
generate harmful chemicals may mean a sudden stop to film processing in
some jurisdictions.

"Film will be available for our lifetime" was one comment...  I hope
this is true (words I might blush at in 10, 20 or 40 years...), but I
suspect the price will go up...

Findings:  (as such!)  The "time horizon" is on the order of 5 - 10
years.


Even split to stay or go:
    MAX
    RG (or its latest named incarnation)

Stay
    basic/professional E-6 films ...price to rise
    AGFA (see above)
    Velvia

Go
    Press films
    True B&W to give way to C-41 B&W
    Consumer E-6
    Kodachrome (with 2-3 years of stock available)

Emergence
    East European films if "western" film makers give up too much variety.
        -East European films may not be as high quality as K/F/I ...etc.

    Re-named RG

Cheers,
Alan





From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "Phil Considine" philcons@bigpond.com.au
Subject: RE: [Nikon] digital VS Film
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 

Digital is just that, an absolute binary choice versus the analogue of film
where some blurring occurs at the edges.  A pixel is made up of one bit of
each of three colours therefore it must show some grain otherwise printers
would not be able to interpret the image. Digital, in order to work, also
must conform to a strict pattern (usually triangular) and therefore is at a
disadvantage to film.  Film has a more random structure and up to four
levels of depth. Equally digital has physical limits. If 35mm full frame
runs to and equivalent of 75 megapixels (at 150lpmm)  it would be difficult
for a camera to accept that many bits (work the maths and you need to allow
several bits per pixel) and perform at acceptably fast shutter speeds. So
the size of the CCD is not totally relevant and the truth is that most
digital cameras use a much smaller CCD. The reason is they could not handle
the processing required to manage a larger array.

1 gigaherz processor would chew batteries at a massive rate, even  if a
suitable (read no nuclear) power supply was available in a camera, and the
associated chip set might process maybe 300mb in per second if it had no
other software overhead. But as you need some operating instructions you
might get maybe 75mb per second and that is rounding up!  Remember here that
film records directly and digital requires a lot of processing to capture
assemble and mover the image to primary and secondary storage. Say we use a
fast frame D1X as a guide.  We would need to process 1,125 MB per second to
go shooting at a five frame per second equivalent! Even with 1GHZ with no
overhead that wont happen.   Admittedly I don't have exact numbers to hand
but given current in camera technology runs to just 5 or 6 megapixels per
CCD set, we are a long way from that. My contention is that processor, power
supply and bus limits are even more a problem than light capture. They are
governed by the practicalities of design and the physical limits set by such
things as relativity.  E does equal MC squared and even Contax cannot change
that so their " 35mm full Frame CCD" is probably more a marketing ploy than
a practical development. .I haven't checked their claimed megapixels but I
will bet they are not claiming 75megapixels..   The reason scanners still
can resolve more than cameras is not because they have superior CCD,
processor or bus technology but because they have more time and more
powerful processing sets to develop and assemble images. Time means bits
past the clock in computers and that has a finite limit. The faster you need
them to run the more power you need to push them and the less space you have
to move them.  .  E=MC^2.
Another issue for digital is contrast.  Film already is working at four
levels of colour versus a single layer of three for digital and film
therefore has the potential for a greater range of possible colours than
digital.  As there is no real push to change the standard RGB model for
digital images, film would seem to have some advantage here. Ergo film is
able to produce subtleties that digital will not. As an example of digital
mass appeal versus analogue quality, look at the relatively easy process of
sound.  Analogue sound is preferred over digital because it produces a wider
range of tonality.  That is because digital sampling is limited by
processing and operating restrictions. The same applies to cameras and
despite those who trumpet its cause, digital is inherently limited in its
usefulness by a technology that is more restrictive than that of film.





From: NNUU4uUw.5.stripes@neverbox.com (Josh Osborne)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: 24 Feb 2002

Cleo  miranda@aridjis.com wrote:
[...]
>You will keep it longer then three years but will you use it, or will you
>enter the pixel race and buy every a new one

Economically it doesn't matter if you keep the digital camera longer
then 3 years, what matters is if you used it enough to make the
extra cost worth it.  If you shoot enough you can buy a new $3000
camera twice a year if it means the "film" is free.  Of course very
few people shoot that much!  (and while the film is free the printing
is not, so if my theory about digital helping you learn faster is
true the amount of money you save slows as you start getting more
and more good shots, unless you increase your standards).

If you buy a digital camera for $3000, and over three years save
$3000 in film and processing, and then you do that ten more times
over 30 years you have spent $30,000 on cameras, and $0 on film,
total cost of $30,000 plus prints.  If you shoot the same amount
of film and only buy one film camera (say an FM3a or the like) over
30 years you spend $700 on cameras (I imagine the FM3a to be quite
durable) and $30,000 on film, total of $30,700.  Slightly more then
digital.

Of course there are lots other reasons to shoot digital, or shoot
film then just the money, and lot of people upgrade more frequently
(and some people don't).  Some people don't like the look of digital
and would probably not shoot it even if you could get it in a $300
SLR.  Some people *do* like the look of digital and would rather
shoot it even if it costs more then film.  That's not any more
wrong then someone choosing Portra over Provia.
--





From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 

l, you are correct that there is a certain volume of images that the
individual has to be shooting before digital makes any economic sense. Of
course, for the average 100 shot/year user who only takes out their camera
on major holidays, digital makes no sense whatsoever. They would be much
better served to buy disposable cameras. The quality would be superior and
the cost next to nothing.

One of the real disadvantages of digital is the amount of hands on work that
the user has to go through to get their "free" shots. If the average film
user HAD to to their own processing and printing I doubt whether there would
be the number of photographers that there are today. But, with digital,
everybody is stuck in front of their computerscopying from the temporary
memorycard storage to the longer term hard drive storage ....then weeding
out the crap shots...making "adjustments" in Photoshop...cloning...
cropping...manipulating...until finally saving to the permanent CDR storage.
And then they have to do their own printing on their own paper with their
own ink and eventually, you will see that the "cost" of digital is not only
in terms of $$ but in terms of time. You often hear digital phtographers
claim that they are "taking more pictures than they ever did with film"! I
wonder how they have the time!! One guy made such ludicrous claims as to the
number of shots he had taken since he got his digital camera the month
before that he would have had to have taken a shot every 2 seconds of every
minute of every hour of every day of the month.

I remember a story about National Geographic photographer Joel Sartore. He
was on assignment for 5 weeks in the Bolivian rain forest and came back with
290 rolls of film. That is 10,440 shots!! If he was shooting digital...say a
new Canon EOS 1-D...I would expect that he would shoot in the highest
quality RAW mode (no point in trying to publish low res pictures!) which are
about 4.8 megabytes each!! That is 50,112 megabytes (50 GIGAbytes) of iamge
data!! Of course he could have 50 1Gb Microdrives but I would not want to
trust too many important shots to that thing!! OR he could have 10 of the 6
Gb Digital Wallet type-devices OR he could have a laptop with a 50+ Gb drive
but there aren't too many of those around..are there?? But the real problem
is that all of those storage options rely on...BATTERIES and the camera
itself is completely dependent on BATTERIES!! They are not too easy to come
by in the Bolivian rain forest and to carry them is quite a weight! Now that
290 rolls of film is not uncommon for NG assignments. Bill Allard could
shoot 1,000 ROLLS of film on a 3 month assignment. 36,000 shots!! It
couldn't be done at all with digital!!

So for the average low volume user..digital makes no sense. For the high
volume photographer who can't be tethered to a desktop computer in a
downtown studio..digital makes no sense.There is a very small niche of
moderate volume photographers for whom turn around time is the major
advantage of digital. For photojournalists who are working to deadline..it
CERTAINLY makes sense. Digital shots can be placed in the largely computer
typeset newspapers without much manipulation needed and the quality is up to
newsprint standards. Fortunately, there are many for who the quality of
their prints is a bit higher than the standard newspaper front page. I don't
hear of many people framing shots from newspapers but they do claim to be
framing 150dpi shots from inkjet printers!!


I have to say that there are another group of photographers who are using
digital to save THEMSELVES money and give their customers a little lower
quality for a little more cost while they pocket the difference. I have even
seen the suggestion that photographers using digital adding a surcharge for
the "convenience" of digital!!  The other reason why studio photographers
are encouraged to pass the costs of digital on to their clients is because
of the horrendous layout for digital and the need to make back their money
before progress forces them to scrap their old digital body for the newest
hot technology. I doubt that the portrait photographer would have to dump
his Hasselblad whenever a new film comes out! Film photographers (as we can
see from the "what is your oldest camera" thread) can continue to use a 20
year old camera while a 20 month old digital is "last year's technology".

The problem is in assuming that all photographers are photojournalists and
need the same tools for the same reasons. For most people, digital doesn't
make much sense. Price is high, quality is mediocre, maintenance is
significant.

...





From: gunshotlead@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002


I absolutely have to disagree with this statement.  What is the real
story on digital?  On the consumer front - development costs are
approaching print film development WITHOUT the cost of
scanning/storage.  At $0.29/frame at a Wally Mart with a Fuji Frontier
printer, 24 frames of digital is very competitive with premium 1-hour
film development. Resolution at 4x6 and even up to 8x10 is practically
indistinguishable for the masses and even the "prosumer."  The average
consumer of digital products doesn't even fire up PSP or any other
post-processing software.  Dump the media card into the PC, and go
straight to the printer or Walmart.  The real savings are that images
are already in archival form (burn to CD) and can be manipulated and
classified more conveniently than piles of negatives.


You're absolutely correct that storage and dependability is an issue
for the professional digital shooter. But that same NG photographer is
carrying around 290 rolls that he probably has to ferry off or courier
to the home office at every 30 rolls he achieves, if memory serves me
correctly. The risk of losing those rolls during the delivery process
is always present.  He also has to meet at the midpoint of every
project with the editorial staff to go over what he's got at that
point to determine any course correction changes in the project's
direction.  Flip that to digital - with a relatively reasonable
bandwidth transmission means, he can upload those images taken to date
back to the home office and stay on-site - that's cost savings in
logistics alone!  With a simple video-hookup, he can conference with
the editorial staff on site and achieve the same thing.  Storage media
is improving all the time with durability and reliability.  Real
dependable storage - similar to aircraft black boxes  - can and are
presently applied to commercial data storage - if it can survive 20 Gs
and being burnt, blown up and drowned to 2,000 feet, you can bet the
jungle has nothing to add to that.  And this is coming from someone
who's spent most of his life in that hellishy intolerable 20 degree
band called the tropics with photo equipment.  I'm quite familar with
what intense heat and humidity can do - I'm happy to see digital's a
bit more hardier than the traditional tools...

As to the commercial studio - My family had our photos taken for our
parish guide, and the studio came ON-SITE with a C-Leaf back for a
medium format (probably Hasselblad - couldn't get close enough to
look) tied directly into a four PC LAN serving as a review station and
points-of-sale for families looking to buy additional copies. I'm
familar enough with market prices for both film and digital studios,
and I have to say, the gouge was about the same.  The sell was easier
for the Studio obviously - instant display of the potential frames,
plus the ability to dump hardcopies within hours of the shoot.
Passing the cost? It's about the same - if nothing else, you the
consumer actually benefit because they can take that picture and print
it down onto canvas for a really hardy and spiffy looking large format
framed portrait.

The ironic part of this post is that I've just bought an F80 to
complement my existing film and digital stable. Why?  Because film has
a place in my hobby, in the same way film still has a place in the
consumer and professional worlds even today in 2002.  Film isn't dead,
but it isn't the all-superior choice anymore.  Digital has arrived -
and it's getting better all the time.  Disparaging it and it's users
doesn't validate the relevance and usefulness of 35mm.

"Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca wrote:

>Yes, the prestige value of having the latest toy is never measured in $$.
>
>"Cleo" miranda@aridjis.com wrote 
>>
>> Meryl, you story is completle right and i couldn't write it better, but
>for
>> the most digital photographers they only want to show there new gadget on
>a
>> birthdayparty and they don't like to hear the real story about digital.
>>
>> cleo





From: Per Inge Oestmoen pioe@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 


Tony Spadaro wrote:

> As to looking at the luminouis landscaper for answers --- isn't he the
> guy that claims a D30 has more resolution than Provia F 100?  I wouldn't put
> a lot of trust in his answers.

Could you perhaps give a critique of the material put forth here?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

I believe that the assertion that the D30 is superior to the best
films puts some strains on one's credibility, but since you are a very
capable photographer you should be well qualified to come up with an
analysis of the material making such claims.

--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/





From: "Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002

 How can I? It's a bunch of jpegs at screen resolution. You can't take
the web as a serious tool for anaylizing images - in order to put them on
the web the original is too compromised to even consider. The film shots had
to be scanned -- how good was his scanner?

   When I looked at his supposed film vs Digital test he had a glowing
review on his site for the Polaroid 4000 - a scanner which is not known for
sharp scans. A friend of mine got one and after a bit of comparing back and
forth with my LS2000, he sent it back and got an LS2000. Did he use this
scanner for the Provia? If so then digital is going to be better simply
because it doesn't have to pass through the scanner.

   After scanning the pictures have to be reduced to jpegs for the web. I
find that after reducing a file to the size needed for the web sharpening is
needed -- but there is then the problem of jpeg artifacts, consequently most
web builders blur instead of sharpening - to reduce edge contrast and
therefore reduce artifacts. What ends up on the web can look good or it can
look awful - but it's not going to tell you anything about the original.

--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/





From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: Digital Depth of Field (Was: Re: [Nikon] PMA Day 2 -- Some
  Observations)

Chris Somers wrote:
> John Phillips wrote:
>
> >  John Albino wrote:-
> >
> > > "At any given aperture digital has more depth of field than a film
> camera."
> >
> > John, thanks for the report.
> >
> > Can someone explain the above quote to me?
>         I'm still hoping to see an explaination as well.  There was one
>attempt by someone, but it didn't make much sense to me, and they ended up
>saying they pulled a 1.5x factor out of their hat.

Basically, as I understand it, it is because the same focal length lens on
a (nominally, 35mm SLR type) digital camera (smaller imaging area) as on a
film camera (larger imaging area) produces a larger apparent image. So a
50mm lens used on a digital SLR with a 1.5x "magnification factor" retains
the depth of field of the 50mm lens, but produces an apparent image size
comparable to a 75mm lens. Try this url for some more explanation:

http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_loader.pl?p=http%3A//www.megapixel.net/html
/articles/article-dof.html
--
John Albino
mailto:jalbino@jwalbino.com





From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: [Nikon] Speaking of Foveon, and the (Perhaps) Digital Imaging Future...

Word has it that Sigma has a very short exclusive with the Foveon sensor --
only ONE year. There are a "few" other manufacturers working with the
Foveon sensor at this time ("Few" meaning from 3 to 7) and should have
products available at the end of that year. Speculation is, Foveon is
letting Sigma be the alpha and beta site  ("Hey, so the results are
crap! So what do you expect from Sigma? Just wait til the *good stuff* ships!")

I'm personally skeptical that Foveon knows very much about how to market
the product. For example, the U.S. Federal government is VERY interested in
digital images (the FBI, for example, was all over the Nikon and Canon
booths last week at PMA), and the big FOSE technology show is here in D.C.
in a couple of weeks. This is where all the federal/state techies go to
goof off and see new stuff, and Foveon didn't even know about it, and how
important it is.

For those of you with broadband access, one of the Foveon engineers
(Richard F. Lyon) gave an extremely interesting talk at Stanford University
last week, with lots of historical reference to the roots of photography
over the past two centuries. Very worthwhile watching if you've got the
bandwidth -- it's an hour and 15 minutes long (1 hr 15 min) and is in
Windows media player format.

Here's the link -- it was the February 27, 2002 lecture:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/
--
John Albino
mailto:jalbino@jwalbino.com





From Camera Fixing Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Re: 35mm film disappearing?

 aranda1984 at stephen@aranda4.com wrote:

> The only way at this point in time to take a good picture, is with the
> large, medium and the 35 mm format on print film or slides.


Not true.  See the January issue of Professional Photographer for a half
page digital shot I did, and a greatly enlarged tiny section of it.  Done
with Nikon D1x, but I'm getting stuff just as good from my Canon D30.

Film use by professional photographers is dying faster than anyone could
have predicted, and with prices coming down on digital cameras all the time
I think you will see a major shakeup in the film business in the near
future.

I don't think film will die any time soon, but your variety of choices
is already in decline and I expect that to continue. Be prepared for
fewer and fewer choices.

Bob





From: "Nigel Houghton-Allen" 
To: 
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 22:05:17 +1100
Organization: Blazing Pixels
Subject: [Nikon] Digital Sensor sizes
Reply-To: nikon@photo.cis.to

All this talk about CCD sizes and the back focus distance made me think
about the Kodak DCS bodies that have a bigger sensor and less "FOV" [field
of view crop]

Body                      sensor                    MP             FOV
KodakDCS760 [F5 body]     27.7mm x 18.5mm           6.3            1.3x
D1x                       23.7mm x 15.6mm           5.47           1.5x
EOS1D                     27.0mm x 17.8mm           4.06           1.25x 
           smaller sensor than Kodak yet very very slightly better[!!!] FOV
EOSD60                    22.7mm x 15.1mm           6.29           1.6x

[thanks to www.dpreview.com for the data.]

You can see that sensor size, MP size and FOV don't have much correlation to
one another, and don't forget Nikons little trick with the D1X. It has twice
as many sensors horizontally [168 lines/mm] and 84lines/mm vertically. It
then uses software to get the 6:2 ratio image down to 3:2. Squashes the
horizontal and stretches the vertical.

So did Kodak put the sensor in a different place to where the 'film' would
have been, or is the FOV smaller because of the bigger sensor?

My non technical guess is that it is because the sensor is bigger, so could
Nikon, one day when computer power/quality/price drops ETC. catches up,  put
a 24x 36 or bigger, eg the Kodak 36x36 sensor in the same place as the
current one and create the D1W [copyrighted name!]

If Kodak has the sensor in the same place and hasn't had to worry about the
back focus distance like Contax has, is Contax pulling our chain? Don't know
and don't really care as long as it does the job. Personally I think its a
great idea for a small brand system like Contax to be able to use the MF
lenses on the 35mm body. If you Contax 645AF MF then you would most likely
to be tempted to buy the 35mm body. Good marketing in my books. I had
certainly thought about the good economics of getting more value from your
lenses by being able to use them in both formats. You should then be able to
use a tilt shift adapter with the bigger image circle of the MF lenses on
the 35mm body...I digress.

At least 35mm bodies don't crop any where as much as most of the MF backs!!

enjoy
Nigel






From Medium Format Digest:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: "tims8256" tims8256@cs.com
Subject: more bargains? ;-) Re: [long] medium format price drops

--- In medium-format@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:

>I also think that folks shooting digital will discover that there
>are lots of things which film can do, including things like limited
>DOF shots and shift/tilts, which 98% of the digital cameras of the
>future won't do, leading to a return to film after the hype dies
>down

Bob, I'm not sure why you feel that selective focus is an issue with
digital, but it isn't. If your only experience is with consumer
digital cameras, that may be the reason. The sensors in those
cameras are a fraction of the size of sensors in digital SLRs, and
digital backs for medium format cameras have even larger sensors.
Several 35mm body type digital SLRs are on the market now that have
image sensors much closer to the size of 35mm, and full frame
sensors are around the corner. Tilt/shift lenses for Canon and Nikon
cameras fit their digital SLRs also, so this isn't much of an issue
either for the majority of people. Trust me, I know how you feel, I
used to be so anti-digital, I wouldn't even consider looking at a
digital camera. Real world experience has changed my mind. I think
that old familiar bumper sticker might just be changed to read, "You
can have my film when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" :)
Digital will definitely supplant film for most people in my
lifetime, I'd bet money on that.




From: David Littlewood david@demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film is now REALLY DEAD
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002

Josh Osborne
 writes

[snip]

>>                                                      Consider that there is
>>a new "breakthrough" in digital technology every 18 months which obsoletes
>>their new toy. Look at the number of film photographers who are quite happy
>>using cameras that were made 20, 30, or 40 years ago.
>
>And I can't be happy using a 2 year old digital camera?  Something
>will make me rush right out and buy the new Sigma with X3 technology?
>
>(my bottom line is the images form the D30 meet my current needs, so
>to interest me in buying a new camera body Canon would have to offer
>me some other value, maybe better AF, maybe a better viewfinder, maybe
>a camera body with a coffee maker, but a better image isn't really going
>to excite me.  That puts me in the same boat as film users who might
>buy a new film body because it has a better viewfinder, AF, or weather
>resistance, or some other thing)

While I broadly agree with most of what you say, I think there is one
factor that you overlooked. When I use my 20-year old film camera, I get
to use it with Provia 100F, which is very much better than the films I
used in 1982. My 3.35 megapixel digital camera will always remain the
same; I will not get, to use computer terminology, free lifetime
software upgrades. Standards (at least technical ones, I'm not so sure
about aesthetic ones) do go up all the time, and one can sometimes feel
less than satisfied today with that which seemed fine in a previous era.
--
David Littlewood





From: karapuu@tietoverkot.net (Henkka Karapuu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67, how heavy tripod needed?
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)wrote:

>Under 50,000 medium format and large format cameras from Japan were sold
>in 2001, this last year has seen 30% drop in sales by hasselblad (50% drop
>in USA market) so my suspicion is that a number of today's medium format
>cameras will be selling in low numbers, and perhaps some of the current
>players will be shaken out?

After buying D30 and being dissapointed by digital, i'v come to
conclusion that best thing about this great digital revolution is that
loads of good medium format gear will come available in second hand
market with cheap prices..

-Henkka





From Minolta Mailing List:
 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 
From: "dreadstar" dreadstar@bigpond.com
Subject: Digital cons

  I know this is a bit out of context here (as there still isn't any Digital
SLR around from Minolta....yet), but, I have recently had it pointed out to me
that the main reason that most non-professional level Digital Camera's around
have fixed, non-changeable lens', is to restrict problems with dust getting on
the CCD's. I was told it's something like having a print made from a film
that's got matchheads on it.  That if you get dust contaminated CCD's, that you
have to send it back to the manufacturer for cleaning.

I originally thought that, given that Professional level SLR's MUST have
swappable lenses, that this was bushwarr, no professional would go around with
a camera that he/she couldn't swap lenses on. But, they DO use Digital SLR's.
Is there some feature common on Digital SLR's that reduce the CCD contamination
problems during lens swaps?

[Ed. note: many digital cameras have a blind or shutter which protects the CCD...]





From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE: Foveon chip

One thing for sure, the laws of physics have not been repealed by Foveon.
And they have not been able to make smaller pixels. As a matter of fact, I
would bet that their pixels are much larger than those in modern sensors
such as the Philips 6mp sensor.

I believe, from my scientific viewpoint, that the actual result obtained
via the Foveon 3X chip will be, for the most part, indistinguishable from
results from current high pixel density sensors. Genuine Fractals has been
around for a long time and is very sophisticated in adding missing data to
produce stunning large prints from small digital files.

With every chip (including Foveon but excluding buffalo chips) we have:

7 to 15 square micron pixel size.
pixels lined up in rows.
blank space between pixels.

This produces a data frequency (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DATA IS TRICHROME
OR MONOCHROME) that is less than the data frequency that leica lenses (and
most other modern lenses) resolve. The pixel frequency has to be a minimum
of four times the lens resolving frequency in order to capture everything.
Film can do this. You cannot make pixels small enough to do this.

During the big bang, our laws of physics were determined. We are incapable
of changing them.

Another thought. We now capture, with individual pixels, 24 bits (256
colors), 30 bits (1024 colors), or 36 bits (4096 colors). If Foveon
captures three colors at a single pixel site, it must be a large site in
order to store enough electrons in three separate capacitors to deliver RGB
color data about the light hitting that pixel. And to squeeze it all into a
small pixel site would limit the amount of stored charge thus reducing the
color fidelity and increasing the noise dramatically. I believe that the
geometry of the Foveon pixel is quite large in order to achieve what they
claim. As I said, the laws of physics still apply.

Until they reveal how they altered the laws of physics to achieve their
claims, I won't hold my breath.

And their marketing hype portrayed current digital imaging as it was ten
years ago. I believe they did this in order to make their imaging look
superior. When it is all said and done, I believe it will be no better than
the current high end digital imaging. It sure as hell won't replace film.
They are smoking some strong stuff.

Jim






Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 
From: stevegangi sgangi@hotmail.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: digital depreciation Re: [medium-format]

You hit the nail right on the head.  As an amateur, there is no
remote chance of me recouping any of the price, since I don't make
any sales at all.  Also, since I do shoot medium (6x6 and 6x9) and
large format (4x5 and 8x10) I know better than to believe that
digital can match a big chunk of film.  So, if digital can some day
equal an 4x5 sheet of Tri-X, I can always go to Plus-X, TMax 100, or
Ilford FP4 and still have them beat or I can use the 8x10.  Right
now, that technology is not here.  To my way of thinking, unless you
are a professional who requires digital for a very real reason, it is
not yet worth the cost or the sacrifice of resolution.  I just read
an article in View Camera mag about backs... the chip in the back
mentioned is only about the size of a 35mm negative.  I can stuff
slow film in my 35mm cameras all day and have better sharper pictures
for a lot less expense.

--- In medium-format@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:
> very few serious amateur or semipros have the volume of sales
needed to actually save the cost of high end digicams or digital
backs in 12 months.
>
> There is also a view that the quality exceeds medium format and
even large format. Again, this isn't true, even for the expensive
digital backs, and much less the 3 MP cameras, despite software
interpolations.





From: Ilja Friedel ilja@clyde.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: revolutionary Foveon X3 digital sensor (3 levels RGB in 1 sensor)
Date: 12 Feb 2002

Hi Robert,

> rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>>e) vertically aligned sensors may mean less image artifacts/crud than
>>offset RGGB bayer patterns now in use etc. Still some aliasing, unless
>>they use a randomized pattern with offsets(?), but better on some issues.

You can never avoid aliasing by sampling signal that is not band limited
(infinitly many lpm) in a different way. If you sample with Monte Carlo
patterns, you trade aliases against noise. But how do you reconstruct the
signal on your monitor or printer? Same randomized pattern?

Monte Carlo and low discrepancy patterns are used in ray tracing programs
to simulate sensors of nonzero area by repeated point sampling. Physical
sensors should cover most of the chip area with minor gaps.

>>Now if the sensors get smaller, pushing our resolution limits past 200
>>lpmm and 300 lpmm, we may start to see the real differences in our lenses
>>aerial resolutions (often 400-600+ lpmm, vs 80-100 lpmm on film limit). So
>>we might get 4 to 5 times higher resolution images out of our existing
>>lenses than we can now with current films

If your lenses are really that stellar, then you have a big aliasing
problem using not so good sensors. One can say that a lens is a low pass
filter, cutting out the high frequencies of the incoming signal. If this
cutoff frequency is much higher than the ability of the sensor to sample
the signal, then the difference is mapped into artifacts - aliasing
occurs. There is a nice explanation on

http://www.schneideroptik.de/knowhow/digfoto.htm

(don't know if they have an English version). In a short and unfair
restatement the Schneider page says: "We are selling you crappy lenses for
a high price. But these lenses will fit the resolution limits of you
lousy sensors pretty well." (But if you get a better sensor, you have to
buy a new lens too.)

Ilja.




From: "pehache" pehache(at)laposte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film is now REALLY DEAD
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002


"Chris Brown" cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com wrote 
>
> Sorry, I'll take down the 13*19 inch prints from my D30 which are hanging on
> my wall the moment I get home tonight.
>
> Then I'll ritually disembowel myself.
>
> How could I have been so blind?
>

You can also make a 20*30" print from a 1Mpix camera. Yes you can do it, if you
want. What does it prove ? That the1Mpix camera is the film-killer ?

Really I wonder why some people buy some 4000dpi scanners (about 20Mpix from a
35mm film) in a age where a 3Mpix camera can produce huge prints that are so
good.


More seriously: the enlargement in itself is of course not an absolute
criterion. What matters is the amount of details you can observe in the picture.
An originally 3MPix picture does not show more details when enlarged above 6*9",
compared to the 6*9" print. With a 35mm camera, depending on the lens/film you
use and on the shooting parameters, this limit is probably around 20*30".





From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film is now REALLY DEAD
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002

Well, that is simple to answer. Even though a 6 megapixel digital camera
should theoretically produce an 8x10 300dpi print which should be as good as
a traditional lab print, we would have to wait until the cost of the body
drops to less than US$7,000 especially when you can get some fantastic film
bodies for a fraction of that. In short, digital still has a long way to go!
One thing I do not like is the INconvenience of digital! I know, the
standard line is that digital is supposed to be more convenient than film
but I have found the opposite to be the case.

I remember my first vacation travelling exclusively with digital!! NEVER
AGAIN!!

I had three digital cameras; each one needed batteries; I also needed to
carry a laptop which ALSO needed batteries. As we did our sightseeing,
during the day, I had to be constantly aware of how much space was left on
my memorycards since I did NOT bring the laptop with me when we went out.
Eventually, I found that I had to reduce the resolution of the images so
they would take up less space and I could take more shots. My friends who
brought film cameras never worried about that since they could pick up a
roll anywhere if they ran out and their shots were never reduced in quality.
Every evening, when the other people I was travelling with were relaxing, I
was transferring my pictures off the memory cards and weeding out the bad
ones that I had not already deleted during shooting. Sure, I had the "fun"
of being able to show off my shots almost instantly but there weren't many
people who wanted to see my slide shows at the end of the day. In all, I
felt that deciding to bring digital on my vacation tied me down and was
definitely inconvenient. When we got home it took me twice as long to
process the pictures and make prints as my friends did because they just
dropped off the rolls at their local lab and I had to spend hours sitting in
front of my computer. I also had to buy several ink refills and had dozens
of shots that were spoiled by lines and ink streaks. My friends just picked
up their prints and that was all they needed to do AND because I had to
reduce the resolution of my shots, their pictures were definitiely better
than what I could produce with my inkjet. Some had picture or photoCDs
produced and were able to easily outdo what I could generate.

That inconvenience will not decrease with minor changes in digital
technology which is why I dumped ALL my digital gear and have returned to
film. Since film already has the better picture and for the lower cost, you
can see where I have moved.

One of the other oft quoted myths of digital is that it is somehow "cheaper"
since you avoid all the costs of film, processing and printing. You can
shoot all you want for "free". Well that isn't exactly the case.

First, digital gear is significant;y more expensive than film gear to begin
with. The criticism that you get "APS quality at Hasselblad prices" isn't
far off. While there are some professional photographers that shoot hundreds
of pictures a day and run through thousands of rolls of film that isn't the
experience of the majority of snapshooters. I think I read that the average
person takes about 100 shots (4 rolls) per year and that for those people,
to spend US$3000 on a digital SLR would be complete stupidity. Ah, but there
is no need for anyone to spend $3000 when there are cheaper digital point
and shoots!! This is true. People could buy a nice Nikon 990 (38-115mm zoom)
for only $1000 and I would offer the Olympus Sytlus Epic 115 (38 - 115mm
zoom) for $169 and the pictures would be better.

Also, the costs of digital are all up front, which makes it a much more
difficult purchase to make while the costs of film are incremental and come
in small managable doses.

You ask about computer upgrades (as if that was a relevant analogy) and so I
will address that too. The difference between a computer and a digital
camera is that the output of a slower computer isn't qualitatively different
from that of a faster computer. You cannot know whether I am typing this on
a 2 gigahertz computer or an old Pentium 133. The output is identical and,
since I can only type so fast, it makes little difference to my newsreader
what the speed of my processor is. BUT the output of an older digital camera
can be qualitatively different from a newer model.

To return to a photographic analogy, if a person buys a digital camera today
and, if tomorrow there is a technological breakthrough (such as the Foveon
X3 chip) the current digital camera user can NEVER benefit from that
technology unless they buy a new camera! However, if there is a film
breakthrough (such as the Kodak initiative to double film speed with no
increase in grain... ISO800 film with ISO400 grain) the film user can
benefit from that technology with their 40 year old Leicas and only have to
spend the cost of the film.

So, to summarize, I prefer superior image quality and, after my lengthy
interlude with digital, have chosen film and it will take more from digital
than it has currently demonstrated before I will consider getting into that
trap again.

"Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com wrote ...
>   By that logic why have you wasted money on a computer when it was obsolete
> before it even reached your house?
>     And here is another problem for you: When digital passes film (which it
> might or might not have done today) will you go to digital for the better
> picture, knowing the quality will improve over time, or will you stick with
> an obsolete and inferior medium because you are afraid digital will cost too
> much money? In other words - is your main interest
>            1) quality pictures
>             2) cheap media
>             or
>              3) feeling the rich Corinthian leather of the eveready case?
>






Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 
From: Tim Schooler tschooler@cox-internet.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re:digital depreciation Re:

you wrote:
>Yes, if you can justify the cost and recover your investment and
>depreciation in 6-12-18 months (max), then going digital now makes sense.
>If your application requires very fast turnaround (photojourn.) then it
>may also be the way to go, if quality isn't a limiting factor. But very,
>very few serious amateur or semipros have the volume of sales needed to
>actually save the cost of high end digicams or digital backs in 12 months.

Hi Bob. Yes, I have to agree with you on this. At the current stage
of development (no pun:), digital isn't cost efficient for most people,
unless they're doing some volume in sales. That being said, I'm not a huge
volume studio by any means, but I still saved enough on film and processing
charges to cover the cost of a D30 last Spring, shooting HS Seniors. As prices
fall, it will make sense for more people I think.

>my main problem with digital is that the hype about the "savings"
>obscures many related costs, and esp. the large depreciation losses.


I think again that depends on savings. I pay on average around 30.00 for
a roll of 220 including processing costs at a Pro lab. About 8.00 for the
film (Portra 160) and 17.00 for proofing. Add tax and a few dollars for shipping,
and you're there. A D30 now sells for 2200.00. Divide that by 30.00, and thats
only 74 Seniors. Nothing for even a moderately busy studio. I know many who shoot
over 1000 Seniors a year. Now I won't say the D30 can surpass the quality of
medium format, but Seniors usually buy loads of billfolds, and the balance in
8x10s and 11x14s. Sizes the D30 and other similar digital SLRs can easily
produce. The biggest benefit is the ability to do my own retouching, and do a
better job than the lab can do, and with no out of pocket expense. My time is
covered by a 15.00 per image retouching charge. I would have paid the lab 10.00
to do this, so I increase my margins here also. Add to that the ability to preview
the images on a CDROM slide show that can't be copied, or printed, and you can begin
to see the attraction of digital. Now that doesn't mean its for everyone, but Portrait
studios are definitely able to increase sales, and profits with digital. I'll hang
on to my medium format gear for families, large groups and the like, but I don't think
it will be more than a couple of years before I'll go completely digital.

>in the end, I expect digital to be an option for many uses, but not
>displace my use of 35mm, MF, or LF. If anything, I suspect those of us
>"still" using film will have an unfair advantage over digicam only users
>(e.g., shallow DOF, contrast and resolution, shift lenses etc).

Shallow depth of field isn't an issue with a Digital SLR like a D30, or D1X.

These images may be a bit large to download, but they show that quality and
many of the attributes of conventional film are not lost with digital imagery.

http://www.timschooler.com/114-1459_CRW.jpg
http://www.timschooler.com/115-1595_L.jpg
http://www.timschooler.com/114-1468_CRW.jpg
http://www.timschooler.com/115-1555_CRW.jpg
http://www.timschooler.com/117-1756_CRW.jpg
http://www.timschooler.com/111-1127_CRW.jpg

         Regards,

        Tim Schooler

http://www.timschooler.com





From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 
From: "kmelvs" phylistine@aol.com
Subject: Re: Digital cons/the SLR problem

CCD's are dust magnets.  There's nothing one can do, other than change
the laws of physics to change this.  Digital SLR's, where one opens
the front of the camera to change the lens, allows dust to attract
itself  onto the CCD.  Folks may piss and moan about minolta not
having a digital camera that allows one to use their maxxum lenses,
but in the case of dust, a stand alone, sealed lens camera like the
dimage 5 or 7 is going to present a lot less of a dust issue than a
D100.

In any event, all digital SLR's type cameras with interchangable
lenses have filters on them.

The filters serve two purposes.  One is to help protect the CCD from
dust. If your CCD gets contaminated with dust it means servicing.  If
the filter that protects the CCD gets contaminated by dust then that
means you get "dust" artifacts on your digital file.  That kinda
sucks, doesn't it?  (but who knows...after spending $2K to $5K on a
digital camera, maybe some people like to also spend hours upon hours
retouching all their digital (dust) photos in photoshop.)


Anyway, the second purpose these filters serve is to (quoting phillip
greenspun) act as "a low-pass filter to prevent moiré."

Translation?

It means that you've spent $3k for a camera for use with your
ultra-sophisticated (non-digital) camera lenses but your traditional
camera lenses resolution power is being reduced so that it doesn't
overload what the CCD sensor can handle without producing unwanted
noise or artifacts.


Hmmmmm.

So maybe Minolta wasn't so stupid in not going the route of the
digital SLR type cameras....at least yet.  Or at least until CMOS or
CCD sensors can actually handle the resolution of traditional (oh so
primative last century ; )  ) lenses fully.

Professional photographers (at least in my book) just need to "get the
right shot," whatever that might be.  The fixation with needing the
latest and greatest new tech body is just that.  A fixation.

The reality is that until new sensors come out that can capture the
MTF of traditional lenses, it doesn't make sense for Minolta to come
out with lens swappable SLR type cameras.

-kim
...




From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 
From: "KenRockwell.com" kenrockwell@kenrockwell.com
Subject: [Nikon] Flash for digital cameras: Vivitar 283

Boys:
        As a user of the F100 and D1H I found, as have others, that the TTL
flash performance of the D1 series is nowhere near as good as it is for the
film cameras.

In fact, the TTL mode is so flakey that many (and even some at Nikon)
suggest using the primitive A mode instead for better results.

The A mode is a mode invented in the 1970s and most every flash made since
then works fine in it.  The exposure sensor is in the flash itself.

In other words, your 20 year old Vivitar 283 may give BETTER and more
consistent results than a new SBxx-DX flash.

So don't sell your current SB-28 till you try a DX series flash in TTL mode.
If you prefer the A mode, then any crappy old garage sale flash works fine.
and the original SB-28 is among the best flashes ever.

A secret from the small print of page 115 of the D1H manual is that you
can't even use multiple flash in TTL Mode!!!!!  Forget macro work with two
flashes with the D1 cameras, unless you want to cripple your style with
manual mode, in which case again any crappy flash is great.

The D1 flash mode is screwy since it cannot measure off the CCD; it has to
measure off a pre-flash from a gray shutter curtain, and then predict the
imaging exposure based on that guess.  The film cameras actually measure the
imaging flash off the film during the actual exposure.

Nikons film cameras are superb for TTL and fill flash.  My D1H requires
constant manual compensation.  It also give very different results with D
and non-D lenses, also unlike the film cameras that give great results with
either.

The D1 is for action, not art.  For action like sports and news this is not
a problem, since you are only going to run on-camera flash anyway, and in a
studio strobes are manual anyway.

respectfully submitted,
KenRockwell.com




From: Ken kence@idworld.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: DOF "overrated"?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 


antispam@ftc.gov wrote:
>
> As more new photographers cut their teeth with digitals, the whole idea of
> depth of field may become a mute point.  That's because (for now) the size
> of the sensor and the optics are more Minox format-like than 35mm or
> certainly MF.  There is almost no way to achieve the "isolation" found when
> a camera can be set to capture narrow depth of field.

This is true to a point. As I recall, the old box cameras of yesteryear
had a deep DOF. I don't think the DOF concept will disappear with digital.
At least not at the professional level. The pro and advanced amateur will
always find a way to set his work apart from the consumer level of
mediocrity.

I've noticed that one of the big deals in digital image manipulation is
the ability to cut the subject out of the background and paste it into a
new one in addition to applying various blurring techniques. I'm sure
this technology will only improve with time.

Check out the VariFocus Filter plugin at:
http://www.adobe.com/store/plugins/pages/varifocus.html
--
 Ken, Pookie and Sammy




From: NNdzNyUw.5.stripes@cannon.net (Josh Osborne)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 17-35/2.8 AFS Nikkor vs. Wide Angle Primes
Date: 23 Feb 2002 

>It is difficult to create such a large chip without flaws.  24mm
>by 36mm is a huge chip and I doubt that one will ever exist.

Ever?

Let me get this straight, you claim not that they won't be cheap, but
that nobody can make one?

Hmmmmm, try looking at http://www.sinarbron.com/sinarback.htm
You'll see a 24x36mm CCD on a Sinar medium format camera back.

You can also look here http://www.phootos.com/digiflex2.htm
which looks like a 24x36mm imaging area used out of a 40mm by 40mm
CCD.


It looks like the ALPA12 is another one http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/digital.htm

How did I find them?  I typed "24x36mm CCD" into google and looked
at the results (well some of 'em at least).

>  Plus,
>the larger the chip then the fewer that can be produced from each
>wafer and the more that will be flawed.

That I believe, but that just drives prices up.

>I suspect that we will
>keep seeing greater resolution out of the same size chips.  But,
>one never knows.  Perhaps new manufacturing techniques will change
>everything and we will be seeing 200x300mm large-format chips soon.

Could be.  40mm by 40mm in a medium format back must seem more
limiting then the APS sized imagers in a 35mm body...
--




From: "David Kieltyka" daverk@msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Future of Lens Mounts & Image Formats
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002


Tommy Huynh tommyphuynh@yahoo.com wrote:

> As digital SLR bodies evolve, what are the chances that manufacturers
> will change their lens mounts and/or image formats??
>
> If they go to a new smaller image format, it will allow:
>
> 1) Less expensive imagers.
>
> 2) Smaller format sizes allow for smaller, lighter, faster, and less
> expensive lenses.

Three words here: depth of field. Current digicams have too damn much of it.
Great for snapshots, not so great for creative blurring. I didn't buy an
85mm f/1.4 lens for my SLR because I wanted everything in focus!  The
greater DOF is partly a result of the slow lenses used in most digicams but
is ultimately governed by the smaller imaging area of a typical
consumer-level CCD or CMOS chip compared with a 35mm (36x24mm) frame.

-Dave-






From: NickC n-chen@mediaone.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002


Meryl, while on the one hand there appears to be a growing market of
digital users, there is also a diminishing market consisting of
ex-users of digital cameras who have gone back to film and have either
sold their digicams or have them up for consignment sale. We read much
about the growing market and little to nothing about or from ex-users.
I suppose the little we've heard from ex-users is because it would
mostly be via word of mouth or seeing used digicams on store shelves
that are up for consignment sales.

>From much of the information that has crossed my path, I gather it's
not that the digicam its self that is generally considered a poor
product. It appears that after using the digicam off-and-on for a
period of time, users get somewhat disgruntled with having to print
through their computers; often times the print does not match what is
seen on the monitor or there are print ink striation's causing one to
have to make prints over and over again, oh, a number of things that
cause the occasional digicam picture taker to become frustrated. As
much as I hear (oftentimes within this ng) that digicam pictures are
considered free, I have yet to hear such a statement from those who
have become frustrated with their digicams. No one has yet to provide
me with free photo paper that I must use to print my digitized
pictures or free ink cartridges offset the increased costs associated
with greater use of ink cartridges.

While photographing beach scenes (a couple of weeks ago) a fellow
inquired about my equipment. During the course of conversation he told
me he once had a digicam that internally deteriorated after much use
at the beach and would never go back to using a digicam. He didn't
elaborate and tell me the extent of damage, only that salt air didn't
go well with his digicam. I have used my F5 and S90s' at the
beach/pier/waterfront for a long time and have yet to have a problem
with my cameras or film.

Although I freely float between digital pictures and film prints,
frankly, at this moment in time, I can't see a horizon where it can be
truthfully said that digicams have killed film. I can't even come up
with a self convincing excuse that I 'need or can use' a digicam so
that I can at least think that an expenditure of four to five thousand
dollars (so I can use my stock pile of lenses) is justified. Speaking
for myself, I'm indifferent to digicams; I can live with them or
without them, but I certainly don't need one. However, as a true photo
hobbyist I do recognize the need to have a camera, so I'll just hang
loose an enjoy using my film cameras that allow me to straddle both
photo formats using a wide variety of readily available film. :)

Nick






From: "David Kieltyka" daverk@msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Future of Lens Mounts & Image Formats
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002


Josh Osborne  wrote:

> When you say digicams are you including or excluding the DSLRs
> that only have a somewhat greater DOF then 35mm film (i.e. the
> ones where f/1.4 on a 50mm lens isn't enough DOF to get both the
> eyes in focus in a 3/4 pose).

I had in mind point & shoot digicams but the same comment (too much
depth-of-field at a given aperture) applies--to a lesser extent because the
imaging chips are larger--to cameras like the Canon D30, Nikon D1x, etc.

> Acutally a lot of the consumer digicams have quite fast lenses.
> My ELPH has a f/2 or f/2.8 lens I think. Quite fast for a zoom.
> It also doesn't have to be any sharper then the 2.1Mp CCD
> can resolve, so they got to save money there. (alright f/2 isn't
> a "quite fast" lens, but it is by no means slow!)

This is true...the lenses are getting faster and that's good. The problem is
that depth-of-field with a 14mm lens at f/2.0 (my digicam's equivalent in
angle-of-view to a 70mm lens in 35mm format) is still pretty substantial. I
use my digicam stopped down at its widest setting most of the time for this
reason. If I can't minimize DOF I might as well play to the camera's
strengths and maximize it!

What I'd like to see eventually is a 6x6cm CCD or CMOS chip designed for
medium format cameras. It would have an adjustable aspect ratio so you could
choose to shoot horizontally, vertically or square without having to move
the camera or rotate the back.

-Dave-





From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The Sharpest Lens
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002


Digital might be HERE but it isn't THERE....yet! Despite the exaggerated
claims and impossible hyperbole the disadvantages far outweigh any benefits.
Don't think, however, that I have never owned or used a digital camera. I
have been involved with digital since the early days of the Logitech
Photoman and went through all the HELL of travelling with digital and NEVER
AGAIN so... about a year ago I dumped ALL of my digital gear and have
returned 100% to film and I have never regretted the decision. But the
digital world has not changed and they have been claiming equality with 35mm
since the 2 megapixel days and now, when they have just barely reached 6
megapixels (at APS size) are claiming parity with medium format.

I'm afraid that it is the digital users who constantly troll on film
newsgroups attempting to spark arguments. Have you seen the recurring "FILM
is dead!!" and "FILM is REALLY Dead!!" threads? They were not started by
disgruntled Leica users. One of these arguments NEVER starts until a digital
user comes along to get it going. You don't see film users bothering to post
on digital NGs...it just isn't important enough since film has nothing to
prove!

...
>  Disparaging it and it's users
> doesn't validate the relevance and usefulness of 35mm.





From: "Joseph S. Wisniewski" jwisniew@visteon.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fuji has just announced a rather interesting SLR
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002


Lewis Lang wrote:

> Pardon me for making a "dumb observation" but... wouldn't it make sense for a
> digi SLR manufacturer to either make a lens adapter (either add-on or
> incorporated somehow into the body itself) that would turn the digi camera w/
> less than a full sized sensor into being able to use the lenses at equivalent
> full sized magnification ie. 1x.... Sort of a wide angle/demagnifier adapter
> instead of the tele adapters that are commonly used to adapt manual lenses to
> AF cameras. Just a (1x) thought...

Astronomers call these "Focal Reducers". They're quite common with
astro-photographers, mostly to gain an extra stop or two (even 3 sometimes) from
the scope. They're available in T-mount from most scope manufacturers.

I've always wanted one for my 35mm. Most lenses 35mm lenses are produce a nice
image circle at least 43mm in diameter. A 0.55x focal reducer would let me use my
20mm (94 degree) and 14mm (114 degree) wide angles to do circular wide angle
architectural shots that should be simply breathtaking.

I've also thought about achieving the same effect by taking an old 6x4.5 body,
shortening it, and giving it a Nikon mount. I can't see needing an SLR
viewfinder if I'm doing super wide work. Focusing should be easy, too.

Ciao!

Joe





From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: More misinformation - was - RE: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)

Hi Mark,

> Even if you use RVP
> film in your
> hassleblad you cannot get the quality of the new digital, and whatever you
> get with a drum scan from film is going to be three times the
> file size with
> less image information than a born-digital file.

That is an entirely incorrect statement.

> Most people
> can't afford a
> lot of drum scans, and the 4000 dpi slide scanners for the medium format
> film cannot compare with a born digital file."

And that is equally as incorrect a statement.

A 4000SPI scanner scanning 6x6 film gives you 100M pixels (not bytes, that
would be 300M bytes at 24 bits/pixel), and any film 160 ASA or slower, with
proper development and exposure has a lot more to go.

Now, I'm not saying one NEEDS that much data, but to say film gives "less
image information" is not true.

I shoot both digital and film in my Hasselblad.  The scanning backs are the
best digital has to offer, and they do a great job...but...they aren't as
good as film, period, as far as image quality goes.  The one shot backs
aren't near as good at image quality, and their color is quite a bit worse
than the scanning backs.


Who on earth made that original statement?  The person hasn't a clue what
they are talking about WRT what film has as far as image information.

And we're not even talking about the image degradation when using the Bayer
pattern (which ALL the one shot backs do, except ones that use the new
Foveon chip...and that's another story unto it self)...the fact that you
only get ~30% of the color information, since 1/4th of the sensors of a one
shot sensor are only one color (except green which is %50)...

Austin




From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: "aranda1984" stephen@aranda4.com
Subject: Film Versus Digital, ... The last word....

Hi Group.

To stop all future arguments on this issue, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/Minolta/message/43927

Robert Monaghan posted this thread and it is the best and most to the
point on this issue.

Thank you Robert.

Stephen I. Molnar





From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002

Mxsmanic wrote:

> So?  A PhaseOne one-shot digital back for a Hasselblad costs around
> $23,000, but it is more than 4000x4000 pixels, and the image is
> full-frame and 16 bits deep, with 12 stops of dynamic range.  Not really
> that bad a deal, all things considered.

What is this full-frame MF digital back? Last i know is that sensors are
still way short of being full-frame!
I know two current Phase-One digital backs, the 6 MP Lightphase and the 16
MP H20. The Lightphase's sensor measures 24x36 mm, the H20's sensor is 36,9
mm square. Hardly full-frame, is it? You must still be thinking 35 mm
format... ;-)




Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here


Mxsmanic wrote:

> Even so, my original point still stands:  Since digital backs are
> readily available for the Hasselblad, why would an increase in the use
> of digital photography have any effect on the company (aside perhaps
> from lower sales of film magazines)?
>
> Even at 4080x4080, the digital backs dramatically exceed the performance
> of 35mm digital cameras.

I think something that may not be considered is a move to video. Sales of
DV camcorders have increased. In the US, many professional MF users do
weddings, and quite a few weddings are going towards video, rather than
strictly photos. Another trend is the reportage style of wedding
photography, which many can accomplish better with 35 mm gear. Just one
possible scenario.


Photos used to go to service bureaux for scanning. The transition amongst
some photographers has been to acquire good scanning gear, and bypass the
service bureau. Clients are often grateful for the speed, and often lower
cost, as well as the one-stop-shopping style of service. Similar to this
development, digital is replacing Polaroids for proofing.

Many photography clients want the instant gratification of digital, and
some are even starting to ask for it. This has more to do with education
than reality. There is a perception amongst the public that digital is the
next great thing, and that the latest technology should be used to do their
work. Most of the working pros I know get asked by clients if they shoot
digital, and want the images available in some kind of digital format. The
other issue related to this is a perception of fast turnaround due to the
use of digital, which somewhat ignores file preparation and colour
correction time.

Digital can save hours, in some cases, but this can lead to other problems.
I know several photographers that have been asked by clients "What kind of
camera do I need to buy to do photos like you did?", which completely
ignores the skills of the photographer. This may be more noticeable in
California, but photography is not fast food, and everyone cannot just do
it themselves. However, this perception, fuelled by marketing, is growing.

Digital is here to stay, but I find it difficult to believe that it is
replacing traditional photography. People who comment that way often quote
the sales increase percentages. A bigger picture view shows that unit sales
are still below traditional film cameras unit sales. In fact, the Photo
Marketing Association has recently commented that bundling may be the only
way to increase digital sales, and sales of printers, and supplies. This is
because their research has shown that many digital camera owners do not
print their images (or print few images). The vast majority of digital
sales are not going to pros, and are mostly the lower end equipment. Sony
has become one of the biggest sellers in the US.

Sorry if this seems like ranting, but there is a ways to go before any of
us will really know how this goes in the future. I am glad that as long as
someone can make money from selling film, we will continue to have film. I
am also sure that large, low cost, digital capture chips will appear, and I
think will become just as common with professional photographers as
PhotoShop is now, but not this year.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com






From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
Subject: Re: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)

Mark,

"Are things this bad everywhere..?"

- Not at all.  Scandinavia, possibly the part of the world with the
relatively highest sales of digital equipment to pro photographers
(according to a newspaper org. magazine), sales of Hasselblad is going
well. They are just excellent together with the new Kodak pro backs (and
other excellent digital backs). Surely, the weight of new equipment
investments among pros might have been into digital stuff lately,
possibly with marginal effect on buying of new cameras and lenses.

Analog large format is not dead at all.  Nor is digital established as a
high end quality provider yet (- whatever the digital shooters say). A
good example is a news interview given by the the author of a picture
book on the royal wedding here in Norway last year.  She claimed that
'hardly any' of the 'digital picture raw material' made it to the book
'since they were not good enough'.  It hit the 'digital photo gear
miljeu' here in Norway as a bomb-shell and quieted down the digital v
analog debate for quite a while.

My neighbour daughter is studying 'media' in England and had a chance to
attend a shooting of a whiskey commercial for TV.  Imagine, some ice
cubes are thrown into a glas of whiskey and cascades the fluid around:
The 'whiskey' was glycerine with artificial colour, the ice cubes, some
specially made plastic cubes. One should think that this would be a
typical 'digital application', but no.  The camera?  A 23 x 23 cm ex.
spy camera from the Vietnam war, the only one of it's kind for
commercial use, speeded up to double speed, - with an enormous use of
'special made Kodak film', some two pallets of it, as a result.  This
was the only tool that could give the 'very high resolution', - for a 28
-to 32 inch TV screen, demanded of the whiskey destillery. The heat from
the lamps illuminating the sceene forced the crew to 'run about half
naked', my neighbor's daughter claimed (what is she attending, over
there??) after half a days work.

As for AF, it is a matter of price and cost efficiency. For
action-shooting it might give you a small advantage, but it is obvious
(through tests and experience) that AF gives only marginally more sharp
pictures than 'the old manual way'.

Of the same reason as many, I changed to AF (from Canon FD ot EOS/EF)
because of having problems focusing when my eye sight grew worse when
passing 50.  What was really good about the change was the much brighter
view finders of the EOS3 to the old A1. 'Bad focusing' has NEVER been a
problem with my Hasselblad shooting after changing to Accute Matte
screen. Deffinately the strong point with the new 200-series is just
'very bright viewfinders'; the absolutely the most important thing if
you want to focus right.

Much is 'focused' (sic) on AF speed, these days. Reliablility should be
more of an issue.  Tests (Dimage Chasseur) show that both Canon and
Nikon, - and the best of them, really haven't that much more 'AF
reliability' than you would manage yourself.  In the most simple of
applications, it is closer to 50% than they would like to tell you. That
is 'focusing-accuracy by flipping a coin'!  It is in 'some' extreme
action-situation that AF do really get better, - sometimes.

Still; the market wants AF and Hasselblad (or rather Carl Zeiss) do
indeed have it up their sleaves. The obstacle (like all camera producers
have to face) is to bring it to the market to a price that the customers
are willing to pay for it.  Obviously (and as confirmed with Nikon and
Canon), if you are going to provide AF 'to the same price as manual',
you have to sacrefice something else; like resolution power or 'general
sturdiness' (which is all to high for most Hasselblad/Carl Zeiss
products anyway).  So, what we are going to get is new Carl Zeiss AF
lenses and ditto camera bodies with a 'life expectancy' of 10 - 15 years
to that of 35 years + + today.  That would be the most profitable
solution.  Much cheaper digital backs is on it's way too.  There will be
several on the market next year to 'about 5000 dollars' as well as even
better 'high end/high price' tools.

I think digital is a immense step forward in photography, but I am not
at all sure that AF is.

Tom of Oslo




Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
From: stanman2171@hotmail.com (Stan Randle)


Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com wrote:

> >> Plus in B&W digital prints just don't look anything
> >> like them.
> >
> > If you use special inks and drivers, the results look virtually
> > identical to chemical prints, but that is quite a special set-up.
>
> "Virtually identical" to who? The same people who claim they get
> "grainless" 16X20's from 35mm and that digital cameras look just as good as
> film cameras?
>
> Or maybe just the person who doesn't look closely at prints and accepts it
> as -good enough- because they can't do chemical prints?


I've used Cone inks on a variety of papers, and my experience, as well
as that of numerous other photographers, including professionals (and
one camera store owner -- who specializes in selling piezo inks) is that
piezo and similar systems do not and cannot currently match the deep
blacks one gets from darkroom b&w work. the look is different, not
necessarily worse, but for someone who knows what a good b&w darkroom
print looks like, it is clear that inkjets cannot match good darkroom
prints for deep black.




From: "joeomar" joeomar@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: If Medium format really is dying from digitalis
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 


Digital photography led me to MF.  I've owned 35mm for years, but I didn't
really get turned on to photography until I got a digital camera and
Photoshop and learned how to use them.

For an amateur without a darkroom, film is SUCH a hassle.  Buy it, drop it
off for processing, pick it up, drop off the "best" pic for 8x10
re-printing, and pick THAT up.  Digitally, I can do all that in 10 minutes.
The first summer I owned a digital camera I took ten times more pictures
than the previous ten years I owned a 35mm.  THAT's how I got hooked on
photography, which inevitably led me to want the higher quality MF can
provide.

I keep hearing digital teaches "bad" photography.  The user takes thousands
of photos, throws most of them away, and doesn't learn how to carefully
compose a picture.  Frugality requires the film photographer to put a lot
more care behind each photo, which teaches "better" photography.

I don't agree. Digital photography HAS allowed me to take thousands of
pictures and experiment in ways that would have taken me years with film.  I
've thrown away thousands of pictures and in the process learned a great
deal about how to translate what I see into a photograph. In fact I view the
world around me in a whole new way.  I now take far LESS pictures and my
"hit rate" (pictures I keep) has gone WAY up. It would have taken me forever
to reach this level with film.  The way to improve is to take LOTS and LOTS
of pictures.  That's why photographers get better with experience.  The
digital camera is one of the greatest learning tools in photography.

Which leads me back to MF.  I can't stand looking at my gorgeous digital
photograph, wishing I could blow it up to 20x30, I simply HAD to move up.  I
'll also keep my PC and get a film scanner, AND I'll send negatives out to
be printed.  None of this stuff is mutually exclusive.  Heck, I may set up a
wet darkroom too someday.  And another little consumer for the photo
industry is born.


I think I may be part of a new wave for MF.  The accessibility to
photography that digital is providing to the amateur will lead serious users
to "moving up".  More so than 35mm, since it's a bigger leap in quality from
digital than from 35mm.

"Temporary60" temporary60@aol.com wrote ...
> >There have been a whole series of posts on MF death.
> >Roll film sales are falling, but does that mean that MF body sales can
> >be expected to weaken.
> >Most MF cameras have changeable backs, so somebody moving to digital can
> >add an MF back to their collection. And add a 1G back when their 45M
> >becomes too restrictive.
> >
> >What am I missing?
> >
> Well, I for one, have increased my MF usage since going to digital.  If my
> digital camera doesn't have the resolution capability for the size of output
> that I want, I use MF instead.  I then have the option of using my own digital
> darkroom, or using the wet lab down the street.
>
> In effect, my digital camera has replaced my 35mm (except for fast action
> shots), and higher quality shots are taken with MF.
>
> --Wayne




Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: If Medium format really is dying from digitalis


Your path exactly parallels mine.

My father has been into photography, as a hobby and professionally, for
as long as I can remember (all 35mm).  I liked photography too, for
years, until the inconvenience of film development and printing finally
got to me.  I was especially disappointed that all I had was tiny
prints, and they _never_ looked as good as I expected them to (I know
today that this was all the fault of labs, but at the time it didn't
dawn on me), and this no matter how much I spent on equipment.

A couple of years ago, however, I decided to try again, in digital.  I
got a little digital camera and had great fun, taking all sorts of
pictures.  I eventually upgraded to a better camera, and then to a still
better camera (a Nikon Coolpix 950, the state of the art at the time).
But by then I was hooked on photography again, and I wanted more--like
you, I couldn't blow up images very much, and they were too small to
sell to many potential buyers.  People would like a photo and ask for a
print, and would then complain when they saw how fuzzy the enlargements
were.


So I pulled out the old 35mm stuff and started with that.  I first
scanned one-hour prints.  The results were abysmal, but this time it
occurred to me that it _had_ to be the lab--no camera can wash out
colors in the way I saw on some of the worst prints I got.  So I decided
to invest in a 35mm film scanner instead.  The difference was like night
and day--now _that's_ the kind of quality I had in mind!  I got some
better lenses, and then a better body, and then a better scanner, and so
on.  I filled out my Nikon equipment, then added Leica.  Very nice
results.

I finally got to the point where the limitations of 35mm were becoming
visible, in terms of resolution and grain.  I wanted still larger,
sharper scans.  By this point (very recently), there was a lot of pro
digital stuff starting to come onto the market, like the D1x.  Going pro
digital would easily cost $10,000 or more; and consumer digital just
wouldn't cut it.  That's when I looked at MF, and made the fateful
calculation:  MF offers 3.6x the quality of 35mm for half the price of a
digital system offering 0.7x the quality.  So the choice was easy, and I
picked medium format.  And this calculation was made with Hasselblad in
mind--even with 'blad equipment, it is _still_ half the price of
digital, or some _five times_ cheaper in terms of quality vs. price.
For someone buying less expensive equipment, the advantage is more like
50 to 1.

It's going to be a while before digital comes anywhere close to MF,
especially if no breakthroughs in imaging technology occur.  Now all I
need is a scanner good enough to extract the information from MF, but
that will come.

As for digital, I pretty much abandoned that several years ago.  I
almost never take the CP950 out of the bag, unless I need a quick shot
or two RIGHT NOW.  I suspect that's what motivates a lot of pros, too.
Fortunately, speed is far less of an issue in amateur photography, and
it isn't necessary in most types of pro photography, either (but the
types that generate the most volume for vendors also seem to be the most
speed-dependent).

And a final consideration is that a Hasselblad can always take a digital
back, if there are ever any full-frame digital backs available that can
truly rival film resolution, so a switch to digital in MF would preserve
the great majority of a photographer's equipment.  (Compare this to 35mm
digital, where any change requires buying a new body.)





Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium format dying from digitalis
From: stanman2171@hotmail.com (Stan Randle)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002


Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
> My bet is that sales of LF film and MF film are hurt a lot by digital
> shooters, who have to be large volume users to justify $15-25,000 backs
> and $50k setups, and to save $10-25k in film costs in 6 to 12 months
> depreciation cycles as many claim. That's a lot of film; mostly catalog
> and volume shooters.

Aside from some product photography where large format still rules (eg
cars, jewelry, some foods), catalog shooters have saved much time and
money by going digital, or adding digital to their studios. Digital
provides clients with acceptable quality, faster turnaround, and even
lower prices. I personally know of numerous instances in the last 36
months in which catalog shooters (still only shooting film) lost sales
when undercut in price by pros using digital outfits whose prices
reflected faster shoot times (making them able to shoot for more
clients). Ultimately, the fact that clients find it of acceptable
quality is what matters, and most catalog clients are finding digital
shots to be acceptable.


Digital cameras and backs are also making inroads in fashion (where
digital touch-ups have been the norm for several years), and have
assumed a large role in event and portrait photography (proms, malls,
cruises, conventions - everything but weddings). The use of software
like Genuine Fractals helps to make even 12x16 35mm digital prints (or
larger) look acceptably good to clients who in the past might have
wanted MF. Even Monte Zucker  is happily using digital of late
- one of his recent SHUTTERBUG article deals with his experiences
shooting digitally.

MF film dominates in a few areas like fashion and nature (and some
travel work), where it continues to occupy a sweet-spot for many in the
tradeoffs between quality and weight (and portability and price). But
given recent technological developments, it's foolish to think this
dominance will necessarily remain. Just as digital has killed off most
35mm film cameras for photojournalists in industrialized countries (more
than acceptable quality for newsprint, plus ease & speed of
uploading/editing), it is now killing off chunks of the MF film
business. MF camera makers have responded by making many new camera
bodies digiback-friendly, but there's little film manufacturers can do.

The pace of technological change alongside a drop in digital camera/back
prices have been swifter than most people suspected. By the end of 2003
we'll probably see the first 6MP 35mm camera bodies for under US $1,000.
In the next few years we'll almost certainly see a significant
contraction in the overall film market, and then in the availability of
currently available emulsions -- both of which have already begun. When
the makers of film begin reducing availability of MF emulsions (already
a small subset of what is available for 35mm), combined with the greater
affordability and quality of digital MF backs, we'll likely see more
than a gradual shift from MF film.

MF film-based shooting certainly won't die off completely, but ten years
from now it will almost certainly be a shadow of what it is today.





Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: If Medium format really is dying from digitalis

"Temporary60" temporary60@aol.com wrote...
> Well, I for one, have increased my MF usage since
> going to digital.  If my digital camera doesn't have
> the resolution capability for the size of output
> that I want, I use MF instead.

I decided to go MF _instead_ of digital.  With digital, I can pay $8000
for 70% of the quality of 35mm; with MF, I can pay half that much for
360% of the quality of 35mm.  The choice was pretty easy to make.





From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1534

Keeble and Shuchat Photography in Palo Alto CA, the second largest
Hasselblad dealer on the US west coast (Sammy's in LA is the largest) quit
taking consignment gear (any gear) two years ago. The reason was that it
was way too time consuming keeping track of everything and then trying to
contact the owner when something sold. So they stopped cold turkey. Has
absolutely nothing to do with the economy or digital vs film.

At KSP, the digital department is right opposite the professional film
cameras. Their last store wide sale, before Christmas, "professional" film
gear out sold digital (both pro and amateur digital combined.) No one
thought this would happen as the digital counter is always crowded with
people compared to the pro film counter.


It just goes to show you that you cannot predict what will happen next.
People read too much into what so-in-so said. Too much hearsay. Film and
digital will coexist for a very long time. On one of my entry way walls I
have a 48"x60" LF print. That's 4'x5'. It looks like you can walk right in
to it. You can put your nose on it and it still looks real. It is dead
sharp! You would be impossible to do this with a digital camera. And will
be for a long time. On another wall I have a 50"x50" Hasselblad print. Same
thing goes.

Jim





From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Breaking the 100 Megapixel Barrier
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002

> "brian" brianc1959@aol.com wrote ...
> > I think others may have succeded in getting larger stitched mosaics,
> > but this is new territory for me.  Max Lyons (
> > http://cgibin.rcn.com/maxlyons/ ) recently found a bug in the Panorama
> > Tools sourcecode that was preventing me from stitching anything larger
> > than about 65 megapixels.  Now my upper limit is somewhere between 100
> > and 170 megapixels.  I think I might do better with an operating
> > system upgrade.
> >
> > At 100 megapixels the image quality should equal or better what you
> > can achieve with 8x10" film using a lens stopped down to f/45 or f/64,
> > which are normal working apertures with this format.  8x10" scanned at
> > 1000dpi is only 80 megapixels.


While your method is impressive (on multiple levels, including
getting the detail, the seams, and brightness levels apparewntly
perfect).   I am very impressed, but this does not equate to
large format film in my experience.

My experience shows 4x5 velvia at f/45 is greater than 200 megapixels
digital equivalent.  For evidence, I have two web pages:

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/sampling1.htm
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

Here I show that you need 2 to 3 times the diffraction spot size
to get the fine detail that makes large format images so impressive.
At f/45 that is >~ 3000 dpi scans, giving >600 megabyte files
of ~12,000 x 16,000 pixels.

With 8x10, you double that: ~24,000 x 32,000 pixels and >2 gbyte
files!


Your mosaic is equivalent to medium format in my opinion and
experience.

I don't mean to degrade your achievement--it is very impressive.
Large pixel image mosaics will simply get easier with the coming
generations of 6+ megapixel cameras.  I often find myself
out somewhere or without enough time to set up 4x5 (or 8x10)
and I'll snap off an array of 35mm frames to get as much
detail as I can.

But is takes a lot of time to assemble these mosaics--if you have
the camera and time, it is much easier in the long run to get the
large format image at the source!  Just my opinion.

Roger Clark




Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 
From: vtvincent@prodigyCLOTHES.net (VT)
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Breaking the 100 Megapixel Barrier

 brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote:
>By the way, I just read on one of your pages that you estimate a 35mm
>film image is equivalent to a 43.6megapixel digital image.  Perhaps
>I'm misinterpreting you, but I've put together quite a few digital
>images in the 30-50 megapixel range, and I've never seen any 35mm
>image that can come even remotely close to this by any measure of
>technical image quality.


I've enjoyed and read both your and Roger's posts with interest on
this thread.

This last paragraph has been controversial since the advent of digital
photography.

I think after all the calculations - it does come down to the eye of
the beholder - but calculations can and do give us a kind of
indication of the ballpark levels digital needs to achieve to match
and surpass film.

I have used 3 quality criteria to play with these calculations -

(1) ultimate (but practical) resolution (only) of 35mm film/lens
combo.  I used 100lp/mm as a good target - this would yield
100*2*36 x 100*2*24 = 7200 x 4800 = 34.56 Mp
close to Roger's figure - but this does not take into account any of
the other photographic attributes such as grain, contrast, color,
dynamic range - this is based purely on resolution - and we know
resolution alone does not equal photo quality.

(2) Practical real world resolution - this is closer to 50lp/mm at the
35mm film plane realitstically for a good lens/film combo - this
results in 1/4 the pixel count from above = 8.64Mp

(3) Print quality standard - if we use a 10x8 as the limit for 35mm -
and the old 6lp/mm on paper as the print quality criteria we end up with -
10*25.4*6*2 x 8*25.4*6*2 = 3048 x 2438 = 7.43 Mp
(to allow for the 3:2 aspect ratio a 35mm frame would actually give a
12x8 print - so the pixel count could be as high as 8.9Mp)

(note I do realize that 35mm film is quite capable of being enlarged
far beyond 10x8 - but I use this size since it is the largest size
that's likely to be handheld and come under close scrutiny - larger
prints tend to be viewed at much larger distances and artifacts such
as grain and break up of the image are more "forgivable" for that
size)

This actually conincides neatly with the 300ppi digital print criteria -
10*300 x 8*300 = 3000 x 2400 = 7.2Mp
(allowing for a 3:2 aspet ratio - 12x8 print from a 35mm frame this is
now 8.64Mp - Note - this figure is the same as the one derived from
using 50lp/mm criteria of 35mm film)

(4) Higher quality print criteria - Leica have used 8lp/mm on paper
for their print quality criteria - this is probably more applicable
for the arbitary 10x8 print size limit I used - this would yield
10*25.4*8*2 x 8*25.4*8*2 = 4064 x 3251 = 13.21Mp
(using 3:2 aspct ratio for a 12x8 print from 35mm film this is now 15.86Mp)
Just FYI this is about the same as using 400ppi for digital prints -
10*400 x 8*400 = 12.8Mp (3:2 aspect ratio for 12x8 print = 15.36Mp)

I think for real world practical usage probably 8Mp would satisfy most
photographers - but for more demanding and critical (like scientific)
usage one may need those higher pixel counts to match film's current
resolution characteristics.

Note this post is only using resolution - but there are other areas
that digital could do with improvement like in color gamut >24-bit
color (48-bit would be nice for smoother color graduation and
transition) better dynamic range better than the average 5-stops, film
can do over 10-stops.

However just so that this is not merely another MegaPixel race -
I note that the digicam industry seems to have settled at 2Mp for
consumer point & shoots - eg: with the third generation of the best
selling Canon Digital ELPHs in the S200 and S330 - despite the easily
attainable 3 or  4 or even 5Mp chips Canon have stuck to 2Mp for these
brand new cameras -

This 2Mp kind of makes sense (I had posted a thread about why 2Mp is
"good enough") since this size/resolution is more than adequate for
images destined for the web or e-mail use - but the image is still
capable producing excellent 6x4 (5.33"x4") sized print at 300ppi -
with careful upsampling and adjustments it can still produce
"acceptable"/resspectable 10x7.5" prints - although not "stellar" or
anywhere near exhibition quality - one need not be ashamed of them
either - so probably "good enough" for most snap shooters... and even
me for now, until >7Mp arrives at an affordable price.

--
Vincent
http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/




Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002
From: "Sherman Dunnam" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Breaking the 100 Megapixel Barrier

...
I read in the B&W digital output group that Kodak has "officially" stated
that for all practical purposes (accounting for grain etc.) 35mm film has
about 20MP of information per frame.  That number can of course be lower for
certain film types.

Since they have a little experience making pretty decent film and have some
experience with digital imaging I'm inclined to believe them.

Sherman




From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Doomsayers, Part 2
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002


TDuffy8486 wrote:
> Ultimately, he said, advances in digital photography may do for its
> chemical counterpart what the printing press did to the handwritten
> manuscript in the 1400s.


Something we were discussing is how digital photography has changed the
look of photographs. No longer do you get the selective DOF that fast
lenses on larger formmats can create, you get these everything is in focus
boring snap shots just like a P&S camera can produce with it's f45 zoom
lens. You have no choice as the sensors are so small and the lenses so
short, there is no way to recreate the selective focus the human eye has.
Until the sensors get large enough to be able to use this important tool,
I'm not interested..
--
  Stephe




[Ed. note: stuff adds up...]
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Scanner for medium format

"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl a écrit 
> An Imacon costs at least twice the amount
> of money you need to part with to get a Nikon.

I hope it provides twice the quality, then.


I just sacrificed many months of rent to get myself a Nikon 8000ED, and I
did my first scans today.  They are very, very nice!  Now I have to
_downsample_ to fit images on A3-sized prints!  I suppose the 8000ED isn't a
FlexTight, but it sure does a beautiful job, even better than the LS-2000
did with 35mm, and the LS-2000 was a star player in its day (and it still
does a good job for me, on 35mm work).  I've been told that I really need
the glass film carrier to get best results (it's on order), but even the
standard carrier is doing a pretty good job, as long as the film I load into
it isn't too curly.

The only problem is the resources hogged by all this.  I had to get a new PC
with Windows XP just to drive the scanner, and even with more than 1 GB of
RAM it is just barely sloshing along with 120-film scans.  I can add 256 MB
more for a total of 1.5 GB, and I'll probably do that tomorrow (that's as
high as it will go--inexpensive PCs don't provide enough slots to go really
high on RAM).  The processor seems to keep up okay, though (1.8 GHz AMD
something-or-other).

If I ever manage to sell any of these images that I'm producing, I figure I
can amortize this all by 2051 or so.  It could be worse, however: I would
have spent the same thing on pro digital equipment, but I would have had
five times less image quality for my money.




From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Sales Versus Digital Sales

Roger Wiser at wiserr@cni-usa.com wrote:
> One fourth of the market is an appreciable share  for digital.I wonder how
> competion and technology has affected the digital  lack of profit. I was told
> that Kodak entred  digital rather late.

I don't think that number is right.  Kodak personnel have never claimed such
a high percentage to me.  They've usually guesstimated about 10%, which I
think is closer to the mark.   They were losing $ 75 per camera for a long
time in digital, where market share is considered more important than profit
at this stage.

> It appears that SLR's are losing volume to the P&S's in the consumer market. I
> understand that APS has not met market expectations. We may be on the
> precipice
> of  major change in the consumer camera market .

SLR sales are flat, which is good in this market.  Film point and shoots are
losing ground to digital as digital prices drop.  APS is dead.

Bob




From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 
From: Bernard Cousineau flatbroke@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film Sales Versus Digital Sales

> One fourth of the market is an appreciable share  for digital.I wonder how
> competion and technology has affected the digital  lack of profit. I was told
> that Kodak entred  digital rather late.

I vaguely recall that Kodak was part of a group of companies that started
working on digital imaging for spy satellites in the late 1950's. This was
mentioned in Edwin Land's biography (that I can't seem to find right now, hope
I didn't lend it out).

They also had digital SLR's for sale quite early in the game (a 1994 B&H add I
have here shows one for sale, based on a Nikon F90 body).

On topic: didn't Rollei announce a digital back for the 3003 a few years before
this? I wonder if a working model was ever made.


Kodak also got into the document imaging and scanning fields quite early with
some very worthwhile products.

Of course, "consumer" digital is a whole other ball game, with tiny profit
margins and very little customer loyalty (for now). The one hugely profitable
market on the digital side that Kodak has completely missed-out on is ink.

My local shop tells me that digicams have sucked the wind right out of the
point and shoot market, but that they haven't affected SLR's yet (i.e.: people
who buy a D1 will also own one or several Nikon film bodies). There was a hit on medium and
large format sales as pros (and "advanced amateurs") spent all of their meager
capital budgets on computer gear, but things seem to be improving on that end.
Most local pros have now caught-up on the digital side, so they are able to
spend on film gear again if their business plan justifies it.

Bernard




From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "Graham Philip" grahamphilip@optusnet.com.au
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital Sensor sizes
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Miracle" rwm@photo-miracles.com
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Digital Sensor size

> There is nothing magical about 24x36.   You are not getting "less" because
> of the 1.5x lens factor.    In fact, I typically argue you get more:   You
> get the sweet spot of the glass (less lens distortion).  You get very
> little vignetting, if any.    You get extra reach (taking the resulting
> image and comparing it full frame to the film's full frame).   My 80-200 is
> much more useful.
> I know some people on this list really can't grasp this concept that the
> 1.5X is a benefit, not a hindrance.


I can grasp all the above mentioned concepts quite nicely thank you and I
can see NO benefits in a x1.5 factor for me.

I can *grasp* why some photographers are happy with it (press and wildlife
mainly), I can't *grasp* why the other happy photographers didn't buy longer
focal lengths in the first place if that's what they needed.

The fact is I shoot Architectural, Commercial Real Estate, Aerial, Studio
Advertising & Corporate Work and purchased the range of lenses I need from
20mm through to 200mm, that's equivalent to 30mm to 300mm in D1x land....
looks like there's a bit of a gap at the wide end.

The 1.5x magnification factor is NOT some kind of a bonus, you're NOT
getting something for free, you will actually pay more, lots and lots more
if you *already use wide angles any shorter than about 28mm - THAT IS ONLY
28mm* as you will need to buy superwides to regain your angle of views wider
than this.



Also you in fact pay more for a lens as its' covering power is increased
(all else being equal) so a "smaller image area" is effectively wasting
covering power you have already paid for, lenses are designed for a specific
format, Nikon & Canon digital SLR's are I think unique in having no lenses
designed for them.

The reduction in aberrations is largely irrelevant because (A) Nikon PRO
lenses are adequately corrected - you get what you pay for and (B)
Vingetting
and edge aberrations are most prevalent in wide angle lenses and turning
them into standard lenses with a x1.5 factor is a pretty useless way of
improving their quality.

It appears to me some users who are happy with the x1.5 factor have this
'I'm Alright Jack - You Should Be Too' attitude, worse still they insult the
intelligence of any one who doesn't agree with their opinion.


If more people could *grasp the fact that everyone has different needs* it
might be helpful.

Gidday,

Graham Philip.




From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film is DEAD!
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002

"Josh Osborne" w.5.stripes@recursor.net wrote 
> The number I have is about $1,200 clearly that
> isn't a wet gate print though, plus about $100
> to ship it.

What is a wet gate print?

> According to Lucas only 17 seconds of Star
> Wars I didn't have some sort of digital effect
> (like using on actors from take 4 and the other
> actor from take 7 when they are both on screen
> at once).


>From the commentary I heard and saw on _The Phantom Menace_, the actors
were apparently acting in a blue-screen universe.  Must have been tough
having to imagine everything while acting out a part!

> I also recommend Plesentville because I happen
> to like the movie.

I like it, too.  I understand the prints were really expensive, since
they had to be truly black and white, but on color stock.

> Yep, although a surprising amount of Terminator
> II was done with practical effects.

Half the movie is explosions, so that's no surprise.  And I wasn't
impressed by the effects for the bad guy.  So they've mastered
reflections, so what?


> Oh, and the loss of wide angle lenses in the
> DSLRs (except maybe Contax).

One of the prerequisites for me going digital is having an SLR that will
take all my existing lenses, with _no change_ in focal length.  In other
words, I want a 24x36-mm sensor, not some little bitty one just because
nobody can figure out how to make a sensor 24x36 millimetres in size.
Not only would a large sensor take the same lenses, but it would provide
better resolution with lower noise, too.

> Wait!  I thought you never asked for references?

I don't ask for references that justify a person's opinion, as a general
rule.  But I do ask for references so that I can find further
information.


> Pretty much.  The sound at home is better then
> most theaters (mostly because I adjusted it until
> it sounded right for me).

I don't understand the preoccupation with sound in home theater.  I've
seen lots of home theater set-ups that have incredibly fancy sound
systems, and then use a VHS projector to actually display the film.
Sounds backwards to me.  I'd rather have the picture quality without the
20-speaker sound system.  At least DVD finally brings picture quality up
to the same standards as the sound.

As it is, I usually listen to DVDs with headphones.  A surround-sound
system would disturb the neighbors in my apartment building.

> I go to the theater to be with friends, and once
> in a great while because I don't want to wait
> six months to see the movie on DVD.



Those are the only reasons I can see as well--although there are better
ways to spend time with friends than sitting silently in a darkened
theater, and there are fewer and fewer movies that I just cannot wait to
see on DVD.

Also, the sound systems in just about every theater I've been to are
hugely overcranked.  I actually resort to wearing earplugs sometimes.

> Still I do have to point out that even if 35mm
> motion pictures only have 3Mpixels/frame of data
> a NTSC TV gives you far less, I'm pretty
> sure it is shy of 1 Mpixel/frame.

Dramatically shy, in fact: only about 168,000 pixels!  That's for
broadcast NTSC luminance.  VHS is even worse, at about 110,000 pixels.
This is nearly _fifty times_ less than the best consumer digicams!


DVD does much better, at about 400,000 pixels, but it's still an order
of magnitude less than still digital photographs, and about 15 times
less than what the eye can see (6-10 megapixels).

> Apparently people (including me!) are pretty happy
> with that for motion video.

As long as something is moving, you don't really notice.  Most frames in
motion pictures are blurred, anyway, because of motion blur; but your
brain fills in the details.

As an example, the next time you see a news program in which someone's
face is hidden by one of those mosaic masks, watch the mosaic change as
the face moves.  If the face is moving enough, and if you squint, you'll
find that you can actually recognize the person's face, even with the
mosaic.  Something that producers apparently don't realize!



> I rent a lot of DVDs, but I do buy a lot more
> then I ever bought movies on video tape (well,
> mostly my wife bought video tapes, I never saw
> the point).

I hate to rent stuff that I have to take back and that someone else has
mishandled.  As for VHS tapes, I never bought or rented many to begin
with, but that is all history now.  Rented VHS tapes could clog the
heads of a good VCR in one pass.

> You can only ignore them if you can get rid of
> them.  I think as a result of anti-trust agreements
> movie studios can only sell to distribution houses
> (and they can't own the houses, or be owned by
> the same parent), and theater chains can't buy
> from anyone other then distribution houses in
> most cases.


In that case, what are the distributors worried about?

> Why?  It's just bits.  You don't need to project
> it, you could turn it into a VCD or DVD and sell
> 'em for $5 each six months before the real DVD
> release!

Maybe, but that's a lot of work and bandwidth if you are working from a
professional digital "print"--way harder than copying, say, a consumer
DVD, and since the target is the consumer, most of the effort is wasted.

> Hopefully someone will scan them before they die then.

_My Fair Lady_ has been "restored," but I don't know if this includes
keeping an archived copy of the digital restoration, or just burning the
final result back onto film.  The restorations aren't always that good.


One film that looks beautiful on DVD is _Gone with the Wind_.  It looks
as if it were shot yesterday.

And some of the cleanest DVDs I've seen include kid's stuff like _A
Bug's Life_ (all the digital animation stuff is squeaky clean),
_Madeline_, and _Matilda_ (in which you can easily see the hairs on the
arms of actors).  The cleanest DVDs also tend to be PAL anamorphic
widescreen versions.  I haven't tried any of the Superbit collection
because nothing in their collection is worth having.





From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film is DEAD!
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002


"Josh Osborne" w.5.stripes@gourmet.org wrote 
> Now that you mention it, yes that sounds expensive.

>From what I understand, the real expense was in getting a truly neutral
black and white in a color print.  Without the utmost care, the
exhibition prints would show a color cast that was obvious in the
monochrome sequences of the film.  So apparently it had to be very
carefully processed.


Even the DVD of _Pleasantville_ has a test section for adjusting your TV
to produce clean black and white.  Since my TV is a Sony, though, I
don't need it.

> I was actually thinking more like some of the
> T2 head split in half and the camera pans close
> to it we see the hero framed by the two head
> halves...that was a real split head prop, not
> a CGI head.

Indeed?  I had assumed that anything with the bad terminator in it was
CGI.

> They can make sensors that big (medium format
> digital backs have been using them for a little
> while) ...


But MF would require even larger sensors!

> As long as you don't go for too much more
> resolution, yes bigger sensors is generally
> better for noise.  A lot better.

6000x4000 would be a good start.  Of course, duplicating something like
Tech Pan would require more like 15000x10000 pixels (but it could be
monochrome).

> Having only seen 3 movies in a theater last
> year, and none so far this year, I would have
> to agree.

You are going to the theater at least three times as often as I do.  I'm
not sure that I went to a theater at all last year (I don't remember).
I did watch around 50-90 films or so ... but all on DVD.


> Really?  The eye can only see 6~10 megapixels?

In an image at normal viewing distance, yes.  The resolving power of the
eye is usually around 30-60 seconds of arc.  For an 8x12-inch print held
about 15 inches away ("standard" distance is the diagonal of the image),
this translates to approximately 5200x3500 or 18 megapixels.  In
practice, though, linear resolution is usually around 1 minute of arc,
which comes out to about 5 megapixels.  So that's all you can see.

The only time you need more pixels is if the viewing distance (in
relation to the image size) will be closer (as a poster-size enlargement
viewed from a foot away), or if you plan to aggressively crop and
enlarge (since the resulting cropped enlargement will have to contain at
least 6 megapixels, the original image will have to contain considerably
more).


> Cool, I guess once we hit 10Mpixels all the extra
> pixels are just to allow deeper crops (and to screw
> up the low noise images).

Exactly.  Higher pixel counts allow closer viewing distances, more
aggressive crops, or more headroom for digital manipulation.  That's it.
Trying to make photographers understand this, however, is very, very
difficult, since most of them know very little about the physiology of
human vision.

> Yep, in fact computer animation looks more
> realistic if you simulate the motion blur ...

I've noticed that computer animation simulates blur on individual frames
... along with other photographic effects, like depth of field (infinite
DOF is the default for computer animation, but it is deliberately
simulated as limited DOF so that it looks more like film photography).


Another interesting phenomenon results when television cameras are set
to extremely high shutter speeds, as they occasionally are for
high-speed sports or extremely bright scenes.  All motion blur is
suppressed by the very high speeds (speeds of 1/10000 are easy to
achieve), and the resulting video has a very obvious stroboscopic look
to it, which I find irritating--each image is easy to spot at 30 images
a second.  Letting images blur hides this.

> I'll have to try that.  Better yet maybe I'll
> produce some of my own (I knew iMovie had to be
> good for something...).

The mosaic should not be too coarse and there should be a lot of
movement of the face behind it (turning the head, etc.) for this to
work.  As the head moves, your brain integrates the low-resolution
images of the mosaic and rapidly develops a picture of the face with
much greater detail.

If you look at someone through a glass screen that produces a mosaic,
you can see the same thing.  As long as they don't move, they are hard
to recognize, but as soon as they move, your brain integrates the
low-res images of their face until it can recognize them.

Blurring isn't any better.  The only way to hide a face is to block it
out completely, so not details show through at any level of resolution.

> Sure it is likely harder the copying a consumer
> DVD, but you can grab the movie when it first hits
> the theaters and have the illegal copies ready
> during the second week it is out!  That's a good
> six month jump on the real movie!  Much worse
> then current theft.


I dunno.  The DVD masters are probably ready by the time the movie gets
its initial theater release.  All you need is a dishonest person to get
you those masters, and you're in business.  No need to struggle with
fancy digital-cinema files.  Heck, people who buy pirated stuff have
extremely low standards, so you could even sell them bootlegged VHS and
make money.  Anyone that eager to see a given movie probably has a
problem, anyway.

> Of course, none of that film to get in the way :-)

The only problem is that the digital content isn't necessarily
regenerated for different standards.  For example, the PAL version is
just speeded up from the theatrical version (25 fps vs. 24 fps); the
soundtrack jumps noticeable in pitch and the change in image speed can
be perceptible.  For NTSC, at 30 fps, interpolation is mandatory, so
this isn't a problem.


> I have a few PAL discs, but being in the USA
> that just means they get down sampled into NTSC
> and rate converted, so they are worse then NTSC.
> If I had a PAL TV set that would not be the case.

In Europe television sets routinely accept both PAL and NTSC (and
sometimes SECAM) for local video inputs in composite and S-video, even
the cheap ones.  The fancier ones will take RGB, too.  I understand that
PAL compatibility is extremely difficult to find in the U.S., however.

Likewise, 16/9 TV sets are easy to find in Europe; there are even
inexpensive counter-top models.  In the U.S., apparently only the most
expensive sets provide this aspect ratio.  It makes a _big_ difference
for anamorphic widescreen DVDs, and it helps for letterboxed stuff, too.




From: Guido Vollbeding guido@jpegclub.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: offtopic: How do they use 3 CCDs?
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002


Justin wrote:
>
> > Minolta used the three-CCD approach in the long-discontinued RD-175,
> > and Foveon is using three CMOS sensors in their pricy studio camera
> > (the current model lists for $24,000).
>
> Just out of interest. How do they use the 3 CCDs? Are they like 3 seperate
> CCD chips using a beam splitter? Or is it something else? Is it the same
> case for most multi-CCD devices?

Beware, there are differences!
Minolta indeed used to use 3 CCDs in their RD-175 (aka Agfa ActionCam),
but *not* in the clean R-G-B pixel aligned manner.
They used two "pixel-shifted" green chips and one red-blue-stripe-filtered
chip.  The two green chips are offset horizontally and vertically by half
a pixel size to virtually boost up the resolution (768x494 physical per
chip in the Minolta) by a factor of two in each direction.  This technique
is called "Pixel-Shift" and is also used in some video cameras, for example
the Panasonic MX-300, described below on


  http://www.supervideo.com/mxhome.htm

It is better than the 1-chip CFA (Bayer) approach, because you don't have
the bad holes, but still not as good as a true (not pixel-shifted) 3-chip
system, because the pixel-misalignment just leads to other color artifacts
and unmatched resolution.  See also

  http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9605cs.html

In their RD-175 successor, the RD-3000, Minolta use yet another kind of
hybrid system: "Dual-CCD", i.e. two CCDs.
Of course, all these tricks show up in inferior image quality compared
to a true aligned 3-chip approach.  The *real* resolution is *not*
enhanced by those methods, regardless what the manufacturers marketing
departements claim.  The difference is noticeable.


Regards,
Guido




Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is the likely de-volution of film due to digital


Alan Browne wrote:

> First of all, let us please be polite in this thread.  Thank you.
>
> There will be a narrowing of the market over the next few years or so
> which will result in some films being dropped by Kodji, Fujak Agnika,
> Ilfofa, Konford and others.  It is (IMO) a two poled market: the pros
> who need specific film types and the dedicated-to-film-consumers like
> many of us here on the NG who need "general" film types.

According to many different figured supplied by the industry, consumer
level films are much larger sellers than "Pro" films. AGFA recently dropped
their digital camera division to concentrate on film, and printing
technologies . . . so this is not as clear cut an issue as it may seem.

> I am not going to accept or declare "film is dead" until I can't get it
> anymore (or get it processed for that matter) in a reasonable manner
> (location, cost, quality, wait).  My question is not whether they will
> disappear, but the timing of certain kinds of film disappearing.  (I
> also believe that film will be around for a very long time ... if not
> perfectly conveniently)

Much better viewpoint . . . and opens up a few more issues. Processing of
digital for consumers could be a way to open up that market. Computers
still have a lower market penetration than cameras (digital or film), and
are currently a necessary part of digital imagery. Some companies are
introducing printers that will make photos directly off digital cameras, so
perhaps that will help the market.


Low cost CMOS and CCD construction are fast approaching. This could easily
mean digital image capture in future portable phones, which are much more
likely to spread the technology. Dr. Bob had some interesting figures and
notes about this. My feeling is that the phone market would do little to
impact the camera market, though it could provide some business for photo
production and printing facilities.

There is also a renewed interest in retro style, simplicity, and B/W
photography. Older style traditional cameras are making some resurgence in
the market. I have met many people that see digital cameras as complicated
gadgets, and are now looking at getting a film SLR instead. Though that is
a limited sample rate of individuals, my recent observations in several
large cities shows many more instances of people with P&S, SLRs, and Video
camcorders. I have seen few digital cameras.

The recent Long Beach Motorcycle Show was an excellent example of this. The
people with video camcorders took some still shots, and shot some video. A
few that I asked stated how convenient it was to share with others just by
plugging the camcorder into a television. They did not care about printing
anything. Another thing I found interesting was that the few people I
talked with that had digital cameras, were more interested in sending
images by e-mail, or posting to a web site. Nobody I spoke with was
interested in printing. The quality settings I asked about were usually set
to allow the maximum number of shots (lowest quality). The most common
camera of all were the little cardboard P&S cameras . . . which are tough
to beat on cost alone.

> One way to see it is that the films used by the early P&S crowd of
> digital camera users will cause the consumer films to slowly fade from
> the shelves (MAX 400 and that ilk).  But what about the upper consumer
> end (Kodak Royal Gold 100)?


If there is profit to be made from film, it will continue to be produced.
The more expensive films may be in danger of being discontinued, but IMHO I
think in the near term they will just increase in price.

> Is portrait film (Portra) bound to stay as a classic?

This is very well developed, and fairly new, emulsion technology. This may
be a better question for wedding photographers . . . but I wonder how many
only shot digital stills, and no video.

> The "press" films (Fuji 800HG) and so on, will they fade as journalists
> continue to transition to digital?

Press films are getting tougher to get in many large cities. Newsprint is
not exactly white, and soaks up a ton of ink, so the images work better for
printing when they are low resolution, and have lower colour saturation.
However, news agencies are currently more interested in quickness to print.
The weekly news magazine photographers are still using print, with only a
little digital usage by some. The Platypus model of photojournalist may
replace the current working image, thus leading to increasing video usage,
and grabs (stills) going to publication.

PDN has printed a few articles in recent months about photojournalists
abroad. Getting consistent electrical power and batteries has been an
issue. Longevity of electronic camera bodies in harsh conditions has also
been noted as difficult by a few. This could also lead to a back-up
conventional camera, for a digital professional . . . though the other
extreme would be for all these guys to go to video phones.

> And most critically: reversal film.  Kodachrome 25 pro IS dead, and I
> believe that Kodachrome 25 for mortals is also no longer made.  What
> about the E-6 films?  Which are likely to disappear first?

Kodachrome used different processing and chemicals than E-6 films. Kodak
and Fuji only recently introduced new emulsions, with very well developed
grain structures. The "Pro" versions sell for more than the consumer
versions, so perhaps the companies may go towards the higher profit "pro"
versions, and dump the consumer lines . . . really tough call on this.

Lots of professionals shoot transparency films for advertising,
publication, and corporate work. Much of this gets scanned on drum or film
scanners, so this is actually part of a digital workflow. I would think
that is digital scanners disappear from the market, then that would be a
signal that E-6 and scanning are being replaced by digital bodies and
digital backs. The current costs of high end digital backs, over the cost
of drum scanning equipment, limits much of this newer gear to rental only
equipment for working professionals. Some of the digital back companies
have gone to a lease arrangement system, since their sales are rather poor.

Digital backs, and some digital bodies, are starting to replace Polaroids.
On site Art Directors like to see what is being shot, and digital is
proving just as versatile as Polaroids for some.

> This could actually be the beginning of a golden-age for Konica, Agfa,
> Ilford and others who pick up niches that Kodji and Fujak leave behind.

The Fuji Quickload system is picking up were Polaroid left off. Of course,
all these companies could turn there expertise towards dye sublimation and
ink jet printing technology, and make more money from digital. Epson and HP
almost lose money on printers just to make even more money on supplies,
like ink cartridges.

> Let's keep the discussion polite, rational, centred, OnT please.
> Personally I hope to continue using film for several more years.

I think you should be able to in your remaining lifetime. There are many
developing countries still out there that can be sold film and cameras,
even if it becomes rare in the US, Japan, and EU. Perhaps we will all be
buying B&H import films in five years time . . . but I doubt it.


> Having
> said that, I know that the pull to high quality digital SLR's will
> capture me too.

Yeah . . . neat gadgets. I have used several from very cheap, all the way
to $30K+ backs. They seemed much more popular one to two years ago, based
on local excitement and interest, than they do today. Most people seem to
know someone with a digital camera, and most of my clients ask about it
(though just from curiosity).

Financial analysts seem to be the most fervent about the technology. This
all seems similar to a few years ago, when they were predicting that
everyone would have a computer, and then predicting that everyone would buy
a new computer before Y2K, and then predicting that everyone would wait
until 2001 (after Y2K) to buy a computer . . . . Well, the computer market
has died done quite a bit . . . so perhaps digital cameras are the next big
thing . . . at least for the analysts and marketing people on Wall Street .


Sharing images will have the most relevance for digital cameras, and ease
of sharing is only one issue. Looking at images on a small LCD, or
gathering around a computer is not everyone's idea of fun, though neither
is slide shows on projectors. However, lots of people like passing around
snapshots, and many others enjoy gathering to watch television. Direct to
television viewing may be simpler for many, and almost every house has a
television.

I personally think that digital cameras will be replaced by video
camcorders, and portable phones with image capture. The basis for my
argument for that goes with the reasons why people take photos in the first
place. Photography records history, gives a story in a form that can be
shared with others, and provides enjoyment. Sharing images (IMHO) may
dictate what people buy and use.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





From Leica Mailing List
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Nikon D100 

At the following URL, I read the spec's on the new Nikon 6.1 mp digital camera:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2002-02/2002_02_21_d100.html

Stated in the text is the following, and I quote,

"Resting over the D100's CCD is an optical low-pass filter, similar in
artifact-reducing strength to the D1X, but tuned specifically for the
D100's CCD."

Which is exactly what I have been telling everyone since dinosaurs were
pups. A low pass filter IS REQUIRED in order to dumb down the lens, so it's
MTF frequency is at least four times less than the CCD pixel spacing
frequency (distance) so that strange and ugly artifacts do not appear in
your photographs. It is finally said by the camera company themselves!!!

This is why M and R lenses are poor choices for use with a digital sensor.
How else is there to say it? How about:

Leica lenses and digital sensors make poor bed fellows.

And as I said in the past, after dumbing down great film lenses, to be used
with digital sensors, then one lens for a digital sensor is no better than
any other. The sensor is the great equalizer. All of the fine detail
recording ability is gone. All of the high contrast at wider apertures is
gone. All of the lens characteristics that we pay so dearly for is... gone.

So why would a person pay $1000-$2000 for a digital M back, which would be
a kludge at best, when they can buy something like a Canon Powershot G2. It
looks and acts like a film camera. It has complete manual mode (like an M
camera.) It has raw mode which allows you to get every CCD pixel out of the
camera before it is interpolated and JPEGged into oblivion, producing a
2.8mb TIFF file. Significant! It has a .55 inch 4 megapixel CCD. The
boundary between high enough performance and out of sight cost.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/G2/pdf/G2_bro.pdf

And the lens is every bit as good as any other lens for use with a digital
sensor. The focal length is matched to the sensor size and the MTF is
matched to the sensor pixel frequency. A real digital camera for probably
half of what an M digital back would cost. And it has a shutter loudness
volume control. It can either be a big German digital camera and go
Schnappen, or a little Japanese digital camera and go crick.   ;)

And what do you do about frame lines on a digital M? A 12mm lens needs the
28mm frame lines, a 24mm lens needs the 50mm frame lines, a 35mm lens needs
the 75mm frame lines, etc... And even if you were able to select the
correct frame line, it still would not represent the actual picture area.
Close... but no cigar.

Digital M back... bad idea! And prone to massive dust and dirt invasion. An
unsealed digital camera is a giant dust magnet. Just like the face of your
TV. And a digital M back would have none of the cool features that ALL
digital cameras have. Read that G2 brochure again... And then try to fathom
a reason why a kludge digital back for an M camera would make even an
angstrom of sense.

Those Nikon D100, D1X, Contax whatever, digital SLR's are but the shell of
an SLR film camera. A familiar look and feel for professional and serious
photographers. It is only skin deep. Everything below the skin is jam
packed with electronics. The shutter speed function is hooked to the
electronics and controls the pulse to the CCD. The mechanical camera
shutter posses no function other than to close off the CCD from the world
in idle mode, open and get out of the way in photo mode.

Jim





From: Lassi  lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Foveon's Mead - why MF may survive & win with 64 MP next gen...
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 


Robert Monaghan wrote:
> The implication is that due to noise issues and sensor efficiencies and
> basic physics etc. the top designer(s) don't see higher density (now
> they're at 0.18 micron lines..) chips for the same die sizes.

There are two separate issues here. The electronics packing density
depends on the wavelength used in the photoetching phase of the
manufacturing process. Currently it uses UV, and X-rays are some years
ahead.

The pixel size is limited by the wavelength of the light it collects. If
the pixels are too small, they will be noisy and ineffective.

Increasing the packing density only increases the proportion of active
light collecting area, because the additional electronics need less
room. That improves quality of the images, but it won't decrease the
size of the detector.

-- Lassi




Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: If Medium format really is dying from digitalis


"joeomar" joeomar@worldnet.att.net wrote 
> Kind of ironic...  My last digital camera was
> also a Nikon 950...  Maybe it's just something
> to do with the Nikon?

The 950 was the best you could get in its time, and was very popular.
But it was also expensive, so only people really concerned about getting
the best quality digital images bought it.  I don't know if that is
really a factor or not, but it is interesting.

I like to think that people who are very quality-conscious will tend to
move in the same directions that we have.  Certainly from a pure quality
standpoint digital photography cannot compare with MF--digital
photography tends to lose even against 35mm, if you use good 35mm
equipment and film.  While my 950 produced very pretty images, my first
images scanned from my old Nikon FG with its inexpensive zoom blew the
950 away, even with a relatively modest scan.  I think the turning point
from digital back to film, in fact, was when I saw those first scans,
and discovered just how nice film really looks, when no one-hour lab is
in the way to ruin the pictures.

Now I am chomping at the bit to find a way to buy a Nikon 8000ED, so I
can see what my MF scans look like.  And I'm already lusting for at
least two other Hasselblad lenses (a wide-angle, like maybe a 50-60 mm,
and a long lens for portraits, such as a 150mm).





From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital Equivalent to Medium Format
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002


"DM" dmortell@eircom.net wrote 
> I am told that you need at least 7Mb to equal 35mm. Is this true?
>
> What size would equate to 6x7cm medium format?
>
> I am considering joint purchase of a digital camera, or medium format
> digital back, with a client. The likely candidates are the Kodak DCS 760
or
> the Kodak DCS Pro Back Plus.
>
> The client is a gallery  and the principle usage will be catalogue
> reproduction up to A4, postcards, press etc.....etc.....
>
> The DCS 760 has 18Mb file size. Would this be enough?
>
> Thanks.
>
> DM


This is a never-ending argument but Kodak has decided that 35mm color film
contains about 20MB of information.  Something on the order of 6 to 8 MB
would probably be indistinguishable  from 35mm in terms of color range and
apparent sharpness in prints up to about 8x10.

The problem is that a photograph is something more than raw resolution or
pixels and color depth.  Some digital enthusiasts claim amazing things for
their digital cameras (like stunning 16x20 prints from their 3.3 megapixel
cameras) and some anti-digital types claim that even a 16 megapixel digital
back on a Hasselblad produces output that is poor at best.  The truth is
somewhere between (as always).

At this point in time it seems that digital output (printers) is more
affordable, and becomes obsolete more slowly than digital capture (cameras).
Of course in a digital world "more slowly" is definitely a relative term!


Sherman






Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 
From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Really nice explanation of sharpness and resolution

Take a look at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sharpness.htm

For a much better description (than mine) of what an inkjet needs to
reproduce to be sharp.

--
Robert Feinman, Ph.D
robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com




From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 
From: David Gerhardt davidgerhardt@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Digital Point & Shoots

 "BLADHASS@aol.com"  wrote:
> Any members using these new P&S like the Nikon Coolpix 775 for around the
> home. I have a friend looking a under $400 P&S. B&H is selling the 775 for
> only $329, sound like a good deal and they have pretty good reviews. Any
> comments welcome on any brand of P&S.

Having used a Nikon 880 (3.4 megapixel) for about a year now, I have the
following two observations:

1. The quality of the images (enlarged up to 8x10 inches) was much better
than I expected.

2. The ergonomics (primarily the slow autofocusing, and the "delay" between
when you press the shutter & the camera actually takes the image) are much
worse than I expected.

Neither result was expected when I purchased the camera. Although (regarding
#2) there are some settings you can invoke to "minimize" the delay time, I
was really surprised at how poor the camera was for shooting "grab" shots.
This seems to be so common (on all but a very few digital cameras) that one
of the recent photo magazines had an entire article showing "decisive
moment" shots that were MISSED (people no longer in the frame; animals that
had turned the other direction, etc). And, of course, many folks (like
myself) presumed that a camera like the Nikon 880 would make a perfect "grab
shot" camera.

So; while your friend may be pleasantly surprised by the quality, be
prepared for comments on the speed of focusing & shutter release.

(ps: mine was so bad that I RETURNED the first camera body; I felt it had to
be defective. The second one was only slightly better).
--

David Gerhardt
davidgerhardt@mindspring.com





From nikon Mailing List:
From: "Richard Simmonds" webmaster@gratitude.co.za
Subject: RE: [Nikon] re:digital v film
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 

Suzy

Billboards are usually printed at 75dpi and some at 150dpi

Richard Simmonds
Gratitude Media
richard@gratitude.co.za




From panoramic mailing list:
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 
From: Steve millers008@hawaii.rr.com
Subject: Anybody see this yet?

I'm forwarding a copy of a thread from rec.photo.equipment.large-format to the
panoramic list for 3 reasons:

1.  It's mostly on topic for this list
2.  The large version is a REALLY impressive image
3.  It's been a little quiet in here lately  :)

Aloha
Steve

*** I know I can in here for something but now I can't remember what it was ***

Begin copied post...

I think others may have succeded in getting larger stitched mosaics,
but this is new territory for me.  Max Lyons (
http://cgibin.rcn.com/maxlyons/ ) recently found a bug in the Panorama
Tools sourcecode that was preventing me from stitching anything larger
than about 65 megapixels.  Now my upper limit is somewhere between 100
and 170 megapixels.  I think I might do better with an operating
system upgrade.

To take advantage of this new capacity I dusted off a 42-image
collection of images I had taken last October in anticipation of
creating a really huge multi-row panorama.  The individual images were
shot using a Nikon D1x digital camera with a 105mm f/2.5 lens stopped
down to f/16.

My first try at stitching a 100 megapixel image was successful,
although due to the extreme "shift" in the image I had to crop away
nearly half of it.  This image is severely downsampled, meaning that
the features near the horizon line are significantly smaller than they
are on the original images.

I then tried 270 and 170 megapixel stitches from the same data, but
both failed after many days of computation time.


Oh well.  The full size 53 megapixel image that I do have looks
extremely sharp and clear even at 100% magnification due to the
downsampling.  I repeatedly tried uploading a level 10 JPEG of the
whole thing to my website but it just wouldn't go.  You can see
several smaller sizes (up to 10 megapixels) here:
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/FullSizeMosaicMain.html .  The 10
megapixel image only begins to reveal the full image quality.

At 100 megapixels the image quality should equal or better what you
can achieve with 8x10" film using a lens stopped down to f/45 or f/64,
which are normal working apertures with this format.  8x10" scanned at
1000dpi is only 80 megapixels.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: pshier@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] the death thread

I have been fiddling with cameras for only a short while compared to many of
you. I am a computer programmer by trade and have no problem understanding the
digital stuff. I began my photographic journey with a Kodak DC290 and then a
month later upgraded to a Nikon D1. While I loved the immediate feedback as I
was learning the art and science of exposure, I quickly learned the
limitations. My first hint that film had more to offer was on a workshop in the
Smokies shooting a full moon. We were doing 10 second exposures of this
glorious orange moon over the mountains and I was schocked to see the horrible
result on my LCD. Within a few months I sold the D1 (and fortunately only lost
about $500) and I have never looked back. Today I shoot 35mm, MF, 4x5, and 8x10
and I *love* film. Nothing digital that is affordable by the average bear can
come close to film in the smaller formats. In the larger formats, nothing
digital can come close period. When I put an 8x10 transparency on the !
light box or peel open an 8x10 Polaroid it simply takes my breath away every
time.

Peter




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1534

Keeble and Shuchat Photography in Palo Alto CA, the second largest
Hasselblad dealer on the US west coast (Sammy's in LA is the largest) quit
taking consignment gear (any gear) two years ago. The reason was that it
was way too time consuming keeping track of everything and then trying to
contact the owner when something sold. So they stopped cold turkey. Has
absolutely nothing to do with the economy or digital vs film.

At KSP, the digital department is right opposite the professional film
cameras. Their last store wide sale, before Christmas, "professional" film
gear out sold digital (both pro and amateur digital combined.) No one
thought this would happen as the digital counter is always crowded with
people compared to the pro film counter.


It just goes to show you that you cannot predict what will happen next.
People read too much into what so-in-so said. Too much hearsay. Film and
digital will coexist for a very long time. On one of my entry way walls I
have a 48"x60" LF print. That's 4'x5'. It looks like you can walk right in
to it. You can put your nose on it and it still looks real. It is dead
sharp! You would be impossible to do this with a digital camera. And will
be for a long time. On another wall I have a 50"x50" Hasselblad print. Same
thing goes.

Jim





rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: camera1234@aol.com (CaMeRa1234)
Date: Sun Apr 14  2002
[1] Re: Bronica ETRSi

The ETRSi system is a very good one. Very reliable and versatile. While it can
handle much like a 35mm outfit, if your thinking of taking it to the field,
make your life a little easier and get a backpack and some foam rubber to style
around your system. Medium format stuff gets heavy as the day goes on. Lots of
great deals on ebay,too. People seem to be dumping off mediums for good
digitals. Good luck!





From: "Austin Franklin" austin@dark98room.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital Equivalent to Medium Format
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002


> This is a never-ending argument but Kodak has decided that 35mm color film
> contains about 20MB of information.

Making a blanket statement like that is very misleading, and way too
simplistic.  It really depends on what film you are talking about to start
with.  Even 20MB is barely sufficient for even an 800ASA film.  Also, what
does "20MB" mean?  How many bits/pixel?  Is that color or B&W?  At 8
bits/color, that's a bit more than 6M pixels...  And would that be from a
Bayer pattern CCD, or a scanning/tri-exposure/new Foveon type sensor?

>  Something on the order of 6 to 8 MB
> would probably be indistinguishable  from 35mm in terms of color range and
> apparent sharpness in prints up to about 8x10.

That depends on the source of the image.  If it is a camera that employs a
Bayer pattern CCD, then no.  If it was a scanning, or multiple exposure
type, then possibly, and one using one of the new Foveon tri-sensor pixel
sensors, even a better chance.  Just like above, are you sure you mean 6-8MB
or mega pixels?  How many bits/pixel?  If you really do mean 6M BYTES, then
that would be a 2M PIXEL file, and would be a sensor that would be, say,
1.2k x 1.8k...and for the 8 inch side, that's 150PPI to the printer...and
that's really kind of low.

> The problem is that a photograph is something more than raw resolution or
> pixels and color depth.  Some digital enthusiasts claim amazing things for
> their digital cameras (like stunning 16x20 prints from their 3.3 megapixel
> cameras) and some anti-digital types claim that even a 16 megapixel digital
> back on a Hasselblad produces output that is poor at best.  The truth is
> somewhere between (as always).

It's more than that.  Digital will give you fantastic edge sharpness, but
lacks in image detail.  They are entirely different things.  Also, digital
can give you much better color, no doubt.  It's very image dependant, as
well as viewer dependant.

Austin




from medium format mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: Mike miaim@mebtel.net
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Re: Monaghan Site

 Bob M. wrote:
>    yep, I agree many of us will be shooting digital as well as film (I hope!)
> in the future, ......

> so I'm content to let others pay the
> hefty depreciation premiums for now...
>
> grins bobm

This is the same as my feelings on the issue. Why leap into an unknown at
high expense when such excellent results are available to current users of
mf gear willing to develop and process their own? My entire darkroom setup
cost less than the memory upgrade on some popular digital cams. Right now
somebody with under $1K can get a serviceable MF camera and complete
darkroom setup. (By many estimates that's actually a very generous
allotment as I know folks that've done it all for 1/2 that!) Look at what a
grand will buy in terms of digital camera, printer and computer. Not much
if one is serious about image quality. We're not there yet with digital.
I've no doubt that we will be, but until the technology and ecconomics
reach equilibrum, I'll hold on to the elderly medium format film
technology. When it comes time to abandon the smelly and dank darkroom,
I'll gladly do it smiling, but that's still a few years off.

Mike Swaim




From: brougham3@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: avg=4 rolls/yr.. Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 



"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
>So if you buy a $800 digital camera instead of a $150 point-and-shoot film
>camera, it will take you about 20 years to amortize the difference in price
>with savings on film and development costs.

Actually, if you use the figures of 4 rolls per film per year, the consumer
who bought the digital camera would never catch up in costs to the P&S one.

$800 on digital camera

$150 on point & shoot
4*$8 = $32 on processing the first year
$618 in investment that averages 7% return

After the first year, the P&S user would have $43 in interest.  Spend $32,
reinvest $11.




From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: FW: regarding the Foveon sensor

One thing for certain, it is 100% impossible to differentiate between a
2mp, 4mp, 6mp, a 4x5 Velvia scan, whatever, on a web posted photograph.

One needs to have the camera in hand, actually several cameras in hand,
followed by a side by side print (all going through the same exact process)
comparison. And then it would be best to have the cameras deliver "raw"
pixel data (TIFF type raw file) to the outside world in order to eliminate
interpolation shenanigans within the camera. In camera interpolation
shenanigans are what is separating the cameras now.

With their clothes off, their files pretty much look the same. :)

im

ps... The MOST sold digital camera in 2001... a 1.5 MP Hewlett Packard
happy snapper. Is there big money in high end professional film or DIGITAL
cameras? Absolutely not! The BIG market is in rank amateur happy snappers.

Jim again

John Brownlow wrote:
>Thought folks would be interested in this. The web link cited takes you to a
>page of sample shots. Most of them are downsampled and so meaningless but
>there are two detail shots there that are interesting.





Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: avg=4 rolls/yr.. Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)


"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com a écrit 
> Hmm. Digital prints seem free to me: I've
> got a computer and printer anyway
> and only print A4. Paper and ink are cheaper
> than even the cheapest lab/drugstore A4's
> so I'm home free.

According to my own calculations, each A4 print I make myself costs about
$7, which is comparable to what a lab would charge me--and, in any case, it
is hardly free.

> Anyone who's got a home computer has a photo
> printer: they're the cheapest printers available.

And the supplies for them are the most expensive you can buy.






From: Andre roman@xs4all.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: avg=4 rolls/yr.. Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 


http://www.missupply.com  , that's where I order my Epson continuous
inksupply stuff .

lot of information on that site for really the cheapest way of printing
with an Epson.





Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: avg=4 rolls/yr.. Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)


A set of cartridges for the 2000P costs about $US 63.  A pack of A4 Premium
Semigloss paper (one of two recommended for the 2000P) costs about $US 37.
There are twenty sheets in a pack, and a set of cartridges will print
perhaps 25 photos.  That's $US 4.37 per photo.

Add the huge mark-up to pay deadwood in local Euro-affiliates and European
VAT, and you easily reach $6-$7 per print.  A professional lab will charge
me roughly $8-$11 per print.

So either way, prints are really expensive.
...





Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 
From: Bernard Cousineau bernard_cousineau@yahoo.ca
Subject: Re: [Contax] Zeiss lens limitation
To: contax@photo.cis.to

> as conventional print films usually have upper resolution limits of 50
> lpmm to 100 lpmm or so, while our lenses have aerial resolution limits of
> 350 to 650 lpmm or more.  see tables by film at
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenslpm.html
> In short, really good lenses are generally wasted with color print films
> (low resolution sets limit for system) which is what many of us shoot ;-)

There is a really interesting article in the month's American Cinematographer
about a test of a DV video camera and the P+S Technik 35mm lens adapter
(http://www.pstechnik.de). This contraption allows one to use many 35mm lenses
on consumer DV cameras, including Zeiss-for-Contax and Zeiss-for-Arriflex.
What they found out was that, even with DV (which only has 525 or 625 lines of
achieve noticeably better resolution using the latest Zeiss UltraPrime cine
lenses than they could with dedicated DV lenses. Apparently the results were
even better than what can be achieved with professional video cameras and
lenses...

Bernard
horizontal resolution), better lenses do make a difference. They were able to




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: David Meiland david@meiland.com
Subject: [HUG] Re: There But For The Grace Of God....

Uncle Dick, you are a gifted writer. Sounds like maybe you were at the
Renaissance Faire or something similar? Anyway, it's getting more common
that people comment on my antique-looking, virtually-obsolete late 80s
500CM. Whenever they do I ask them how they get prints from their cameras
and what size they are. My impression is that a lot of digi-folks do not
print at all, but rather take a look at their stuff on-screen and then
throw it in the hard-drive shoebox. What a great way to save paper and
processing chemicals. Digital is good.




[Ed. note: okay, I admit, this is why I love digital too ;-)]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: Tourtelot tourtelot1@attbi.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: There But For The Grace Of God....

Y'all  know the REAL benefit of digital photography?  It's ton and tons of
fabulous Zeiss glass and Swedish hardware on the markets at such great
prices that even poor folks such as me can afford the best camera ever made!

D.




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: R Barr rbarr@excite.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] There But For The Grace Of God....

Someone asked me the other day, as they peered down into the waist- level
viewfinder, why the LCD screen on their digital camera wasn't as clear as mine.
My "TV", I pointed out, is fancy new-fangled  technology called a MIRROR!

Well written, as usual, Uncle Dick.
...





From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: David Rodgers davrod@worldnet.att.net
Subject: RE: Vs: [Leica] Digital vs Film

Aram,

Long article in Scientific American, published a couple of years back on
the subject of archival nature of digital, made your very point. Yes we can
save everything in TIFF or JPEG format. But, I have a meaninful bitmap file
on a 5.25 inch floppy. You never know which way the digital wind will blow
over time. Some photographs sure can gain value and meaning with time.

Way back in 1994 (seems like only yesterday) I had to give a presentation
to a group of accountants about this new phenomenon known as the World Wide
Web. I wanted to do a live presentation, but didn't trust the connection I
had, and it took too long for pages to load over a 14K modem anyway.
Several nights before the presentation I surfed the web and photographed --
using my M6 and DR Summiron -- the pages I wanted. I was able to frame
surprisingly well. I put the slides in an Extragraphic projector and the
presentation went off without a hitch.

I still have those slides, about 100 in all. I looked at them the other day
and they were a hoot! I'd almost forgotton that old "Yahoo look". I'd also
done a search on the word "accounting" on Yahoo, the premier search engine
of the day. Guess how many hits I got?  Just over 300! To me that's a page
in history. And I've got it on film!

Dave

 you wrote:
>I've been saying this for years.  I have a ton of digital files of papers my
>students have submitted.  I moved them from floppy to CD about 8 years ago.
>There are quiet a few that, while the files are in great shape, there is no
>way to read them.  The software used 10-15 years ago just doesn't exist
>anymore.





From: jfopie@freenet.de (John F. Opie)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Foveon's Mead - why MF may survive & win with 64 MP next gen...
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>yes, good points, with Foveon's current 16 MP CMOS process already at 0.18
>micron line technologies, and without a synchr. xray source anytime in
>the foreseeable future, I doubt that the general assumption among many
>digital types that we will have ever denser devices in the same small chip
>die sizes (currently 22mm square for Foveon's CMOS chip) are correct, but
>only a small number of folks and even writers seem to realize that there
>is a limit to the level of sensor density, and we may be there (per Mead)
>
>The noise factor is another issue which suggests to me that there might be
>a tradeoff towards a larger (hence lower noise, cleaner..) sensor size
>possibly compatible with existing med fmt unit, perhaps with a focal
>reducer or similar intermediary optical coupling?
>
>The real problem is that I don't know if there are enough applications
>that demand 64 Mpixel chips (maybe like Gates who needs more than 640K?) ;-)
>But at least it suggests that MF may have more of a future than many now
>think...


Hi -

Actually, Intel has done 90 nm in lab tests and the general consensus
is that by using ultraviolet diffraction techniques you can get down
to around 100 nm in production, which is a *lot* smaller than the 180
nm you mention.

Ultraviolet diffraction basically resolves architecture not by
actually resolving via a mask down that far, but rather by using edge
resolution diffraction patterns.  This way, you can resolve roughly
down to one-half of your shortest wavelength (ball park figure).

The equipment is in design and the roadmaps point to introduction
around 2006 or so.

What I see is an increase in sensor size and increases in error
correcting and noise filtering. We might not "need" a 64 Mpixel chip,
but I would be happy with a 16 Mpixel chip in 6x7 format that has
guaranteed color response, noise cancellation for long time exposures
and would calibrate itself to ensure that spectral behavior does not
change over the life time of the chip, regardless of temperature, etc.


I've got an old webcam that spent a few days out in the sun and whose
CMOS is now so full of noise that I can't even give it away...

John




Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: sensor limits? Re: Foveon's Mead

It has recently come to my attention that there may be another limiting factor
in this. There is an issue of data transfer rates that is currently causing an
upper limit. Some digital backs get around the data transfer limit by scanning,
but these are only useful for stationary subject matter.

It seems that for a 64 MP image to be captured at 1/60 of a second shutter,
would require a very fast transfer rate. I think that it is currently much
faster than anything currently being used, outside of a CRAY, or similar
device.
Perhaps someone would be willing to do the math on that.

I also wonder what data transfer rate (GB/sec) would be required for 1/500, or
even 1/1000 shutter, at 64 MP quality. Even 32 MP at fast shutter speeds may be
out of reach in the near future.

These seem to be much more limiting factors than the size of the chip. Even if
the chip were made large enough, currently you would be limited to a scanning
back. Splitting the data into three separate data streams (RGB ala Foveon) may
allow for three individual processors, and provide a way around the transfer
rate limitations.

All this is a separate issue from too much DOF and lens focal multiplication. I
often like the short DOF effect, and I also like to shoot wides, and digital
backs are currently more limiting in this regard. Makes you wonder how many
digital backs sell each year.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital Equivalent to Medium Format
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002


"DM" dmortell@eircom.net wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason you've ruled out, say, a $3000 Nikon MF scanner, which
> > should be better quality?
>
> When you say "better quality", do you mean that scans of my 6x7cm trannies
> would be better than shooting the artwork on the DCS 760, for example?

I think you'd find that even Epson 2450 scans of your 6x7 slides would be as
good or better than 6MP digital cameras like the DCS 760 or Canon D60. I'm
finding that while the Epson is getting nowhere near everything I can see on
my 6x4.5 slides, I can make quite nice A4s from the more appropriate images.

Anyway, since it's so cheap as to be almost free (compared to the
alternatives), it's worth trying first.


To answer your question: from the sample 4000dpi scans I've seen, I'm quite
sure than Nikon 8000 scans of 6x7 film would be orders of magnitude better
than any 6MP digital camera.

> ps. Thanks to all those who have replied. It has been quite an eye opener!
> Where can I have the relative importance of megapixels over megabytes
> explained to me in greater detail?

Since pixels are what the image consists of, it's pixels that count.
Low-compression jpeg can make files an order of magnitude smaller with no
detectable loss in quality, so file size doesn't mean a whole lot. Some
people like to talk about uncompressed file sizes, since it means the
numbers are larger.

Another problem is that not all pixels are created equal. Download the test
PhotDisc Target test image on the page at:
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/custom/
and print it out to see what _good_ pixels really look like.


More generally, you need to play with digital imaging to get a feel for it.
Download sample shots from the galleries at www.dpreview.com and the reviews
at Steve's Digicams, and Imaging-Resources and print them out. Futz with
them in Photoshop. And you have been to http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
I hope...

> And how many megapixels would the DCS 760
> use at maximum capture?

Last I checked it was a generic (albeit _very_ heavy) 6 MP camera...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: Mark Cudworth cudworth@removed.to.avoid.spam
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Digital obsolete? (somewhat humorous)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002


With all of the *endless* whining about how digital is replacing film and
how film will soon be dead, I found the following story amusing.

I was showing off my new laptop to my brother last night and the
conversation turned to peripherals, including SmartMedia (EEPROM) cards.  He
said that he recently decided to take advantage of the drop in prices of
this memory by getting a 64MB SmartMedia card for his little digital camera.
(He currently has two 8MB cards.)  When he put the card in the camera, a
warning icon showed up.  Upon reading the manual, he discovered that the
camera only supports 4, 8 and 16 MB cards.  And the best part of the story
is this:  when he returned the new card to the store to get an 8MB or 16MB
card, he was told that they don't make SmartMedia cards that small any
longer -- everyone buys the larger capacity cards!

I find it extremely amusing that I can still buy film for my 50+ year old
4x5 cameras, yet his ~5 year old digital camera has already been orphaned!
So much for digital killing film -- digital is really just killing off older
versions of itself!

Mark




From: john@stafford.net (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Foveon's Mead - why MF may survive & win with 64 MP next gen...
Date: 22 Mar 2002

Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com wrote...

> What it would do is allow the look of conventional photography, i.e.
> limited DOF if the size of the sensor was larger. I think this would
> improve the "look" especially with portraits and fashion photography.

Lack of DOF could be simulated adequately to eye of the typical art
director, and certainly the public.  The chip-plane or the lens could
be racked out slightly, a rendering made to RAM, then another at
proper focus, and the images assembled as one would layers. A similar
procedure has long existed to create "infinite DOF" with much larger,
conventionl lenses.




Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: sensor limits? Re: Foveon's Mead
From: rab@jump.net (Ross Bagley)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 

Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net wrote:

[...snip...]

>Larger chips (larger capture area) would mean easy 100 MB files. This
>is a somewhat common 3 channel file size when scanning medium format
>film. If it was a one second exposure, then that would be 100 MB/sec
>transfer rate inside the digital back. My math may be off, but a
>1/500 shutter for that same file size (same quality) would mean just
>under 50 Gb/sec. Perhaps someone else could calculate this more
>accurately?

I think you're confusing two different intervals within a camera.
One, the shutter speed, indicates how long the sensitized surface will
be exposed to the subject.  The second is the minimum length of time
between two exposures and is something completely different.


One of the features of CCD and most other image sensors is that the
counting of photons is separate from the gathering of the image data.

First, the sensor is cleared, the photon counts are all zeroed.
Second, each cell in the sensor begins counting photons.
Third, each cell in the sensor stops counting photons.
Last, the system downloads the image (photon counts) from the CCD
much like scanning a memory.

So all other things being equal a higher resolution sensor takes
longer to download the image after the photo has been "taken" than a
lower resolution.  However, an image taken in 1/500 of a second
doesn't take any more or less time to download than an image taken in
1/10 of a second.

u seem to be under the mistaken impression that the entire image
capture and download (from the sensor to the camera storage) happens
within the "shutter interval", which it doesn't.  It happens afterward
and takes the same amount of time for all images taken by the same
sensor on the same camera.

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley       http://rossbagley.com/rba




From: rico@nwu.edu (Rico Tudor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens specifications
Date: 28 Apr 2002 


While performing some color calibration, I encountered significantly
more error from the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens.  Light gathering from
f/2 to so-called f/1.4 increased only 1.5X, not the expected 2.0X.
The lens is new.

A D30 was used to collect RAW data, which is 12-bit linear.  The target
was a sheet of white paper, illuminated by tungsten.  Color balance was
performed by boosting G and B channels.

Results cover the f/1.4 through f/22 range, in 1-stop increments:

        sensor measures            ratio to
           R    G    B   average   next stop
        ---- ---- ----   -------   ----
        1048 1048 1048   1048      1.49
         715  699  691    702      1.96
         371  357  348    358      1.91
         195  186  180    187      1.96
         100   95   91     95.3    1.94
         51   49   47     49      2.04
          26   24   22     24      2.18
          12   11   10     11      2.36

Ratios at larger aperture are expected to be closer to 2.0X because
of larger counts from the sensor.  This makes the f/1.4 shortfall even
more obvious.

For the sceptics, I confirmed that wide-only aperture via EXIF.  Plus,
the shortfall is quite obvious to the eye.

Comments?




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens specifications
Date: 29 Apr 2002

Hi Rico:
Thats a very interesting result.  However, I think that the
discrepancy at f/1.4 may be largely or entirely due to sensor effects.

 At f/1.4 and f/2 the on-axis marginal ray strikes the sensor plane at
20.9 and 14.5 degrees, respectively.  In other words, the additional
light that admitted when you go from f/2 to f/1.4 lies entirely within
this range of angles, at least on-axis.  Since sensors do have some
falloff with angle you will wind up with less response than you would
expect.

I've been very interested in what happens when you go from f/1.4 to
f/1, but so far I haven't located any Canon digital users who own the
50mm f/1 who have been willing to share the information.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: David Littlewood david@demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens specifications
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002

Interesting point, Brian. Two thoughts spring to mind:

(1) The effect you mention is true for marginal on axis rays, but its
quantum would surely be much smaller than that noted by the original
poster (cos 14.5 = 0.968; cos 20.9 = 0.93)

[BTW, not sure what power of cos might be involved, but even if it's
cos^4, these would be 0.88 and 0.76 respectively.)

(2) The effect for off-axis rays will be less (at least it appears it
would be less on a quick sketch). I think you kind of implied this in
your post, but not overtly.

 From what you say, the effect should also be observed on film. Would the
extent be the same?
--
David Littlewood




From: rico@nwu.edu (Rico Tudor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens specifications
Date: 29 Apr 2002 


I recall a claim where the EF 50mm Macro was creating a hot-spot on the
image; the exit pupil position combined with the D30 sensor to create
this problem.  Sounds consistent with your explanation.  It's sad if
incident angle is such an issue with digital sensors.

I will use another method to confirm the light-gathering capability of
the EF 50mm at f/1.4, and report back.





From: "³ª?" worldfocus2001@yahoo.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Am I the only one that's impressed by this chip?
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002


Make that very impressed.

http://www.photo.net/sigma/sd9

I will buy this camera and a few Sigma zooms if it truly does perform so well.




From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that's impressed by this chip?
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002


"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote...
> "³ª?" worldfocus2001@yahoo.co.uk 
> > Supposedly, today's digi-cams blur the image to hide
> > these flaws and then they run an unsharp mask to get
> > them back to normal.
>
> Once an image is blurred, there is no way to restore the detail that is
> lost.


That's not entirely true, though there are limits as to what can be done.

http://www.hamangia.freeserve.co.uk/Unshake/index.html

http://www.quantimage.com/fft.html Image restoration PSF example

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jpc/pages/unblur/samples.htm

http://www.reindeergraphics.com/tutorial/chap4/fourier12.html
and
http://reindeergraphics.com/foveapro2/process.html (bottom of page)
Image sharpening using deconvolution in Fourier space.

So there is information in the blur that can be reconstructed by other means
than plain edge contrast enhancement.

The blurfilter in digicams is used to suppress aliasing artifacts. It's a
trade-off. Professional camera's have the possibility of removing that
filter if the subject doesn't have fine repetitive structure below the
Nyquist frequency.

Bart




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Correct those aberrations!
Date: 5 Apr 2002 


Everyone knows that lenses perform better when you stop them down, at
least up to a point. Thats because stopping down reduces or eliminates
aberrations that degrade images. What is not so widely known is that
there are two aberrations that are completely unaffected by stopping
down: distortion and lateral chromatic aberration. Lateral chromatic
aberration, or color fringing, is normally the only aberration that
can significantly degrade image sharpness at small apertures.

Fortunately, both of these aberrations can be eliminated to a
remarkable degree using the Panorama Tools plugin for Photoshop. I
wrote a tutorial on how to figure it all out yourself for any
camera/lens combination:
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html

The calibration process is somewhat involved, but I have tested and
calibrated a number of lenses myself using the Nikon D1x, and I've
just put up a large number of new pages on my website that show the
calibration coefficients along with before/after mouseover images of a
test scene: http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/ccmain.html


The lenses include wideangle, normal and telephoto primes, as well as
several zoom lenses, including the 17-35AFS, 24-85AFD, 70-180Micro,
50-135AIS and 80-400VR.  All of the marked focal lengths for the zoom
lenses are shown on the test pages.

Note that these tests were done on a relatively distant target, and
the results may not be accurate for extremely close focus distances.

It turns out that the wide angle prime lenses benefit most from the
calibration process, although some of the longer lenses and certainly
some zooms benefit as well. Interestingly, of all the lenses that I
tested only one proved to have no measurable distortion or color
fringing: the 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.

The calibration coefficients that I found will be applicable to any
camera accepting Nikon lenses having a 1.5x crop factor. This includes
all of the Nikon D-series (D1, D1x, D1h, D100) and the Fuji S-series
(S1 and S2). The Kodak cameras have a 1.3x crop factor and will
require different coefficients

I would be interested in hearing positive or negative reports from
anyone trying out these coefficients with their images.

Brian
--
Brian Caldwell
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com




Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format Renaissance thanks to digital?

"Gordon Moat" moat@attglobal.net wrote 
> Any increased unit sales for inkjet printers,
> paper, or cartridges? My printing industry association
> sources indicate drops in paper sales, though consumer
> products are a small percentage of total sales.

I've been told by a specialist in waste treatment (chemicals from labs
and stuff) that the advent of digital photography is driving a huge
increase in chemical paper sales.  Apparently a lot of people take
zillions of digital pictures and then decide to have a lab print them
chemically, or something.  In any case, he says the business overall is
doing great, which implies that a lot of people are still shooting film
and/or making traditional chemical enlargements.





From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 16 May 2001 
Subject: Re: "Cheapest" Format?

Spend $4-6 on print film, $4-6 on
processing.  You get maybe 4-5 keepers.  So each shot costs you between  $1.60
and  $2.40.  Now you look at digital - the cost of the memory stick is
irrelavant since it gives you thousands of exposures.  You can put dozens of
them on a CD for $1.50. (that's high)  You can print them for about $.20 each
on a 5x7.


Steve, it's just amazing to read your lies, rationalizations.    Right off the
bat, you overprice the film and make some lame assumption that a roll yield 4
or 5 "keepers."   Perhaps in your case that is true, but I don't remember going
through a stack of prints and throwing any away.  Hey folks, you get your
prints back and throw all but 4 or 5 away?   Is Steve presenting an unusually
stupid argument?     I usually get about 26 or 38 prints for my $5 to $7.
And of course you think the cost of a memory stick isn't relevent BECAUSE YOU
CAN'T MAKE YOUR POINT WITHOUT BEING DISHONEST and dismissing and ignoring the
costs of your digital equipment.   (Unless you shoplifted yours or robbed some
Japanese tourist.)

Now I print digital too, but we were comparing commercial costs.  When you find
a commercial concern that will print my digital 5X7 for 20 cents, let me know.

 Of course that isn't going to happen.   I can't print a 5X7 for 20 cents,
either, and neither can you unless you are printing a lo-res on plain paper.
The cheapest paper I use is Epson heavyweight matte, and that costs 30 cents a
sheet for 8.5 X 11.   Now you can get two 5X7's on a sheet but you have to
include the cost of the ink, which is high--  close to $40 for a set of
cartridges, and I can get about 60 sheets of that paper printed with a set of
cartridges.   That amounts to 33 cents per 5X7 print for ink.   That brings us
up to 66 cents per print and I haven't added amortization on the equipment,
electricity, or a considerable amount of my time.   When I have my film
developed and printed commercially, my only time invested is to drop off and
pick up the order, which is only a few minutes, and again, I get 25 to 37
prints back.   Again, I realize you can only produce 4 or 5 usable photos per
session, but tell me how long it takes you to photoshop and print 37 5X7
prints.   ???    Or is your time also worth nothing?    You keep going back to
these lame, dishonest lies about how cheap digital is, Steve.   They aren't
fooling anyone.   (Well, I guess there is one....  you.)





From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 
From: Stein stein@bekkers.com.au
Subject: Re: Non-shutter lenses

Dear Friends,

     Easy solution to the slow shutter speed. Cap the lens with your hat,
open the rear curtains, flap your hat, and then close the curtains. Works
with my 1880 Beck lens on a field camera and if it is at a banquet you have
time to fire off a hand flash to illuminate the diners before you close
down. Use a black hat.

    Uncle Dick


PS: I noted the interview with the wedding pro who was going digital but
speaking discretely about it. You should read some of the pro literature
around here. Discrete has been deleted in favour of desperate. I get the
feeling that the editors are riding round the herd firing their guns into
the air in an effort to start a stampede. Exactly how far you can stampede a
small studio is a moot point if the prices start at $ 17,000 and head
upwards.

    I for one welcome it. Actully I don't. Yes I do. No I don't. Oh, hell, I
don't know what I think. I have a large investment in a Hasselblad system
and a large format system and a 35mm system. I have a moderate investment in
a darkroom system. I have 35 years invested in finding out what to do with
the damn stuff and I am just now succeeding in doing it. So far I have not
succumbed to either lust or colour developer fumes. Actually I'm only
half-right there....


    If the biz goes 110% digital and every bride and dancer and toy airplane
enthusiast wants instant web-wide display and a multi-media album waiting at
the end of the kissy line when the bride comes out of the church, I am going
to be sunk, as I don't think I can afford to spend the money that will be
needed for the reequippage and I don't think my day job will give me the
time to retrain the digits*. Bad vibes.

    If the biz goes 110% etc. and the local pros all rush off and dump their
Hasselblad and other gear on the market to try to keep up I might be able to
add all the lenses and accessories I have covetted. Good vibes.

    What I need to do is panic the profession whilst soothing the punters.
Any suggestions?

* Ain't it ironic. The day job is done with sharpened chisels, forceps, and
a needle and thread.The closest thing I get to technology is the hydraulic
hoist on the operating table and the electric light. When in doubt, pull it
out, or at least break off the bit that you can reach and suture over the
rest.




From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE:  Digital M??

Beddoe, Neil wrote:

>There's theoretically nothing to stop a savvy manufacturer building a gizmo
>that allowed you to replace the back flap of an M6/7(or any other SLR) with
>a digital unit in place of the pressure plate.


What you have said above is pretty much out of the reach of today's
technology. For the past five years I have been immersed in the designing
and building of a next generation digital camera for a major manufacturer.
I have disassembled many of the current state of the art digital cameras. I
have on my desk, our camera all spread out. Five PC boards and flex cable
(between boards) up the gazoo.  Digital cameras and film cameras are two
completely different animals.

The innards of a digital camera is jam packed with electronics. It takes
many megabytes of memory to simply take a single digital exposure. Then the
image has to be transferred out to media of some sort. How is this going to
be fitted into a trap door on the back of an M camera? It cannot.

For the exact same reason that this failed:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp

When Silicon Film first announced what they were doing, I predicted that it
would never see the light of day. It didn't. It couldn't. Bad idea. And in
their very own words:

"It was simply never attractive and always crippled by storage, battery,
environment and sensor size limitations has now turned into vaporized-ware."


After you read about it, push the "PREV" button on the screen, then think
of how much electronics is jammed into those Panasonic/Leica cameras. Tons
more than would ever fit into the little back on a little M6.

Silicon Film could have been made to fit into a Leica M camera. This would
have allowed one to make an exposure on to silicon. But at best, it would
have been a toy. Digital cameras operate under a completely different
premise than film cameras. A digital back for an M camera, even if it could
be made, would not be an attractive accessory. Just ask the Silicon Film
people...

Jim




From: rico@nwu.edu (Rico Tudor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens specifications
Date: 30 Apr 2002 


Incident angle is an issue for digital sensors.  Kudos to Brian for
illuminating my problem.

Here's an informative article by Sally Wiener Grotta about sensors:

        http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3428,a=2036,00.asp

Quote:
        Unlike film's silver halide crystals, which are distributed over
        a flat surface and will react to light hitting from any incident
        angle, the pixels of silicon require that light strike them within
        a much smaller deviation from the perpendicular. To compensate
        for this difference (i.e., to redirect incoming light impacting
        the pixels from different incident angles so the pixels receive
        a higher electric charge), sensor designers bond a domed micro
        lens over every pixel. This increases the angular response of
        the pixels and, hence, the photosensitivity of the sensor.

>From the following Sanyo product spec:

        http://www.semic.sanyo.co.jp/news/event/2001/pdf/ct04.pdf.

Quote:
        The use of a larger sensor area made it easier to design the
        on-chip microlenses, allowing the changes in sensitivity with
        changes in the angle of the incident light to be minimized. This
        makes it possible to use lenses with a short lens-to-sensor
        distance.

Note that sensor response to off-perpendicular rays is one issue.
A separate issue is light fall-off due to projection of the image onto
a plane -- this is a matter of geometry.

In conclusion, film SLRs fully enjoy the 35mm lens line, while my D30
and other DSLRs cannot.  My plans to buy Canon EF f/1.4 primes like the
24mm or 35mm may need to be shelved.  Sad.






From: "[BnH]" b18@iprimus.com.au
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Photo Tips and tricks
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002


check out www.msn.com .. few good tips for amateur .

http://photos.msn.com/editorial/EditorialStart.aspx?article=10EverydayWaysTo
UseADigitalCamera§ion=FEATURES

=bob=




From: tomg@fullnet.com (Thomas P. Gootee)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: scanning back idea for LF/MF
Date: 3 May 2002


Gary,

SOrry for butting in, here, but: You are right. Motor-driven rotating
(and gimbaled) mirrors, followed by a prism and a few monochrome line
arrays, is basically how a lot of color satellite imagery used to be
collected. With much-newer technology, now, I would guess that the
large-format-imaging problem has already been solved, one way or
another, but is probably still secret. But it will eventually filter
out to the rest of us...

I'm not sure exactly what this thread is about, but I gather that it's
about large-format digital photography. I'm just "shooting from the
hip", here (no flames, please...), but: For a "quick and dirty"
solution, couldn't you just use several (or many) smaller
already-available digital cameras (which already have the
2-dimensional "parallel" image-input that was mentioned by another
poster), all fired at once, electrically, and then assemble the larger
image on a computer, later?  You could use as many smaller cameras as
needed, to get the size needed (within reason, since they do take up
space; but taking out the "truly-necessary" parts and re-mounting them
on/in something else could make the whole assembly *much* smaller).
And even my cheapo digital camera can hold a 128 MB memory card. An
array of just 10x10 of those cameras would give something well-over
10,000 x 7,000 pixels, and some existing cheap cameras might at least
double those numbers (I don't have ANY idea how many pixels you're
wanting, though...). Of course, that's probably about $15,000, just
for the cameras, although if you're buying a hundred of them, you
should be able to get them for something like 60% of that.  And that's
if you bought actual cameras.  The internals by themselves would be
FAR cheaper, especially if you designed the whole system from the
ground up.

I guess my point is: Wouldn't an array of smaller 2-D sensors, with
slightly-overlapping coverage of a scene, work as well as one very
large sensor?  I don't know a lot about this subject (cameras), so I
don't know how the image would be delivered to each sensor. Perhaps
you'd need a separate lens for each one, and perhaps not. But the
electronic part of the technology is already here. And, as someone
said, you could also just wait for "large-enough" sensor arrays to be
available...

I *think* that the whole "scanning" idea, with single-line arrays,
etc, was just used because there either were no good or large-enough
2-D arrays, or they were too expensive (and/or the necessary memory
and data-communications/processing were too expensive, or too large).
Those problems either have, or soon will, go away.

I suppose, also, that maybe the "scanning" idea could be adapted to
using the  currently-available 2-D sensor-arrays, to speed it up
considerably, compared to using a 1-D line-array... (Just an idea...)
....

- Tom Gootee (tomg@fullnet.com)

http://www.fullnet.com/u/tomg (Electronic Test Equipment and Service
Manuals)




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 
From: ake.axenbom@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Minolta lens test?- Question once more

Well, I did comment on exactly this yesterday (under the headline "Wanted
..."). Since then I have found a test chart website, which among other
charts contains one that should be useful for lens tests, although it is
said to be aimed at digital still cameras.

http://www.esser-test-charts.com/photo/index.htm

The one I am referring to is TE170. Somebody has experiences with such
charts?

regards,
ake




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 
From: "tbroadley1" timb196@mchsi.com
Subject: OT: Digital trivia

For those who are interested in such things, the new Hubble camera is
about 17 megapixels

Cheers
Tim





Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: tims8256 tschooler@cox-internet.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Monaghan Site

--- In medium-format@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:
>esp. if you factor in nikon etc. Still, sales of SLRs for film are
>up,now in 750,000-ish range IIRC. The collapse is in medium format,
>which is not what I would expect, but it is the upgrade path that
>seems to be  vulnerable?

Bob, my error. The numbers I read were 15,000 a month, not 5000.

>there are an estimated 100,000 pros (Wolfman report) in USA, so my
>bet is that any pro who really wants a 35mm lens compatible digiSLR
>has probably  got one by now?

Now that's a number a lot higher than I thought also. Last numbers I
heard from PPA were around 10,000 part time and full time Pro
photographers. I know a lot of conversation on some of the Pro
mailing lists are about whether or not to go digital, so there are a
lot of them, probably the majority who haven't yet. There is a lot
of resistance especially with the older generation (no offense to
anyone)

 We are Borg of Digital. Resistance is futile.. You will be assimilated :)

>digicams (e.g., 12 months old ;-), so I'm content to let others pay
>the hefty depreciation premiums for now...

Thats definitely the whole thing. Once it pays off for you to go
digital, then it makes sense. In my case, it did.

Best,
Tim




From medium format mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Monaghan Site

yep, I agree many of us will be shooting digital as well as film (I hope!)
in the future, I'm on my 3rd digicam now. But I'm waiting for the natl
semi foveon 16 MP chips now in production, with expected 3 years costs
under $100, rather than chase the latest stuff for now, not quite high
enough density for me, but I suspect I'll be reasonably happy with 16 MP
and velvia options ;-)

with 14 million cameras sold, 20 million this year, 5,000 per month(?!~) for
one of the top brands is not surprising, hmm, 60,000/20,000,000 = 6/2000
= 3/1000, =.3%, rather higher than I expected, so you are right there,
esp. if you factor in nikon etc. Still, sales of SLRs for film are up,
now in 750,000-ish range IIRC. The collapse is in medium format, which is
not what I would expect, but it is the upgrade path that seems to be
vulnerable?


there are an estimated 100,000 pros (Wolfman report) in USA, so my bet is
that any pro who really wants a 35mm lens compatible digiSLR has probably
got one by now? I suspect most of these cameras are going to well heeled
amateurs who are also techies and computer users looking for a new toy? ;-0)

right now the prices seem high, the technology will soon reach a stable
point (16 MP) with good enough quality to be interesting, and investing
now is risking being an early adopter ;-) I'm content to wait 2 or 3 years
to buy a 16 MP camera for $500 or so, as predicted by Natl Semi's CEO for
their current foveon chip cameras (disposables in 3 to 5 years?)...

then again, I have mostly used medium format gear, and one generation out
digicams (e.g., 12 months old ;-), so I'm content to let others pay the
hefty depreciation premiums for now...

grins bobm







From medium format mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: Mike miaim@mebtel.net
Subject: Re: Re: Monaghan Site

 Bob M. wrote:
>    yep, I agree many of us will be shooting digital as well as film (I hope!)
> in the future, ......
> so I'm content to let others pay the
> hefty depreciation premiums for now...
>
> grins bobm

This is the same as my feelings on the issue. Why leap into an unknown at
high expense when such excellent results are available to current users of
mf gear willing to develop and process their own? My entire darkroom setup
cost less than the memory upgrade on some popular digital cams. Right now
somebody with under $1K can get a serviceable MF camera and complete
darkroom setup. (By many estimates that's actually a very generous
allotment as I know folks that've done it all for 1/2 that!) Look at what a
grand will buy in terms of digital camera, printer and computer. Not much
if one is serious about image quality. We're not there yet with digital.
I've no doubt that we will be, but until the technology and ecconomics
reach equilibrum, I'll hold on to the elderly medium format film
technology. When it comes time to abandon the smelly and dank darkroom,
I'll gladly do it smiling, but that's still a few years off.

Mike Swaim







From medium format mailing list:
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: Tim Mimpriss tim.mimpriss@talk21.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Re: Monaghan Site

Mike Swaim wrote:
> This is the same as my feelings on the issue. Why leap into an unknown at
> high expense when such excellent results are available to current users of
> mf gear willing to develop and process their own?

I have been examining a Nikon CoolPix 5000, ostensibly a good consumer
digicam, but I am disappointed.

I have compared the Nikon images with some 6x4.5 Velvia transparencies
scanned at a conservative 800 dpi. The Velvia scans show much better
image detail, despite having half the pixel count (2.2Mp vs. 4.9) The
Velvia images are contrasty, but toe and shoulder rolloff seem to be
quite gentle, so highlight and shadow detail are surprisingly good,
and I can easily produce pleasing prints from these scans. Conversely
the Nikon clips aggressively anything over Zone VII, although it does
hold shadow detail down to Zone II. However, the straight prints are
extremely dark, but if you apply a gamma transform (1.5-2.0) you lose
colour saturation. The Nikon prints are mostly very disappointing.

Velvia is possibly not the most forgiving of films, so the comparison
is very interesting, especially since I was comparing the same local
scenes under similar lighting.

Tim Mimpriss




From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: "junebug1701" junebug1701@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: 35mm film

--- In camera-fix@y..., jjmcf@a... wrote:

> I have a digital camera and just got a photo-quality inkjet
> printer and have been working with them.  The result is fairly
> disappointing.

Another option you have is to upload your digital pictures to
Photoworks.com or Ofoto.com and have them printed on regular photo
paper. I don't have a digital camera yet, but I've seen some sample
photos they have done and they look far better than anything from an
inkjet. The price for the prints is quite reasonable as well.

James




From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: jjmcf@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 35mm film disappearing?

....
Maybe this hasn't hit wherever you are, but all my neighborhood labs do all
their printing digitally.  The only chemical process is developing the
film--then they scan and print using their Fuji Frontier or whatever (a much
better printer than you can ever afford to have at home).  This takes a lot
of the variation out of the product.  You can get the scans downloaded to a
CD if you want to send them via email or print at home.  And you still have
the negatives for making big lab prints of those special pictures.  I don't
see any reason to have a digital camera in this situation, except for
producing a lot of low-res pictures for the web, such as ebay items.

John McFadden




From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 
From: Lowell Montgomery photoguy@ncws.com
Subject: Re: Re: 35mm film

BTW, if you want prints from your digital camera, but DON'T want to upload
all those big files over a standard phone (or whatever) line... just put 'em
on a CD or bring them on a compact flash card (or other camera media) and
many processors (Fuji Frontier-type labs) will print them for you for a very
reasonable price without needing to do a "mail-order" thing or all these
other hassles.

The prints at 4"x6" from a basic consumer-end digicam (a good quality 2MP
camera, say) look pretty respectable if some basic prints are all you are
after. Since this system prints with RGB lasers onto photo-sensitive paper,
you really only have to be happy with it on the screen and make sure you are
using a standard color profile they can recognize and adjust for when
printing. You just give 'em your JPEGs... but shoot at the best quality your
digicam supports (for web versions you can always run a Photoshop script to
save a down-sized and compressed version... if you have Photoshop).... If
you are using a web-based printer, I think you'll see image quality suffer
if you are getting a lot of images, 'cos you'll be tempted to use smaller
file-sizes and those just done print as well (low-res or low-quality) as the
best ones your camera can produce (which are still fairly low-quality,
really, unless you spent thousands of dollars, but adequate for a basic
photo album).

Software... another big expense for the low-volume end-user. And it's always
getting changed, always has bugs, always needs more learning... it's a lot
for the "average joe" to need to learn and keep up with, cost-wise and
learning-curve-wise... I expect a lot more people to be pulling back out
their old 35mm cameras as those cameras continue to work and their digital
"toys" break down and the files need much additional re-working in expensive
software programs like Photoshop... People will realize what a
pain-in-the-butt "going digital" can be on a consumer level or pro-level...
and either stick to film or go back to it. You just get SO much more power
from an "old-style film camera" still... And I'm one who uses both!

Lowell Montgomery
photoguy@ncws.com




From Leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: Digital M??

First of all, 35mm cameras do not have interchangeable film backs.
Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica, etc, MF cameras all have large removable film
backs. View cameras all have (mostly all) removable Graflok backs that
allows the attaching of any type of film back to the camera. Also, many
film cassettes for LF cameras slide into the sheet film holder space and
carry the roll film (Sinar, Horseman, etc.) outside of the back.

All of these cameras have a large enough back to house an entire digital
camera.

They all also have a connector so that an umbilical can be attached to
download images to a laptop or other digital memory device. Cheap smart
media is basically useless with these backs. You need 1 gig microdisks or
the like. Older backs had to send each image to the computer/memory device.
You carry the memory bank in a case, over your shoulder like you would a
Metz 60CT-4 strobe battery pack. Newer backs have enough memory (a gigabyte
or so) to store several high resolution images before having to download
them to a computer.

Many of the backs that fit LF cameras are scanning backs. They produce
extremely high resolution but require very long exposures. 45 seconds to
several minutes. Some MF backs are also scanning backs as the resolution
obtained from a scanning back can be a quantum leap over a CCD matrix.

There are various mechanisms to synchronize a mechanical camera with an
electronic back. But the bottom line is that all of these backs are very
large and can house a ton of electronics. It is possible to synchronize the
camera shutter for use with a digital back, but this is not the norm. All
of the digital backs that I am familiar with contain their own exposure
mechanism, as I have outlined before. A silicon substrate pulse to the CCD
is the shutter. On backs for LF cameras, the shutter part of the exposure
is also taken over by the back itself. The taking lens shutter is simply
left open with the correct f/stop selected.

There are a myriad of ways of accomplishing this. Again, there is enough
room and these cameras all have removable and replaceable backs. This is
one of their strong points. Where 35mm cameras, except for a very few old
cameras, do not have interchangeable film magazines therefore have no place
to house all of the required electronics.

If you go here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsProBack/proBackIndex.jhtml

You will see that, built into this Hasselblad/Mamiya back is a full and
complete digital camera including LCD preview panel. The film camera in
front of the digital back is simply a dark box that holds a lens. As with
other backs, this back controls the exposure. For use on a Hasselblad,
either an electric Hasselblad or one with a CW winder must be used. The
winder connects to the back and the exposure release also connects to the
back. The back controls the camera. The camera is set on a longer exposure
time than the digital back needs. This way the digital back will take its
picture while the camera shutter is open.

Also, as I have said before, film camera lenses are too sharp for CCD's.
Here's what Kodak says to do when a too sharp lens will cause artifacts:

For certain types of photography, you can mount the optional anti-aliasing
filter over the CCD. The anti-aliasing filter dramatically reduces scene
aliasing and moire. The anti-aliasing filter also has IR reflection layers,
so an additional IR filter is not needed.

Basically dumbing down the film camera lens. Reducing the MTF to a value
below the CCD pixel spacing frequency.

Jim

Joseph Codispoti wrote:
>Jim,
>
>over the past two years you have made abundantly clear that digital and film
>cameras do not mix. You have given us more information on the subject that
>could be obtained from other sources. And your prediction have indeed been
>proven true.
>
>I have a question regarding the same subject. How do the digital backs for
>unmodified Hasselblad , Mamiya 645, and view cameras handle the marriage of
>digital to film cameras? Although not exactly desirable, why could the same
>not be done for any 35mm camera?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Joseph Codispoti





From: "David Kieltyka" daverk@msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ink Jet Resolution Revisited
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002

Eric Miller ericmiller@ericmiller.dynip.com wrote:

> [Quoting article]: "Most inkjet printers cannot see anything above
> 240 dpi. A raw D60 image at 240 DPI equates to 12"x18," which
> just happens to be the maximum print size of most pro-level inkjet
> printers such as the Epson 2000P."
>
> On my Epson 1270, I have been able to print 11x14 images that
> have impressed at least one local Pro photographer enough that
> he immediately bought a 1270 (about a year and a half ago). Is
> the 240 DPI statement true or partially true? Does anyone have
> an opinion based on actually comparing the images from scanned
> film to D60 or other 6+ megapixel cameras?


This isn't exactly true. Custom printer drivers exist, for monochrome
printing on Epson printers with special inks, that make use of image data
beyond the 240dpi level. But using the standard drivers you're not gonna see
much if any difference between a scan or digital capture printed at 300+ dpi
and one printed at 240dpi. So in this regard the Canon D60 and other
digicams of equal resolution are capable of professional results at 11x14"
or even 12x18".

Digital's remaining shortcomings are in other areas. The biggest
showstoppers for me are the monotonal nature of current digicams and their
reduction in depth-of-field control compared to 35mm or medium format.

Buying a camera like the D60 is like buying a 35mm camera that only takes
one kind of film. You can manipulate brightness, contrast, saturation, etc.
but you still get the basic image characteristics imparted by the CCD or
CMOS chip and firmware used by the particular camera. What if you don't care
for the D60's imaging characteristics? You can't do the equivalent of
swapping Velvia for Kodachrome...you must either learn to like D60 images or
buy a different camera. This will change as imaging chips and firmware
improve. Kodak already has a medium format digital back that does a pretty
good job of emulating various Kodak films. But this level of capability is
still very expensive.

As for DOF control...bigger imaging chips will make it a moot point. 24x36mm
chips are coming soon. In fact they're already here if you count the Philips
chip used in the Contax N Digital, which is allegedly no longer mere
vaporware (but is probably priced too high to make much market impact). The
aforementioned Kodak back uses a 36x36mm chip. I'd love to see this become a
standard, with user-settable aspect ratios of course.

Two years from now every digital camera currently on the market will be
totally outclassed by new offerings. Film images still have the look(s) I
love, and film isn't a rapidly moving target in terms of quality, so I'm
happily willing to wait until the digital world offers a look I love just as
much (and, who knows, maybe more).

Sorry if I wandered a bit off-topic. But of course it's not really off-topic
at all. :-)

-Dave-





From: dhaynie@jersey.net (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: --24x36mm CCD back -NEVER.  (Was Pop Photo...)
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001


 Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca wrote:
>The economics of chip making are such that due to random defects, small
>chip areas are achievable at very low cost.  As the chip area goes up the
>probability of defects per mm^2 goes up geometrically, and the throw
>aways go up (24x36 is HUGE).  It is not likely that such a chip will be
>manufactured.

You're wrong, plain and simple.

Much as huge chips have been made for memories, huge chips can be made
for sensors. Just not CCDs, cheap. The key to large and cheap is
redundant imaging cells, which it perfectly possible in CMOS
architectures, but not in CCD, due to the serial architecture.
What's going to fly, price-wise, in a $5000-$10,000 professional
camera isn't necessarily even needed for a $500-$1000 consumer camera.
Without the interchangeable lenses, consumer P&S makers have zero
point in shipping a 35mm-sized CCD. That doesn't mean the true SLR
people agree to such limits. Keep in mind, large CCDs for still
digital cameras is a very, very new field.

>NOR IS IT NECCESARY.  A CCD chip, much smaller than 24x36 that has the
>full resolution of a full sized 24x36 ISO 50 (or even 25) film is
>economically achievable, with all the variable sensitivities.

Well, this is also a problem. An ISO25 or thereabout 35mm image will
have something on the order of 30Mpixel. You're going to have a hard
enough time making that with any reasonable level of sensitivity in a
large area, much less a small one. For example, the Foveon 16.8Mpixel
CMOS sensor (manufacturered by National Semiconductor), at 22mm x
22mm, is only rated for ISO 100, not really suitable to all-around
professional work. Of course, they're also claiming this sensor will
be _cheap_.

In practical terms, it's already happening. All of the last generation
digital SLRs have CCDs (or in the Canon D30 case, CMOS sensor) of
roughly APS or larger size (eg, your lens's effective focal length has
been magnified by 1.3x on the high end, 1.5x on the low end, all
fairly usable still -- I have a Canon EOS IX, not a D30,
unfortunately, so I speak with some actual experience here on the
focal length issues).

This year, Philips has introduced a 24mm x 36mm, 6Mpixel CCD, pretty
much putting the debate to rest. This is debuting in the Contax N
Digital and, perhaps, the Pentax MR-52 later this year.

And that's not the limit, for a price. Kodak's 16Mpixel CCD, the
KAF-16801, has a 36.9 x 36.9 imaging area. This is currently shipping
in their DCS Pro Back (for Hasselblad & Mamiya), and of course, you
can buy these for your own cameras, if you're a camera vendor ;-)

>Unfortunately this will not match our collections of 35mm lenses and
>SLR's.

In practical terms, they're close enough to work with our current 35mm
systems today. But some people won't accept that. That alone is going
to drive 36mm x 24mm CCDs and CMOS sensors into all pro-level digital
cameras with in the next few years.

>Don't hold your breath waiting for a 24x36 CCD back for your camera.  It
>won't happen.

Well, as stated, if you have a Hasselblad or Mamiya, you can get a
37.5mm x 37.5mm, 16Mpixel back, well, Real Soon Now (doesn't seem to
be shipping quite yet, but it was scheduled to be, by now).

>Upside: equivalent (even higher quality) than the very best 35mm film
>will be achieved on CCD and you will happilly buy the equipment.
>Imagine: I can't afford a 600mm for my camera.  But I will probably be
>able to afford the equivalent in the new format when it gets to
>evolving... eg: a 600mm lens for a chip that is half the size of a 24x36
>will be roughly 300mm ....  ahh.  Lighter, cheaper... and as much zoom as
>a 600 with all the resolution and potentially more speed... (f/2.8?)

There are plenty of other problems at those small sizes. On the sensor
size, you have diffraction and light sensitivity. You can only build
sensors so small and still effectively capture light wavelengths.
Then, when you view light from the partical prespective, you need a
sensor large enough to capture enough photons to be interesting.

On the lens front, you simply need to build a much sharper lens for a
small CCD, to get the same resolution in half the linear space (or
whatever).

>> What is it going to take for me to convert from film to digital?
>> 1) A 24 by 36 mm sensor area so that my 20mm ultrawide still records
>> an ultrawide angle image.  And, I shudder to think what my 16mm
>> Fisheye would take on one of the current set of digital bodies.

Available from some manufacturers in 2001.

>> 2) Adjustable sensitivity of 100 to 3200 ASA equivalent.

Speed versus resolution is still something of a tradeoff. Both of the
16Mpixel sensors out today are ISO100, tops. But in the 6Mpixel and
below areas, they're better. I wouldn't be surprised if you get
ISO800, maybe even ISO1600.

>> 3) Cost about the same as a middle-of-the-road Nikon body.

Probably will never happen. If it does, it'll take a few generations
of integration beyond where silicon is today. It's just too expensive:
the high cost of making a large CCD, the extras you need in a pro body
(high speed capture, multi-frame, flexible interfaces, etc). And that,
pretty much all on top of the normal cost of the SLR body.

>> 4) Some stability in the technology so that I won't see a need (or
>> desire) to upgrade every two years.

Well, what would you suggest here. Once you get your ideal body, that
everyone just STOP making better ones? Only a technological road block
will see that happen. Nikon has to keep up, because they don't want to
get beat in the technology race by Canon. Kodak has to outpace Nikon,
etc. Plus, once a design group finishes one model, they either start
on the next, or they're out of work.

Dave Haynie  |  frog pond media  |  dhaynie@jersey.net






from minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 
From: "alexanderkoz" alexanderkoz@excite.com
Subject: Re: New digital sensor

--- In Minolta@y..., "bigplanetexec" bigplanetexec@m... wrote:
> ...
> Film exists that can easily do more but few if any 35mm lenses can
> resolve more.

I believe, lens resolving power is largely underestimated. If we had
film providing 200 lp/mm for low-contrast subjects without much grain
we'd see how brilliant our 28-80 and 35-105 lenses are. Areal
resolution of 28-80 is much higher than one would expect from his
negatives. I was emazed seeing in microscope 100 lp/mm on the film
plane of my camera with 28-80 wide open! I am pretty convinced now
that it is film that limits system resolution. Maybe consumer digital
sensor could be improved beyond the film capabilities? I hope so. At

least, it has eliminated grain and the problem of film flatness
already, and rapidly aproaches film resolution. There are other
problems in digital photography but potentially digital cameras are
more capable than present SLRs with the same optics, in my opinion.

Regards,
Alex.




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: AW: Re: New digital sensor

Digital technology suffers the same problem. If the lens/contrast is not
good enough, the optics cannot resolve all pixels, that means neighbouring
pixels carry only the same data. If you photograph a monochrome aera with no
contrast, one pixel would be enough. Subjects with lot of details and

contrast make the difference - if you use high quality optic. The
resolution-problem for most digital systems is even worse, because the
sensors are small, so the pixels are packed very dense. Though it's possible
to build sharper optics for smaller formats, we know from the comparison of
APS vs. 24x36mm vs. Medium Format..., that this does not compensate the
smaller format.

Manfred





from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 
From: "bigplanetexec" bigplanetexec@msn.com
Subject: Re: Re: New digital sensor

A little clarification. You are correct it is not the same as a 9 MP
camera. It just gets 3 MP using only 3 million pixels. Current cameras use
12 million pixels to get 3 MP because they have a square of 4 pixels made
up of two green and one each red and blue. But it's pixels can be smaller
giving it possibly finer grained resolution. And remember most of these
current cameras have sub-35mm array sizes which means they are getting
their 2.75-6 MP out of the central 55-66% of a standard 35mm frame. If the
camera is a 1.6x lens factor (55%) then if it has 5 Mp of resolution in
the central area the same scene shot with the same lens using film, then
scanned in at 4000 DPI will actually have lower resolution but will have
wider coverage. Not to mention that by using only the central part of the
lens area the digital body is working in the sharper part of the lens (or
the resolution will be poor if the lens is not sharp enough to show detail
as small as the pixel size).


This is what the latest Nikon and Canon users are experiencing with the
newer higher res bodies. The better factory consumer lenses that could
resolve 2-3 MP digital or film aren't sharp enough to be sharp when they
use 4-6 MP bodies. They have to limit themselves to only the pro lenses.
That will be one of the problems if Minolta does ever release a 4-6 MP
digital body. All those old but nice old F4 zoom lenses will have to be
tossed out in favor of pro level F2.8 lenses.

Kent Gittings
...




From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 
From: "Magnus Wedberg" mw@9000.org
Subject: Re: Re: New digital sensor

> A little clarification. You are correct it is not the same as a 9 MP

> camera. It just gets 3 MP using only 3 million pixels. Current cameras
> use 12 million pixels to get 3 MP  because they have a square of 4
> pixels made up of two green and one each red and blue.

No, this is unfortunately a misunderstanding of current technology.
If it was like you say I wouldn't complain much! Current 3MP cameras
use 3MP sensors, with the GRGB "Bayer pattern" you describe, to
interpolate color information. If they used a 12MP sensor they would
output 12MP files.

How the most used Bayer pattern looks like and how interpolation is
done, including pixel counts so you can verify what I say yourself:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/key=colour+filter+array
I think everyone involved in this discussion should read this page.


See the beginning of
http://www-us11.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/datasheets/FXA1012.pdf
(stitch the link together) for more info on a current generation
sensor, with hard specs from the manufacturer. Zoom in the "Device
structure" picture!

As I have said numerous times before: If you convert the image
captured to B/W (discards color information), there is NO DIFFERENCE
between an image captured by a traditional 3MP CCD and an image
captured by the Foveon 3MP sensor. It's the exact same amount of
detail that is captured.

Regards
--
Magnus Wedberg
http://mw.9000.org/




From Minolta Mailing list:
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: AW: Re: New digital sensor

If I understand the link below
(http://www.dpreview.com/learn/key=colour+filter+array
  ) right, a 2048 x
1536 Pixel (=3 MP) Sensor has only 1024 x 768 (= 768KP) "white" pixels.

The resolution for e.g. the Velvia is given as 160 lines/mm. For 24x36mm
that makes an equivalent of:
(160l/mm x 24mm) x (160l/mm x 36mm) = 22,1 Mio "Pixel". As in chemical film,
the colours are in layers behind each other, that are real "white" pixel.

A still long way to go for digital technology.

Manfred




From: skeckhardt@mmm.com (Steve Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: CCD chips
Date: 9 May 2002


There was an interesting article on the number of megapixels in a 35mm image in
Information Display a while back.  The conclusion was that you don't get
anywhere near the 4800 x 7200 pixels that 35 mm film is capable of in a normal
photo due to motion blur and poor focusing.  A typical snapshot is about 1600 x
1200.  I'm sure that my Nikon rangefinder is far below this, because I always
get much better photos with my Nikon SLR.

Best regards,
Steve Eckhardt
...





Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 
From: Eric Rudd rudd@cyberoptics.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: CCD chips

Steve Eckhardt wrote:
> The conclusion was that you don't get anywhere near the 4800 x 7200 pixels that 35
> mm film is capable of in a normal photo due to motion blur and poor focusing.

Even considering film resolution alone, 4800 x 7200 pixels is pretty optimistic for
color emulsions.  The 50% point of the MTF curve is a more realistic level for
comparison with CCD array resolution than the "resolving power" figures you
sometimes see listed.  The MTF for the typical color emulsion drops to 50% at about
40 cycles/mm.  Since, according to sampling theory, it takes two samples per cycle
to reproduce the signal, this amounts to 80 samples/mm, or about 2000 x 3000 pixels
in the 24x36-mm format, which is comparable to the resolution of high-end CCD
cameras these days.  However, some B&W emulsions are more than three times better in
resolving power.  You can find MFT curves on the better film data sheets.

-Eric Rudd
rudd@cyberoptics.com




From Nikon MF Mailing List:
From: "Jung, Peter" Peter.Jung@city.vaughan.on.ca
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] NIKON F6 UPDATE

Dear Members,

I attended a Nikon Spring tune-up on Saturday at Vistek in Toronto, Canada.
The word from their technician Kenji is that the F100 is the last
"Professional Performance" film based 35mm SLR camera.  No more Nikon F6 or
any professional level camera will be developed.  You can either keep your
mint condition F5 and F100 and try to command some price in the future, or
trade up to the D100 or megabuck D series camera(s).

Peter




From Nikon MF Mailing List:
From: William Clark wclark@cdic.ca
Subject: RE: [Nikon] NIKON F6 UPDATE
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 

I had heard this as well from a dealer in Ottawa (Focuscenter).  Apparently
this decision had been made some time ago.  Rep also said he thought F100
had only 2 yrs of production left.  Then that's it for film, except for p&S.

-Bill




From: Louis Boyd boyd@apt0.sao.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: CCD chips
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 


Eric Rudd wrote:

> Louis Boyd wrote:
>
> > At most major observatories you'd be hard pressed to find any photographic
> > film anymore, at least not being used to gather
> > scientific data.
>
> I have no dispute whatever with any of the items on your list, and the choice
> of CCDs for professional astronomy seems obvious
> these days, at least for small fields of view.
>
> However, I recall that some large telescopes can have a usable image of 0.3 m
> diameter or more.  How does one take advantage of
> such a large image region with CCD arrays?  I'm not aware of any CCD chips
> that big, and I'm having a hard time visualizing how one
> would make a composite detector covering such a field.  I recall that Hubble
> has some sort of composite detector, but I don't
> remember how it works, or whether that technique is feasible for more than a
> 2x2 array of detectors.

It's not uncommon to mosaic several ccd's together.  I've seen cameras with  9
and no doubt larger ones have been made. .  Huge single
detectors are expensive and dont' offer much advantage even if they have
multiple readouts.  Astronomers are generally not trying to
make "pretty" pictures so the gaps between chips in most cases is of little
concern.  Also, multiple chips can be tilted slightly
reducing the field flattening difficulty of a single large chip.

Remember too that very large telescopes are rarely used for imaging.  Most are
used for spectroscopy.  That 0.3m field is much more
likely to be covered by an array if fiber fieeds to a multi-channel
spectrograph than by a large imaging device, be it film or CCD's.

Lou Boyd





Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution: Digital vs Film


"Gregory L. Hansen" glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu a écrit

> An advantage of film is better resolution.  But
> doesn't film have pixels in one of three colors:
> red, yellow, blue?  A digital camera has something
> like 24 bit pixels, each pixel can be any of
> millions of colors.

It's more like the other way around.  Color film has dye clouds, but they
are microscopic.  As a result, when scanned, each pixel of film effectively
has information for all three primary colors, red, blue, and green.  In
contrast, each pixel of the CCD on a typical digital camera receives only
one of the three primary colors, and the other two are interpolated from
surrounding pixels.  This works out okay because the human eye is far less
sensitive to color detail than it is to luminance detail, but the fact
remains that film provides far better color resolution than digital.

> So is the higher resolution of film really such
> an advantage?

Yes, if high resolution is a requirement for your application.  A scanned
8x10 film transparency contains as many as eight _gigapixels_.





Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution: Digital vs Film

Resolution is only one issue. Colour accuracy of films is often better than
digital, though ultimately it depends on how the image is reproduced. If the
image is only going to be displayed on a monitor, there is not a problem with
a strictly RGB capture. Printed images (not referring to inkjet) are in the
CMYK colour space. This CMYK space does not relate well to RGB, meaning that
adjustments are needed. RGB relates to CMY, and K (black) is added in the
printing to provide shadow detail, and some tonal changes. AGFA produces a
wonder series of books about printing technologies, colour gamut, UCR, GCR,
and screening. Try http://graphics.agfa.com/ for more information.

Some film emulsions are not strictly Red, Green, and Blue layers. Many
include a Cyan, Yellow, or Blue emulsion layer. Colour accuracy can be better
with film, but is more apparent on chemical prints. Scanners mostly capture
to an RGB colour space, so some scanners could degrade the colour quality
captured in scanned film. Even the choice of which RGB colour space to use
can give widely differing results. More specifics about printing can be found
at http://www.swop.org

Printing will have more of an effect on the final image than the way it was
captured. There are poor examples of digital and film images, so the
technology should not take the blame. Paper quality, dot gain, screening, ink
saturation, and colour correction techniques can all affect image quality.
Even in chemical photo prints, if you use mediocre enlargers, paper, and
chemicals, your results will be worse, regardless of how good is your camera.

Some great information about accuracy and resolution can be found at
, though only in German at this point. This deals
with photogrammetry, which is an area highly concerned about resolution
issues. You may want to search for information about Photogrammetry to find
out more.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:

> An advantage of film is better resolution.  But doesn't film have pixels
> in one of three colors: red, yellow, blue?  A digital camera has something
> like 24 bit pixels, each pixel can be any of millions of colors.  So when
> an enlargement is made the digital picture may get blocky, but the film
> picture would get grainy and "dithered" to give the same color
> information.
>
> So is the higher resolution of film really such an advantage?





From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution: Digital vs Film
Date: 15 May 2002


Commercially available lenses for 8x10" format aren't capable of
providing 8 billion pixels, although some specialized aerial recon
lenses *might* be under certain circumstances.  Consider that at f/32,
which is a fairly normal taking aperture for 8x10, diffraction will
limit you to less than 500 megapixels.

You already know how current digital technology can approach large
format film quality because you've seen it:

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/FullSizeMosaicMain.html

"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote 
> "paulisme" paulcrowder@hotmail.com a écrit
> > Eventually the pixel count for digital
> > cameras will be higher than the resolution
> > provided by film.
>
> That is extremely unlikely, not only on a per surface basis but also in
> total numbers.  An 8x10 film negative provides some eight billion pixels, or
> more than 1300 times the pixel count of the best digital SLRs today.  It's
> difficult to see how an electronic image sensor could be built to duplicate
> this with anything resembling present technology.
>
> > Right now we're around 6 Megapixels
> > which is almost there.
>
> Still less than 35mm by a factor of two to four, and of course there is no
> comparison with MF or LF.




Date: Wed, 15 May 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital for long exposures


Long exposures are one of the few weak spots of digital cameras.  You're
better off with film for two-hour exposures.

This can be done with systems designed for long exposures, using special,
very expensive CCDs that are actively cooled to reduce thermal noise, but
it's not something that any ordinary digital camera can do, not even a pro
model.

"Orbit0008" orbit0008@aol.com a écrit
> I like to shoot night landscapes which
> sometimes require up to 2 hour exposures.
> Is there a digital camera that is capable
> of this, if not would it be reasonable to assume
> there will be in the not to distant future?
> thanks
>
> Mark






From: "Joseph S. Wisniewski" wiz@netfrog.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital for long exposures
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 


Orbit0008 wrote:
>
> I like to shoot night landscapes which
> sometimes require up to 2 hour exposures.
> Is there a digital camera that is capable
> of this, if not would it be reasonable to assume
> there will be in the not to distant future?
> thanks

Boy, was there an amazing amount of misinformation in this thread.

Any digital camera capable of exposures of 10 seconds or longer,
connected to a computer (even a laptop is fine for this) can do this
very well. You do it exactly the same way astronomers do it, by using a
series of shorter exposures to make one long exposure.
Astrophotographers refer to this as "stacking" exposures.


For your needs, wanting all the streaks from car tail lights, you need a
camera that can do three things. First, it has to be able to take a
fairly long picture, so you'll get some decent amount of streaking.
Second, it has to be able to transfer a picture to a computer fairly
quickly. Third, it has to be controllable by computer.

For Canon cameras (OK, my film stuff is Nikon, my digital stuff is
Canon) I use a freeware program called "Cam4you", by Hans-David
Alkenius. (This free software simply blows away the Canon "ZoomBrowser"
software that comes with an S100 / S110 / IXUS / Digital Elph). It can
control most Canon digitals, and you can set to to keep the camera on,
shoot pictures at intervals, and save them to the computer's hard disk,
instead of camera memory. Set it to take pictures at an interval that
corresponds to the longest shutter speed of your camera, when set
manually. Then just let it run for an hour or two. You'll need an
external battery pack for most cameras.


Next, take an image stacking program, such as "AstroStack" by R.J.
Stekelenburg. It will automatically align the images (to compensate for
slow variations in your aim due to tripod drift, changing atmospheric
conditions, etc. and average them all together into one image, with
incredible shadow detail.

This is exactly how astronomers do it. A typical CCD telescope takes
exposures anywhere between 10 seconds and 2 minutes, and "stacks" piles
of them. Every telescope is different, and different exposure times work
better for different subjects.

If the D60 can do minute long exposures, as was mentioned elsewhere in
this thread, it would be perfect for this. A 2 hour stack of minute
those would be exactly shot you want.

Now, as far as this stuff about astronomers using "super cooled" liquid
nitrogen. That sounds like pure rubbish to me. Every astronomer I know
uses a high quality, low noise CCD (usually Kodak, TI, or Sony), cooled
by a solid state Peltier device. These little gems drop the temperature
of your CCD 25-40 degrees C. (45-70 degrees F). So, they can easily cool
your CCD down below the freezing point of water, but definitely not to
liquid nitrogen temperatures.

Telescopes require stability to focus and track accurately. You normally
set them up, then let them adjust to the temperature of the surrounding
air for hours before they're ready to deliver the best images. A small
Peltier cooling system doesn't disrupt this process very much. On the
other hand, suddenly introducing a dewer of liquid nitrogen into the
system should cause so much thermal contraction that you'd never get the
scope into focus, or keep it there long enough for a long exposure. And
it's hard enough to keep the sensor from frosting over at Peltier
temperatures, let alone liquid nitrogen temperatures.

If you want some real info on how this stuff is done, check out this
handy site:

        http://www.geocities.com/vailja/ccd.htm

There are tens of thousands of astronomers around the world (amateur and
professional) using CCD systems from Meade, SAC, SBIG, etc. They do not
"spend millions of dollars on their systems" as was also asserted in
this thread. You can put together a perfectly serviceable system
amazingly cheap. My first CCD camera used a home built imager that only
cost around $300  on a 6 inch scope that cost less than $500, including
my home built stepper motor "goto" mount. Something like this:

        http://wvi.com/%7Erberry/cookbook.htm

And, amazingly enough, with the right software, it had more dark reach
than the best film work I could do on a telescope almost twice that
size. (telescope costs go up at about the cube of the size. double the
size of the mirror, and it costs eight times as much).

Granted, I eventually ended up playing with arrays of 12 inch scopes and
$3000 imagers, but the "entry fee" is under $1000.

Heck, I know people who use modified web cams, alcohol cooled, on $200
Mead 4 inch goto scopes, and can do digital astronomy under $250.

Ciao!
Joe





Date: Wed, 15 May 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution threshold


"Patrick L." 9087@o98uv.com a écrit 
> My question is this:   What is the resolution
> threshold at which the eye can no longer tell
> the difference (for 8x10) ?

For the eye, the threshold is orders of magnitude lower.  A mere six to
eight megapixels is all you need in an image to match the resolution
threshold of the human eye.

So why have more?  Because the 6-8 megapixels are sufficient only if certain
restrictions are observed:  the image has to be viewed at a "standard"
distance (roughly equal to the diagonal of the image), and it cannot be
cropped.  If you want to examine the image more closely, or if you are
cropping and enlarging the image, you need more pixels.  In the first case,
you need more pixels because you can see more pixels when you look up close,
and in the second case, you need more pixels because you have to be sure
that the image still contains six million or so even after cropping.

So MF images are useful when you plan to greatly enlarge images AND you know
that they will be examined closely (at less than the "standard" viewing
distance), or when you plan to crop out parts of the image and use only what
remains.  For large format, the same motivations apply, only more so.  If
you want to project a landscape onto a huge cyclorama that will be seen from
only a few feet away by observers, large format is the way to go.

> If digital SLRs reach this point,  won't the issue
> of resolution, regardless of how many billions more
> pixels 8x10 film can provide, be moot?


Yes, provided the restrictions noted above apply.

And, in fact, digital cameras have ALREADY reached this point:  pro cameras
provide six megapixels or more, and this is enough for any image viewed from
a standard viewing distance and not cropped.  35mm film provides more
pixels, but you can't see them, at least not at a standard viewing distance,
and not without cropping.  So if these are the viewing conditions for your
images, you gain nothing by shooting film instead of digital, as the extra
resolution of film is wasted.

Thus, film only wins in more unusual situations as outlined above.  Those
situations will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and digital
isn't likely to replace them all, but for the great majority of
applications, digital is already sufficient.




From: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Leica std vs. digital std. Re: Resolution threshold
Date: 16 May 2002 


the traditional Leica standard was 8 lpmm on an 8x10" print viewed at ~
10-12" (typically the diagonal of the print is the optimal viewing
distance) - and that for lenses and materials from the 1930s (!)...

so compared to 17" view of 4 lpmm, the Leica (film) standard is about 4
times the information (8 lpmm = 2 * 4 lpmm, squared for area) and then
some (10-12" vs. 17" distance poster specified for digital prints).

6 megapixels on an 8x10" print corresponds to 75,000 pixels/sq. inch
or ~275 pixels per linear inch, or 11.2+ pixels/mm, or about 5.6 lpmm (or
70% of the 8 lpmm Leica standard for prints). Taking reciprocal, 1.42
we really need a 6MP x 1.42 = 8.55 MP sensor to provide the "equiv."
of a Leica (film) standard 8x10" print with 8 lpmm quality. Since an
11x14" print has about twice the area of an 8x10", we can project the
new 16 MP chips (foveon..) will produce a "leica" standard print up to
11x14" in size - without smoothing interpolation.

hth bobm




From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Digilux


You cannot do OTF or TTL flash in a digital camera. The CCD ssurface is
glass and therefore cannot be read like the surface of film. A separate
flash sensor has to be used or, since digital cameras are basically all
autofocus, the equivalent ISO and the CCD to subject distance is known, as
well as the flash o/p power. A simple firmware algorithm is all that is
needed to fire the flash for the appropriate length of time. A computed
auto flash rather than using a photo transistor sensor. In the last camera
that I wrote the firmware for, this is what I did. Worked perfectly.

Jim




From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: RE: Digilux

As I said, Barry, they cannot read it off of the CCD. They can have a
separate sensor, as I said. And it could be behind the lens with a
splitter. And I never mentioned manual anything... My original sentence
should have been: "You cannot do OTF TTL flash in a digital camera." The
"or" was incorrect.

Bottom line. The flash exposure has to be figured out before the CCD
exposure begins, or there has to be a separate sensor reading the flash to
shut it off when enough light is read.

Jim
....

>From: Jim Brick [mailto:jim@brick.org]
>Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 
>To: leica@topica.com; leica@topica.com
>Subject: Re: Digilux
>
>
>You cannot do OTF or TTL flash in a digital camera. The CCD ssurface is
>glass and therefore cannot be read like the surface of film. A separate
>flash sensor has to be used or, since digital cameras are basically all
>autofocus, the equivalent ISO and the CCD to subject distance is known, as
>well as the flash o/p power. A simple firmware algorithm is all that is
>needed to fire the flash for the appropriate length of time. A computed
>auto flash rather than using a photo transistor sensor. In the last camera
>that I wrote the firmware for, this is what I did. Worked perfectly.
>
>Jim




From: Tom Nelson tnphoto@xskypoint.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Film / Digital
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002


If anyone's interested, I've posted a comparison of film vs. digital at
http://www.tnphoto.com/fvd/

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography




From: Tom Nelson tnphoto@xskypoint.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Film / Digital
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002

JustaPawn justapawn@aol.com wrote:
> So what is the investment cost of the Hasselblad, digital back and computer to
> drive it vs. the investment in the 4x5, lens, film holder and a sheet of film?
>
> I agree, digital is amazing but is not yet at an affordable quality/cost
> compared to film, film cameras and scans.

Digital photography is making big inroads in portrait, catalog and news
photograph, where it can be used regularly and where the payback in
saved film/processing cost is advantageous. High end digital is out of
the price range of most pros (me included). But the trend is clear.
Quality is rising fast, and prices are dropping. It's not too
unrealistic to expect someone making his living in photography to have
a MF or LF camera, lenses and a graphics-capable computer. So the
incremental cost is just the digital back. There are photographers who
talk of a 6-month payback.

There are considerations that haven't been discussed yet that give film
an advantage. The overhead of storage, archiving, color-balancing and
retrieving hundreds and thousands of high-res images is significant. On
digital shoots I've done it takes hours to archive just the raw
captures to CD. An average digital shoot, with 12-18 MB captures, will
fill a large hard drive in very short order. The 6MP prosumer cameras
get 5-15 captures at highest res before you have to offload the
in-camera memory. The pro cameras need to be cabled to a computer and
have no built-in memory. Drop a roll of film and there's no harm done.
Drop your Microdrive and you've lost the whole shoot.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography





From: Net Talker net_talker@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Film / Digital
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002


Two things that have become clear to me from the responses since I
originally posted the message:

1. As Juha pointed out, film does have a limitation, called resolving
power which is measured in lines per millimeter - I didn't know this
as of the first posting.  Based on this, one can figure out the pixel
density needed with a digital camera or a digital back to match or
exceed film.  For example, Fuji NPS 160 has a resolving power of 125
lpmm, which equates to about 56MP.  This is just under 10 times the
number of pixels in the current digital cameras and backs.

2. There exists quality digital backs for MF cameras that, according
to many, seem to be much better, in terms of quality, than the
prosumer digital cameras.  However, they cost more than most small
cars and are not portable - they must be cabled to a computer.

My conclusion to all of this is as follows.  For the time being,
(A) invest in a MF film camera
(B) make sure the camera has a removable back
(C) invest in a good film scanner capable of MF
(D) shoot with film and scan the film

When the costs for the MF digital backs fall to a price range that I
can afford and increase in pixel density then I'll consider getting
one for my existing MF camera.

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread - I
learned a lot.
 Net Talker net_talker@hotmail.com wrote:
>I've heard a number of posts on this newsgroup that claim
>medium-format users are switching to digital cameras "in droves".  I
>thought that the motivation for using MF was that its larger negative
>size yielded better enlargements than 35mm.  My understanding is that
>to date, the best digital camera offers about 6MP (3000x2000) and that
>even the digital backs for MF cameras are of the same resolution.  I'm
>eliminating the scanning backs which are good only for subjects that
>are still for a long time while the scanner moves and so would not be
>useful for portrait or wedding photography.
>
>To me, at least looking at just the numbers, 6MP is far inferior to
>35mm much less than MF.
>
>I'm basing my assumption on the following:
>
>25.4mm per inch
>35mm = 36mmx24mm
>MF = 60x45mm (yes, I know there are larger MF sizes, such as 6x6, etc)
>
>Scanning a 35mm at 4000dpi is equivalent to:
>((36/25.4)*4000)*((24/25.4)*4000) = 21,427,242 pixels = 21MP
>
>Scanning a 6x4.5 at 4000dpi is equivalent to
>((60/25.4)*4000)*((45/25.4)*4000) = 66,960,133 pixels = 67MP
>
>As such 6PM is smaller than 21MP (35mm) and far smaller than 67MP
>(MF).  Therefore, if the reason for using MF is the larger negative
>for better enlargement, how does one achieve this with a digital back
>(or camera) that is over 11 times smaller (67/21) ?
>
>Questions:
>(1) Am I making the correct assumption with the output of the scan
>with a 4000dpi scanner?
>
>(2) Is there a significance in the difference between dpi and pixels
>in the above calculations?
>
>(3) If one take a picture with a MF 6x4.5 and a 6PM digital camera,
>will they be equally good when enlarged to say 30x40?





From:  T o n y tp@tp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Will digital overtake film? Or rather, do you *want* digital to
overtake film.
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002


"David Kieltyka" daverk@msn.com wrote:
>I sure hope digital technology is given the opportunity to attain high
>quality at an affordable price.

It is more likely that standards will universally be dumbed down to
the low quality digital can attain.  We will be told that this low
level of quality is all we need, and many of us will believe it.

>It seems to me that medium format cameras with interchangeable backs
>are the perfect vehicle for such technology.

Why?  The cost of producing a 6x6cm or 6x9cm chip would be horrendous
and would remain so for a very long time.  This would handicap sales
to a very great extent.

>A 6x6cm chip using technology like that developed by Foveon and delivering
>something like an 8000x8000 pixel 42- or 48-bit image would be truly killer.

We're still waiting for the Foveon/Hasselblad 16 megapixel body that
we ordered Q1/2001.  We've been told it is unlikely ever to appear,
and I would be cautious about anything ever announced by Foveon.  In
other words, don't project today's vaporware into the future.

>But, according to what I've heard from people who should know, medium format
>sales are really lagging, at least in the US. If there will be few or even
>no cameras left on the market in five years to take such a digital back then
>it won't happen.

It's the same in Europe.  Medium format sales are over 20% down on
last year, which was 15% down on the year before.




From: dave49682000@yahoo.com (dave smith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Will digital overtake film? Or rather, do you *want* digital to overtake film.
Date: 13 May 2002


Boy do I hate Moore's statement. It is a statement not as law. It is
not predefined in the laws of physics.

One reason why digital (as in logic) or the gate count has been
increasing rapidly is the reduction in gate length. Currently state of
the art CMOS technologies is the 0.18um. Now if you look at the
reduction of gate lengths this is not increasing as with Moores
statement. Combined with the reduction in gate length larger die sizes
are being used which of course leads into yeild problems. Another
issue is the reduction in working voltage (required to get the power
consumption of the digital chip down =cvfl), now we are pretty much at
a volt and when the threshold voltage on a standard (don't start with
fancy dopings to get reduced Vth) is around 0.6, there's problems
waiting to happen.

Now as an RF integrated circuit designer with not much digital design
it looks like unless something truly revolutionary happens, Moores law
is gonna hit into threshold voltages, poissons equation (yield, you
cannot just keep on making die sizes bigger), power consumption and a
whole host of other nice physics. Oh and the digital guys are gonna
run into the wonderful world of parasitics (unwanted caps, inds,
resistors, couplings, etc). Have I mentioned chip packaging issues
yet?

Please do not just band about 'Moore's Law', without explaining
something about it and why you think it applies.

Thanks,

Dave




 From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution: Digital vs Film
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002


Mxsmanic wrote:

> > How did you come up with this figure?
>
> 320 lp/mm for Tech Pan, multiplied by the size of the negative

An 8x10" Tech Pan transparancy?

Rounding up a bit to full 8x10" size, i make that almost 20 Gigapixel, not
8, in film.

Scanned with 4000 dpi only about 1.2 Gigapixel remain.




From: "Bob May" bobmay@nethere.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: CCD chips
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 


Try taking an exposure of 30 minutes with a CMOS imager and you'll find that
it's just a bunch of noise.  CMOS doesn't drop in dark current like a CCD
does as most of it's problems are noise related rather than dark current
related.  The only way that CMOS is going to compete for the light out of a
telescope is to get quiet.

The Fovean device is interesting but it's still got the CMOS problems and
thus, exposures of a second are at the extreme of about what it can do.
After you get done with that, most CMOS devices are setup as video devices
thus a 8 bit depth to each color.  This also is rather unacceptable to the
astro community which runs at least 16 bits with their A/D converters.

--
Bob May






From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Film versus Digital: a summary of results
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 


Hello.
I hope I can shed some light (no pun intended) on the
seemingly never ending film versus digital debates.

I've summarized my research results and derived equations
of digital camera megapixel equivalent as a function of
film speed and film format.  I also present graphs of
digital camera megapixel equivalent for different films
with 35mm, 6x4.5cm, 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch formats.

These results are presented on a new web page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

I believe the data on this new page illustrates why we
have seen such passionate debates in these newsgroups: people
experience different results because of the diversity in
films.  In many cases, both sides have probably been right
in presenting their cases, but for different reasons.

For those of you who have followed some of my work here
over the last few years and have been to my web site
      http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark

my new site, http://www.clarkvision.com replaces the qwest.net
site (I'll update the qwest.net site as a backup to clarkvision.com
sometime in the future).  I also have new information at clarkvision on
astronomical observing, LASIK (still much more to add on that) and my
photos (photos still the same as on qwest.net, but I'll add many
more over the coming months).

Feedback is welcome.

Roger Clark
http://www.clarkvision.com




[Ed. note: I suspect CDROM access will be around a while due to volume of users?]
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 
From: CHARLES STOBBS cstobbs@attbi.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: archival

Hi,
  You suggest that CD storage may be archival but I question if there
will be any method of reading CD's 5 or 10 years from now, especially in
an economic sense. I have owned 4 computers in the last 20 years and
each had a different storage medium; cassette, 5 1/4 floppy, 3 1/2
floppy, and CD.

         Thanks,
                Charlie






From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re:  Leica and digital photography

Tina Manley wrote:
>And does he realize that he will never have to buy film again?  That
>little memory card can be used over and over.  I've saved enough on film
>to more than pay for my digital cameras.
>
>Tina
>
>Tina Manley, ASMP
>http://www.tinamanley.com



But he has to have a computer to read-in the photos from the memory card,
and a CD burner to write the photos back out as it wouldn't take long to
completely fill a HD with photographs. And a printer to be able to print a
photograph. So how many 4"x6" photos can you print from a tri-color ink
cartridge on the average $195 printer?

By the time the average schmuck buys a digital camera, couple of memory
cards, computer, printer, software, memory card reader, CD burner, CD's
photo paper, learns how to use it all to get those happy snaps from his
last trip or his niece's birthday party, he will wonder why he just didn't
use film, give the film to a one hour lab, pick-up the 4x6 happy snaps, and
be done with it, with weeks and weeks of work and frustration left behind.

:)

Jim

PS... Tina, you're different. You have a purpose for learning how to and
doing all of this. The average schmuck soon discovers that he is in, in
many cases, over his head both financially and intellectually. It's always
that next $250 gizmo that will make all the difference. It will bring it
all together. No wait... he needs yet something else... and something
else... Zip drive, Jazz drive, CD drive, DVD drive, $195 printer, $300
printer, $750 printer, better ink supply, Pentium 5. All because he wanted
to save money, and not have to buy film!






Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)


"Gordon Moat" moat@attglobal.net a écrit 
> Unfortunately, the best data so far (PMAI) indicates
> that barely 11% of digital camera users print their
> images.

That still may be more than enough.  According to some silver recyclers to
whom I talked, digital is driving a lot of demand for chemical printing.  If
_everyone_ has a digital camera, then 11% of them printing on paper is still
quite a bit!






Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)


Data gathered by PMAI suggests that barely more than 1% use a lab, or store, to
print their digital images. So it seems that most of those printing (of the

This does not seem like enough to keep an industry alive. However, PMAI and
others in the industry are still of the opinion that digital is still at an
early adopter stage. The barrage of marketing efforts may make it seem like it
is much further along.

Interestingly, the digital video market is growing much faster, and has much
better unit sales. Most miniDV camcorders have still image capture, and many
with built-in storage cards. Quite a few digital cameras now have limited
motion capture abilities. With the price points so close, many seem to be
choosing digital video.

The greatest usage category (from PMAI data) for digital still cameras is
listed as e-mail. Sending images to others is much easier with a digital
camera, but not much different to accomplish with a miniDV camcorder. I predict
more features convergence for these two devices.

Now if only the prices of medium format digital backs would drop by 90%, then I
would be happier.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html
...




From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Film versus Digital: a summary of results
Date: 22 May 2002 


Robert Monaghan, rmonagha@smu.edu writes:

> Once you know how film works, and digital camera
> sensors work, then it is obvious that digital
> cannot be said to be better than or even the equal
> of film, unless you clobber film so much as to make
> a minilab look good ;-0)

    Well, it's really a question of how you define 'good'.

    Digital images tend to retain excellent tonal resolution all the
way down to the individual pixel level.  Film has a better absolute
spatial resolution, but once your features are that tiny grain makes a
mockery of your tonal reproduction.


    In MTF terms, digital is much less sensitive to the contrast
level, and its tonal response is much better decoupled from its
spatial response.  This is one of the many reasons digital is
preferred for scientific imaging.

    So with the best examples of each technology it comes down to a
preference: do you like nice colours and a slightly blurred image, or
do you like finer resolution, albeit a bit gritty.  People on these
groups (and, it seems, Roger) tend to be from a film background and
prefer the latter, but most of the casual consumers of photography I
know go for the former every time.

Struan





From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Film versus Digital: a summary of results
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002


Struan Gray wrote:

> So with the best examples of each technology it comes down to a
> preference: do you like nice colours and a slightly blurred image, or
> do you like finer resolution, albeit a bit gritty.  People on these
> groups (and, it seems, Roger) tend to be from a film background and
> prefer the latter, but most of the casual consumers of photography I
> know go for the former every time.

Actually, what I prefer depends on the application, and I think this
is true with many people.  I think many are going to digital because
of the convenience, and rapid response one gets (no waiting
to get film developed).  The better digital cameras are good
enough for the average consumer, but not for the higher end
imaging and pro/advanced amateur.


I do both digital and film.  For beautiful images that will make
big enlargements, I use film (35mm to 8x10).  But in most of my
professional work, as a scientist, I use high end electronic
sensors with 12 to 24 bits/sensor pixel.  The accuracy of
electronic systems is unmatched by film.  Electronic sensors
are much more sensitive than film (contrary to discussion in
another thread) (this is why astronomers are using electronic
sensors over film for almost all applications).

But, as you say, film has higher spatial resolution and a well
demonstrated ability to deliver beautiful tonality in large images
that is unmatched by any digital sensor made to date.
And in any format, film can
be faster than digital (read-out of large digital sensors is a
limit, and the faster one reads out, the more noise one gets).
E.g. try imaging an Old Faithful geyser eruption with 4x5: one can
take numerous images with film, probably not even one with digital
(those scanning backs are slow and leave moving subjects distorted).

Roger




From: Joseph Chen jctchen@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Film versus Digital
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002


NY Times May 23, 2002
Tapping Into Its Strengths, the Empire of Film Strikes Back
By IAN AUSTEN

WHEREVER he goes, Chip Simons usually takes a compact digital camera
along in case he needs to grab a quick snapshot. But when it comes time
for real work, Mr. Simons, a magazine and advertising photographer who
lives in Bosque Farms, N.M., reverts to film.

While that is partly a response to his clients' wishes, he said, film
still has a substantial edge over digital photography in capturing
details and in overall quality.

"There's probably a gigabyte's worth of information on this little piece
of film," Mr. Simons said of the 6-by-6-centimeter transparencies
produced by most of his film cameras. "There's no way any scanner can
even get it all. There's not much of a substitute for a piece of film."

While the world's three major makers of conventional film -- Eastman
Kodak, Fuji Photo Film and Agfa-Gevaert -- are all heavily involved in
digital imaging, they have not given up on their traditional products.
Investing in film research and development in the early 21st century may
seem a bit like trying to design a better steam locomotive. But Steven
Hammond, a senior photographic engineer in the professional products
division of Fuji, said that there was still a lot of room for improvement.

"Even though film has been around for 100 years, we're still only using
18 to 20 percent of what's theoretically possible in the emulsion," he said.

Even customers who are less discerning than professional photographers
may continue to stick with film cameras for some time to come, Mr.
Hammond said. He credited improvements over the last five years in film
technology for a steady increase in the use of disposable film cameras,
which Fuji estimates now account for 25 percent of the United States
photographic market.


"We joke around here that film will only be in trouble when someone
comes out with a $6.95 digital camera," he said.

Much of the research at Kodak and Fuji is aimed at finding ways to
improve the light sensitivity, or speed, of film without producing
images that are grainy or lack sharpness. To do so, researchers are
getting down to the atomic level. Mr. Hammond said that such
improvements were a priority because light sensitivity would probably
remain a weak point for digital cameras.

When the light sensors in digital cameras, usually charge-coupled
devices, or C.C.D.'s, are set to a sensitivity higher than the
equivalent of a film with an I.S.O. rating of 800, Mr. Hammond said,
they usually generate distortions in images known as noise.

Because film is such a mature technology, he added, it is potentially
much easier to improve its sensitivity than it is to improve digital
sensors. "High speed is where film has its greatest potential," he said.

Common photographic film, whether color or black-and-white, uses an
emulsion containing extremely fine crystals of silver halide. When the
camera's shutter opens, photons hit the crystals and begin to transform
them into elemental silver. This is known as the latent image, and
developing the film completes the transformation of the exposed silver
halide crystals into silver.

In its most basic form, color film has three layers of silver halide,
each sensitive to red, green or blue light. (Modern color film has as
many as 13 layers performing a variety of jobs.) Development of color
film also involves extra steps. After the silver images are developed,
color dyes couple to the metallic silver specks. Special bleach is then
used to dissolve the silver image, leaving only the color dye record behind.


The easiest way to make film more sensitive is to add more silver halide
to its coating. But in the past, that also meant that the resulting
pictures suffered from a coarse pattern of silver grains.

About 15 years ago, a group of researchers at Kodak led by Terry Taber
introduced a process that makes silver grains thinner and less obvious
in images. Traditional grains are roughly cube-shaped. The thinner
grains are shaped like flat tabs and are known as tabular grains (Kodak
calls them T-Max). Despite their smaller overall volume, the tabular
grains have the same capturing ability of traditional grains because
they cover roughly the same area on the film's surface.

The improvements resulting from the development of tabular grains and
other technologies have been striking, at least in the view of the
people who did the work. Mary Jane Hellyar, a Kodak vice president and
general manager who is also the company's chief technical officer for
consumer imaging, said that 800-speed film today, for example, has the
grain, resolution, contrast and other characteristics of a much slower
film of a decade ago.

Most film companies, including Fuji, have introduced their own
thin-grain technologies. Now, said Dr. Taber, Kodak's associate director
of research, scientists are boosting the ability of individual silver
halide grains to capture photons. "We're going after this fundamental
aspect of efficiency," he said.

Normally, every photon that strikes the silver halide in film is
converted into an electron to form the latent image. But two years ago
Kodak researchers announced a way to double the number of electrons
produced by each photon. This process, known as two-electron
sensitization, takes advantage of the fact that in color film, photons
are first converted to electrons in the surrounding dye and then move to
the silver halide to create the latent image.

The Kodak researchers developed dye molecules that after being hit by
one photon give up two electrons to the silver halide.

By getting two electrons from every photon, the process should make it
possible to double the light sensitivity of film without adding any more
image-distorting silver grains. Late last year, Kodak relied on the
double-electron technology to introduce a specialized film that is used
in the creation of final movie prints. Dr. Hellyar suggested that it
would gradually be introduced into more common types of film.

But greater sharpness isn't to everyone's taste. Mr. Simons prefers
Fuji's film to Kodak's products for his work, which includes portraits
of animals illuminated in strange colors. And while he does not plan to
shift to digital photography anytime soon, he also longs for the film of
the past.

"New films are too sharp," he said. "There's nothing soft about them.
They don't glow anymore."





From: "maf" maf@switchboard.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002

> >This hospital would certainly be using digital if they thought it was better.
>
> Actually I just had a few X-Rays for a recent back problem. They were
> digital. I asked the X-ray tech. Done in just 3 minutes.
>
> Also one of my friends works for Konica. Used to work for Kodak in R&D.
> Guess what he's selling ? Digital x-ray machines.

I have read that digital x-ray machines used by dentists reduce x-ray
exposure to the patient by 75%. I assume this also applies to other digital
x-rays as well. Conventional medical and dental x-ray products produce a
significant part of the Kodak's profits, and this is clearly a business
whose days are numbered.






From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films? (Other than Kodak's)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002

Chad Irby wrote:

> Of all of the issues in digital versus film, indexing/searching is the
> one that is most certainly in digital's favor.  Add in the relative ease
> of protecting valuable shots (digital off-site backups are insanely
> easier than film duplication).

I don't think digital has an advantage in "saving valuble shots" It's way
to easy for digital medium to become corupt and unreadable. I know I've
lost too many files in the last five years from HD crashes and even OS
crashes and forgetting that I needed to put the drive in another computer
(which some people don't have) or didn't burn them onto a disk before this
happened. Also given that it takes very little damage to ruin a whole disk
of saved images, negative seem much safer.

I know I've printed negatives shot by family members around 1920, you think
85 years from now you'll be able to pop a disk made today in a computer
then and be able to read what's on it? Given medium from 10 year ago is for
all intents and purposes unreadable, I kinda doubt it.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/




From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 
From: Eric Goldstein egoldste@earthlink.net
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Bokeh

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

> You know Eric, this bokeh issue keeps coming up on all the mail lists.
> Yesterday I had lunch with a group of photographers in the San Jose area.
> We talked about issues and the interesting part is that only the techies
> ever bring up issues like these. 99% of their customers do not care
> whether the image is diigtal, has nice bokeh, etc.  What the customers
> are interested in is how the image presents them.  Are they smiling?
> Do they look slim? Is it a nice pose? etc.
> Personally, people gripe about bokeh of a particular lens I use with my
> 35mm camera but only those on the mailists, never a client.  They are
> always happy with the images.


This is interesting Peter... my experience has been just the opposite...

Most of the shooters I have worked with in the past decade, whether
film-makers/cinematographers or still guys, feel it is very obvious to them,
the talent, the producers, when the image looks comfortable and when it does
not. They do not necessarily analyze the faults and label them as failures
of bokeh, or edge sharpness, or under-corrected spherical, or secondary
spectrum in the long wavelengths, or any of the stuff the lens designers
have to concern themselves with. But they know when an image is
uncomfortable and so do the creatives involved with the project on the
client side if they are worth a damn... the shooters/creative directors who
produce the "good stuff" who keep getting the choice work...

I am particularly noticing this in shooting digital... recently consulted on
an annual report for a Fortune 100 company which we shot digitally for the
second year now, and even though it was "top end" digital it was clear that
there were image and quality compromises in comparison with the MF we had
shot in years past. It was an acceptable compromise in terms of cost savings
and expediency, and the client was very happy with the end product, but to
say that they did not appreciate the difference between the two is not at
all accurate...

Guess it depends upon the individual skill set on the creative and the
client side...


Eric Goldstein




From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] RE:  RE:  [Fwd: scanner]

 Tina Manley wrote:
>This is the absolute truth.  With my Nikon LS-4000 set for multi-sample
>scanning at 16X, I can get details of shadows and highlights that would
>never be possible in the darkroom.  You can even do two scans - one for
>highlights and one for shadows and combine them to get tonal range far
>beyond anything you can do even with masks and lots of trouble in the wet
>darkroom.
>
>Tina


Thanks Tina,

You are a clear voice rising out of the murky babble.

Jim




From: "Gene" sop@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Unhappy bride-grooms/Digital
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 


"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:
>
>     This is just speculation, but I'm thinking you'd find that most of the
> 'perpetrators' weren't experienced wedding photographers, but weekend
> wannabes that saw a way to make a quick buck.

Having been a weekend wedding photographer since 1965, let me assure you
that this is not a way to make a quick buck. It has, however, allowed me to
support my hobby without taking food out of the mouths of my kids.

While not a Dennis Reggie or Monte Zucker, I'm proud of the work that I do.
It has been suggested many times that I should "go into it full time." The
fact that I have not, is a business decision based on:

1. I can make more money in my regular profession.

2. I fear that some of the magic would disappear if I "HAD" to pick up the camera.


If I pocket $1000 profit for a wedding, a lot of people would consider that
a quick buck for 8 hours work. But it's not 8 hours. First of all my wife is
my partner and she's there for 8 hours as well. Still not bad $62.50 an
hour. But, we now add the time to:
1. Pitch the sale
2. Buy the film
3. Attend the rehersal
4. Pack up the equipment.
5. Drive to the wedding
6. Drive home and unpack
7. Deliver the film to the processor (1.5 hour round trip during rush hour)
8. Pick up the previews  (1.5 hour round trip during rush hour)
9. Prepare the proof album
10. Deliver the proof album to the bride (or to the Post Office)
11. Select the negatives for the print order and card
12. Deliver the negatives to the processor (1.5 hour round trip during rush
hour)
13. Pick up the print order (1.5 hour round trip during rush hour)
14. Order the album(s) and pages
15. Pick up the album(s) and pages
16. Prepare the deliverables
16a. There is often another pair of trips to the processor inserted here to
correct any errors, with the order, by the lab or myself.
17. Prepare the invoice
18. Deliver the album(s)
19. Take the check to the bank
20. Make all general ledger entries for income and expense
21. Fill out schedule C with income tax
22. Fill out state sales tax forms.

Add all this up and a wedding easily becomes a 40 hour project.

>     Since so much of professional wedding photography is performed with
> medium-format rigs, it would certainly seem that the pros know the value of
> detail, and the relation of film grain to enlargement size.

My first wedding, in 1965 was shot with a Mamiyaflex. Other cameras over the
years have included a Koni-Omega, (best press/wedding camera ever made for
medium format) Hassy, and Bronica ETRS. I used these cameras for the exact
reason stated above. But.....Things have changed since 1965. Film has
improved. Lenses have improved.  So when my wife joined me in the business
about 10 years ago, I bought her a Nikon so she wouldn't have to carry the
weight of a medium format and her shots would be mainly candids at the
reception.

As she improved, a bigger percentage of her shots were inserted in the
previews and were subsequently ordered. While preparing the albums we
noticed little difference in the quality of the prints from 35mm and 645
negatives. Since we seldom sell prints larger than 8x10 and because I had
been lusting after her "light weight" and fast 35 mm camera, we abandoned
medium format a couple of years ago.




Forsaking this
> for, of all things, digital, would be taking leave of all senses. Not to
> mention the difficulties of color-matching, finding processing labs capable
> of producing quality digital work, longevity of non-emulsion-based prints,
> and so on. I could see one or two lamebrains attempting it once or twice.
> But I would think an 'explosion' would have to be due to people having no
> idea what kind of quality is demanded, nor available conventionally.
>
>     Just my guess,

Well, Al, it's about work flow, staying competitive, and making a living. If
I were doing this full time, like many others, I seriously consider digital.
Look at the workflow above and consider how much simpler it would be with
digital. Consider the income lost by customers that scan the proofs and
print them out on ink jet printers. Think about providing a CD(s) with low
resolution proofs for the customer to select from, but were worthless for
making prints. Think about downloading to a laptop and showing the formals
at the reception.

Digital quality is approaching film in terms of 8x10 prints. Prices are
comming down on digital cameras. Remember not long ago a 1.5 MP camera cost
$30k. Prices will have to come down a lot more before I can justify shooting
digital. You can buy 2 F5's for less than what 1 D1x will cost you. I may,
however go hybrid and produce digital proofs from film to see if I can
improve my work flow.

Gene





From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002
From: Bernard Cousineau flatbroke@sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Loss of Photographic Stores

> > I suppose that this trend is spreading throughout the country  and but
> > seeing two old Milwaukee companies change  is somewhat depressing..
>
> I don't want to sound unsympathetic, and I'll miss the old style camera
> stores, but it is their own fault.  Photo stores missed the boat twice,
> first when video replaced home movie cameras and the dealers didn't want to
> learn to sell the new stuff or stock it, and gave away the business to
> electronics dealers and mass merchants.  Now they're doing the same with
> digital.  Rather than groaning about digital, those stores which have
> embraced it and have trained their staff to understand it and sell it are
> prospering.(...)

I have to agree with Bob. The local stores that sell digital are doing quite
well and expanding. In the "good old days," a store would sell a Spotmatic in
1972 and not see a customer again until 1985 (except for a few rolls of Kodachrome). Now they
can sell a customer a new digital camera evey two or three years, along with a
printer, memory cards, cartriges, paper, etc, etc. Thankfully, the better
stores still keep an "analogue" section to appeal to old-fashioned photographers. Perhaps it
serves the same purpose as driftwood and ships' wheels displayed in seafood
restaurants!

Bernard




From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 
From: RHaigh5748@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Loss of Photographic Stores


bob@bobshell.com writes:
> .  Rather than groaning about digital, those stores which have
> embraced it and have trained their staff to understand it and sell it are
> prospering.

The bottom line here is you simply cannot remain in business if you are a
film dominant retailer. The consumer market is from what I see all digital
and the pro market is mostly digital. Look at B&H 's ad in Shutterbug and see
the large percentage of which is devoted to digital. From the small
retailer's point of view this should represent a boon to them because of the
contant changing and improvements in digital. A film camera represented on
average a seven year purchase, however, digital is probably about an
eightteen month turnover. Clearly, the small retailer can prosper here.

Bob Haight




From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 
From: scott@lanes.com
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Loss of Photographic Stores

I dont agree. Small retailers cant make any margins because they can't buy
digital cameras (or anything else) in sufficient volumes to match/beat
online retailers and brick and mortar discount houses. Additionally in the
old days a dealer could buy 10 cameras and Know that he could sell them for
the next 2 or 3 years (if the model didn't change, which it usually didn't) so
at least he could do *some* volume purchasing knowing that he could sell
them somewhere down the line. Today if a dealer buys digital cameras that he
can't sell in a couple of months he is stuck with them because no one wants
the old technology. Hell, as soon as a new digital camera/technology is
announced, not even shipping, buyers arent interested in the old ones.

Glad I'm not a small shop today. I think it is a great loss, really.....

 -scott





From Medium Format Digest:

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
From: tims8256 tschooler@cox-internet.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Attention K-Mart shoppers

--- In medium-format@y..., "Joseph S. Barrera III" joe@b... wrote:

> Not yet. It will take another ten years before resolution
> really catches up to actual film. But I think it's only
> a matter of time.

Aha! There is life out there. I agree. I've been shooting digital
for the past 1 and half. I've recently decided that its just too
much work. I've spent far more time in front of a computer than I
did behind a camera. And a few months ago, I was a digital
evangelist. At least thats what Digital Capture called me :)




Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A theoretical question for you...


"cerebros" newsgroup@cerebros.demon.co.uk a écrit 
> Which will give the sharpest image/best results
> when making enlargements?

The MF digital back.  Reason:  The individual pixels are larger (remember,
you specified the same number of pixels for both cameras, so the larger
sensor of the MF digital back necessarily has larger pixels), allowing them
to hold more signal, and thus more dynamic range, with less background
noise.  The image from the MF digital back will be cleaner, and will have
better dynamic range (better detail in highlights and shadows).





From: Chris Friesen chris_friesen@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A theoretical question for you...
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 


cerebros wrote:
>
> Assume that you have a medium format camera with a digital back, and a 35mm
> camera body based digital SLR.  In each camera the digital sensor is full
> frame (i.e. in the digital SLR the sensor is 36x24mm).  Both sensors are the
> same size - plucking a number out of thin air let's say 12 megapixels.
>
> Assuming the lenses are of equal quality, and normal good photographic
> practice (for example, using a tripod whenever possible) is used when taking
> photo's, and all other things are equal:
>
> Which will give the sharpest image/best results when making enlargements?


Since the medium format is physically larger, yet has the same number of pixels,
each pixel site will be physically larger.  This allows for increased picture
quality through three mechanisms:


1) Since each sensor site is physically larger, the well can hold a greater
charge, which translates directly to greater colour depth.  In other words, the
larger CCD can handle a greater range of dark to light colour values.  This is
generally beneficial in the darker ranges, as a given incoming radiation flux is
more likely to excite enough electrons in a given well to register on the
readout.  This can improve noise performance as it is not necessary to use as
much electronic amplification.

2) Since the size of the actual circuitry to read the cells are the same in each
case, the percentage of the surface that is light sensitive is greater in the
case of the larger sensor.

3) Since the medium format sensor is physically larger, the physical resolution
of the sensor (ie pixels/mm on the sensor itself) is lower.  This means that if
you take lenses that give equal resolution (in lines/mm at the image plane), you
will end up with more resolution in the final image if you use the physically
larger sensor.

Chris





From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Dynamic Range Compression (breakthrough?)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 

I am posting this here (MF and LF groups) rather than to the digital groups
because it is here that I've seen the more toughtful critiques.

It's a link that begins to address a problem we've all coped with for
decades: EV ranges beyond the range of film/paper, using a digital solution,
a new algorythm.

http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/p

--
jjs - still using film - mostly






Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: digital lens

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > ... with digital when you open your file and examine
> > it at 1:1 magnification you are examining the lens
> > preformance under a microscope.


This is completely wrong. All of the good camera lenses, Zeiss, Leica,
Nikon, etc, have resolution far greater than a CCD or CMOS sensor can
record. ALL consumer digital cameras have lenses designed for digital
sensors. They are dumbed down. Their MTF frequency is lowered to be at
least 1/4 of the pixel spacing frequency. Look up Nyquist on the web for an
explanation. And see Schneider's white paper on this.  

All professional digital cameras that use normal camera lenses (Canon,
Nikon, Kodak), and MF backs have low pass filters on top of the CCD which
cut the lens MTF  frequency to 1/4 of the CCD pixel spacing frequency. It's
too late and I'm too tired to explain this in detail. Suffice to say that I
have spent the past five years designing the internals of digital cameras,
firmware and hardware that processes the digital stream from the A/D and
after jumping through many hoops, delivers a JPEG of TIFF to the user.

Pixel spacing cannot be manufactured to handle modern film lenses. Period.

Here's something I wrote for work a while back...

The highest frequency which a camera with 5 micron pixels can detect is
100 lp/mm. This is known as the Nyquist frequency. At first glance you
would think that a the lens with the best MTF at this frequency would
produce the best images. If you could find a lens with better than 70%
MTF at this frequency, then the resolution of the image would be limited  
only by the Nyquist limit of the detector. But there are also pitfalls
in selecting such a lens. Just ask any electrical engineer involved in
digitizing electrical signals. He/she will tell you that you need to
band limit the input signal to the digitizer so that there are no
significant amplitude signals at frequencies higher than the Nyquist
frequency. If you do not perform this band limiting you will get
aliasing, in other words. What this means is that frequencies higher
than the Nyquist frequency are mixed down to lower frequencies and show
up in the electrical signal in such a way that they cannot be separated
from the real thing. The most common manifestation of aliasing in
digital imaging is Moire patterns which arise when imaging objects with
periodic structures such as the screen on a window or a striped shirt.
To eliminate the problem of aliasing you need to limit the bandwidth of
the signals falling on the detector. This can be done by using a lens
with a low frequency cutoff which is less than or equal to the Nyquist
Frequency. The diffraction limited cutoff frequency for a lens is given
as 1/(wavelength * f#). If the center wavelength is about 0.5 microns  
and the cutoff frequency is 100 lp/mm, then by stopping the lens down to
f/20 the image bandwidth will be limited to less than 100 lp/mm. This,
of course assumes that there are no aberrations in the lens (which is
probably true at f/20. At larger lens openings, the lens cutoff will
push out to higher frequencies, although you can introduce lens
aberrations to reduce the MTF to zero at lower frequencies but that is
not a practice which is normally done.

A second way to eliminate aliasing problems is to design the detector so
that its MTF drops to zero above the Nyquist frequency. This cannot be
done absolutely but it can be improved by selecting a CCD with 100% fill
factor. In other words the active areas of the pixels butt each other
and there is no dead space between pixels for conductors or other
electrical stuff. Such detectors are used in astronomy but they involve
a very complicated and expensive production process.

A third method is to increase the pixel density and therefore the total
number of CCD pixels such that the detector always has better resolution
than the lens. This would probably require pixels around 1 micron in 
size (much smaller and the pixels become smaller than the wavelength of
light and then you have other problems). And you would have lots of data.
Film in interesting and unique as an image recording medium because the
"pixels" are randomly distributed and shaped grains of photosensitive
crystals. Because the grains are randomly shaped and distributed the
regularity which causes the moire/aliasing in a CCD detector is not a
problem with film. Therefore the lens can have much better resolution
than the film without causing these effects. Maybe someday, someone will
figure out how to make a CCD with the same characteristics. But knowing
what I know about the internals of CCD and CMOS sensors, well, don't
hold your breath.

Jim   





Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: digital lens

Jim writes:

> All professional digital cameras that use normal
> camera lenses (Canon, Nikon, Kodak), and MF backs
> have low pass filters on top of the CCD which
> cut the lens MTF  frequency to 1/4 of the CCD
> pixel spacing frequency.       

Which may explain why so many digital pictures have a kind of indescribable
"softly-sharp" look about them.  It's as if the image is quite sharp
overall, but strangely, nothing is ever sharp beyond some certain threshold.
This is unlike film cameras, which sometimes produce absolutely, truly
razor-sharp results, and sometimes don't, depending on the exact
circumstances.  





Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: digital lens

Hi Jim,

> All of the good camera lenses, Zeiss, Leica,
> Nikon, etc, have resolution far greater than a CCD or CMOS sensor can
> record.

That is only true for the TOP lenses.  Obviously, for the Canon D-60, the
sensor IS of a high enough resolution that the non-L lenses make a
difference in image quality, that's simply undisputable.

> ALL consumer digital cameras have lenses designed for digital
> sensors. They are dumbed down. Their MTF frequency is lowered to be at
> least 1/4 of the pixel spacing frequency. Look up Nyquist on the 
> web for an
> explanation. And see Schneider's white paper on this.

I completely agree with that.

> All professional digital cameras that use normal camera lenses (Canon,
> Nikon, Kodak), and MF backs have low pass filters on top of the CCD which
> cut the lens MTF  frequency to 1/4 of the CCD pixel spacing
> frequency.

I'm not sure what Canon does on the D-60...but for every other current still
frame camera, I agree.

> Pixel spacing cannot be manufactured to handle modern film lenses. Period.

I don't agree with that.  Even using your example of 5u pixel size-100lp/mm,
a lot of modern lenses fall short of that, according to their MTF charts.  I   
don't disagree with that with regards to the top modern 35mm lenses though.

I'll read over your write-up later.  BTW, not all sensors are Bayer pattern,
there are monochrome sensors...so for them, the low pass filter does not
need to be 1/4 the pixel spacing.

Regards,

Austin 





From: "Stik" stikkycom@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: I think I'm going digital
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 


"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote 
> "Stik" stikkycom@hotmail.com 
> > Nowadays, some of the Nikkors perform better
> > on digitals (e.g. D1x, D100) than the analogs
> > (e.g. F5).
>
> I fail to see how this could be the case.  Lens performance does not vary
> with the image-capture method.  Any differences you see are artifacts of the
> latter, not features of the former.  A good lens works well with _anything_.


Personally, I think it has most to do with the difference in
size of digital image sensor vs. film size.  Given a particular
scenario where a lens performs poorly around the edges.
Isn't it possible that the digital image sensor may not be
effected by it -- since it uses less of the outer edges?

Anyway, if you have time, visit Bjorn Rorslett's website
http://www.naturfotograf.com, under the lens evaluation
section -- where in one particular case Bjorn rates
14mm f/2.8 "5" for D1, "4" for F5, and "3" for D1X.

(BTW, if you have any questions in regard to Bjorn Rorslett's
reviews, x-post to r.p.e.35mm -- and hopefully he can answer
it directly).

> > High-end digitals give high quality results
> > at much higher ISO, BTW.
>
> And they only cost a dozen times more than the equivalent
> 35mm film equipment.

Not certain about "dozen time more", but it does cost a lot *more*.

Stik




From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: I think I'm going digital
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002

 Stik at
stikkycom@hotmail.com wrote 

>[...]
> Personally, I think it has most to do with the difference in
> size of digital image sensor vs. film size.  [...]

Not today. Maybe in a few years, but there is a fundamental problem with the
sensor masks, specifically with the Bayer mask sensor.

I was led to this issue very early on, and it got only much worse later when
I was experimenting with using color film to create _quality_ black&white
images via digital scanning. I found that my images were much sharper in the
green channel than the red or blue channels. Red and Blue had a lot of
"noise". When I say "a lot" I mean so much that it could ruin a picture and
required a lot of blending in order to defeat... and resolution disappeared
with the blending. It's defeating, to say the least.

The red and blue sensors are so far apart compared to green that
interpolation fails. Period. No matter what size the sensor. Of course,
greater degree of enlargement exacerbates the error, but good grief, with a
digital sensor anything larger a thumbnail is an enlargement. Even my 2.25"
negatives (show me a sensor that large!) showed terrible noise artifacts,
this time through the scanner's sensor.

If I have some time, and if you are interested, I can post illustrations of
the problem. Degredation is so profound that it shows up in 3" renditions at
96DPI, so the web presentation would suffice.




From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Glad I didn't buy a digital
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002


Tony Spadaro tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com wrote:

>   And be careful not to touch the shutter of your SLR, and watch out for
> fingerprints on the lens. A camera is a tool and tools need to be
> maintained - digital, film, whatever.

I'm afraid things aren't quite as easy as you suggest.

On the surface of a lens (your fingerprint example) you can rub and
scrub a lot before you'll cause any real damage. Small particles left on
the glass surface will be far out of focus and not much of a problem.

Even the tiniest dust particles sticking to the surface of a CCD chip
will show up in the picture. Mind you, unlike dirt on a lens they're
right in the focal plane.

Have you ever tried removing dust from the chip of a CCD video camera
with exchangeable lenses like a CCTV camera or an ENG camcorder? Let me
tell you this is no fun at all.


Canned air isn't strong enough. Not even the expensive CO2 cartridges
will do. They'll only blow away the larger particles. The smaller ones
stick like glued to the chip.

I even tried adapting the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner. Turned out to be
the worst idea I ever had. Why? For the simple reason that again you
will only be removing the bigger particles from the chip. At the same
time you're creating a vacuum sucking room air into the camera which in
turn deposits more small dust particles on the chip before flowing into
the nozzle. A simple but highly efficient dust particle sorting system.
You'll end up with even more dust of the exact kind you've been trying
to remove, in the first place.

Astonishingly, only Sigma seem to be aware of the problem. They claim to
be using a sheet of glass at some distance to the chip in an attempt to
at least keep the problem away from the focal plane, short of a real
solution if ever there could be one.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de




From: "Don Cohen" doncohen@nc.prestige.net
Newsgroups: alt.graphics.photoshop,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: shutter lag limits serious use of digital cameras
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002


Shutter lag is a significant limitation in using many/most digital point and
shoot cameras.  I went through the Nikon Coolpix series (900s, 950 and 990)
and while things improved from one generation to the next, it was still a
problem.

It requires a significant jump in expense, but most digital SLR's overcome
this limitation.  I used the Canon D30 for a year and a half, and moved to
the Canon 1D a few months ago.  It's hard to imagine a camera being any more
responsive than the 1D.  Unfortunately, the price is a major obstacle.

But as has been pointed out, the shutter-lag issue is not inherently a
problem with digital cameras per se, but in the design of the camera itself.

Hope this helps.

--
Don
Photo Website at:
http://www.dlcphotography.net

"Luis ORTEGA" lortega@ntlworld.com wrote...
> i was wondering about the process that happens when one presses the shutter
> on a digital camera and how long it continues to sense exposure and focus.
> on my sony 707, i press the shutter half way and the camera does some stuff,
> then the ready signal appears and i can go on and press the shutter fully
> and it makes the shutter sound a very short time later. then it records and
> returns to the normal shooting mode.
> what i want to know is whether the camera is still responding to changes of
> exposure or focusing between the time that the ready light appears when the
> shutter is pressed half way and the moment that you finally press the
> shutter down fully.
> i don't think that cartier-bresson would have ever invented the decisive
> moment with a digital camera, and sports photojournalism also seems
> impossible. yet people do use these cameras, so what am i missing about how
> to capture the moment you want with a digital camera?




From: "Jeremy 1952" jeremy@hotmail.com
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002


> > > Wrong. A decent CD-R will last far longer than film will. And you can keep
> > > two incase of a freak failure. CDRW isn't, however, as reliable

The danger in this advice is that it fails to adddress the very tangible
risks associated with archival storage in the digital domain.  Major
libraries, governments (including our federal and state governments, and
private companies) are all struggling with finding the best solution to the
problems that arise when archiving digital data.  If anyone claims that the
answer is simply to "just put it on a CD," he is either uninformed or
irresponsible.

There are at least 3 types of risk with archiving digital data for long-term
storage:

1:  Media failure/obsolescence

2:  File format obsolescence.

3:  Improper maintenance of stored materials

CDs were not invented as long-term storage media.  It is true that many of
them have a 100-200 year life expectancy, but that presumes that they are
stored in proper temperature/humidity/lightproof environment.  Check the
Kodak website for tons of information on this subject.


CDs are subject to failure if scratched or otherwise mishandled.  And,
unlike an analog object, the ENTIRE FILE typically becomes unreadable when
digital media fails.  If my negatives or print become stained, I may be able
to recover much of the image information.

Then there is the matter of media obsolescence.  There is virtually NO
chance that the average consumer will have equipment at hand in 100 years to
read CDs.  There is already a term called "Digital Archeology," to describe
the efforts to decode old digital stuff.  And, because the material on the
CD can't be seen with the naked eye, there is a good possibility that the
future holder of the CD may decide to just chuck it into the trash, rather
than go to any extraordinary effort to unlock its contents.

File formats will almost certainly be replaced.  The TIFF specification is
already on its 6th revision, and revision #7 is in the works.  Already, some
image editing programs cannot read early TIF files, especially those that
were compressed.  There are a ton of other formats that have died, and it is
almost certain that software developers will not support them (FlashPix
comes to mind.  Not only is the format dead, but so is the consortium that
invented and supported it).

Compression schemes are also expected to change.  Most institutions are
choosing to forego compressing files used for long-term archiving, as they
are concerned that it might make them unreadable down the road.

But, by far, the biggest threat to digital data storage is the prospect that
future generations will not take the time to convert the data to the
then-current file formats and media.  It's one thing for a library to budget
for this, and to see to it that a department is in place to keep "upgrading"
their digital collections as time passes.  But what about individuals, or
small businesses?  What guarantee is there that SOMEONE will take the
interest in renewing digital data in the future?

At least, when documents and images were stored in analog form, there was a
greater chance that family members would recognize that many of them were
important, and would afford them some measure of care.  Every family has
"important papers" stored somewhere, even if in a dresser drawer.  And
future custodians of those documents and images can see at once that they
have some historical value.  Not so with digital data.

There is every reason to believe that some unenlightened moron from a future
generation will take all of the data that we have lovingly created and just
junk it!  People "clean house" all the time.  Think about 78 RPM records, as
one example.  Once turntables dropped that speed, people threw the records
out by the ton. How many families can claim to have kept Grandpa's old
records?  Only a small percentage.

Digitization has many advantages for storing, using and distributing
documents and images in the short term (say, 5 years or less).  I am in no
way "down" on digital.  And, to be sure, many documents and images are "born
digital," which means that there ARE no "negatives," etc. (I suppose one
could print an image, then store the analog print).  But we must be
reconciled to the fact that there is a lot of digital data out there that
was never available in analog form.

My point is, the guy that carefully stored his prints, slides and negs might
have produced the longest-lasting products of all.  I certainly would not
recommend that anyone scan their negs and throw away the originals (some
people are actually doing that!)

I read that the National Archives was actually printing millions of emails
from Bill Clinton and Al Gore on PAPER, to ensure that they would remain
available well into the future.  If the US Government, with all of its vast
resources, is having a problem finding a digital archiving solution, what
makes any of us think that the answer is so simple?

My recommendation:  Go ahead and archive on CD, but keep those negs, prints
and slides, too (assuming that they exist in the first place).  There is no
way to know where this process will have gone over the next hundred years.
Best to keep both analog AND digital, until a better solution presents
itself.





Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
From: root@templetons.com (root)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002


Mark tiggerfan115@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Obsolesence - Not gonna happen with ISO CDs

Why?  Yes, they are popular but they will indeed be shortly made
obsolete by various multi-gigabyte smaller media.   It's now harder
and harder to play vinyl, soon you will have to go out of your way
to play, eventually way out of your way.  I no longer have a working
turntable.

>> 2:  File format obsolescence.
>
>Not gonna happen with TIFF, PNG, or JPEG

What a strange irony that the same week you write this, the ISO moved
to declare JPG to no longer be a standard format, and people rushed
to replace it.


The real way to keep your data is to keep it in online, not offline
forms.  Online forms can be copied to new online forms relatively
easily.

Offline forms are what you should worry about.




From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002

 Paul Saunders at pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk wrote 

> This stuff is currently beyond me.  Why is it much more technical?  At risk
> of sounding naive, if I were to process an image so that it looked good on
> my standardly calibrated PC monitor, would it not be a relatively simple
> task to convert that image to a standard calibration for a printing press?

That's a good question. Very few people understand the complexities of
printing, and have the same view you do - but it works just the opposite:
one begins by knowing the printing process, working with the press experts,
and pre-press people then _backwards_ to image preparation. Some images
perfectly prepared for a press job look bad on a monitor, or at least far
from what you would present as a monitor-only or ink-jet job.

If you are a B&W maven, just pick up Making Digital Negatives for Contact
Printing by Burkholder (sp, and I may have mangled the title)... it covers
nuances of screen making, and only touches upon prepress work compared to
what one needs to know to do proper color work, but his writing is
meticulous and shows the daunting nature of Doing Things Right, and the
concept of working from the final printing method to digital preparation. I
could pick up any number of pre-press books from my Wife's shelves, but
won't because it's not my job. :)

So, color printing works from output device to digital rendering, not the
other way around.





From contax mailing list:
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 
From: Brian Slater slater.39@osu.edu
Subject: Re: [Contax] 645 vs Digital N

Here is a useful discussion comparing the quality of results from a 645
digital back and medium format film:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0802-1.html

The writer was using a Mamiya, though I believe the discussion is relevant
for those of us considering a digital back for the Contax 645.


Brian




From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: digital contact negatives

A digital contact negative is the name given to the process of creating a
print-sized negative by scanning, digital post-processing and
printing a negative image to final size with an inkjet printer, intended
to be contact printed for final positive output. Dan Burkholder's
pioneering book on this technique is available from


Godfrey

Tom Just Olsen wrote:

> What is a 'digital contact negative'?  Please explain.
>




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hasselblad vs. Digital

Robert writes:

> Film camera sales are dropping appreciably,
> including Hasselblad.

The only thing film-based about Hasselblad's most popular cameras is the
back.  Change the back, and it's a digital camera.

> Professional photographers are making investments
> in new equipment almost entirely in the digital
> domain.

And putting themselves in more debt than they are ever likely to pay off in
the process, in some cases.  Not to mention that a vast number of them are
completely clueless with respect to the digital side of photography.  On
that path lies danger, IMO.

> Inside word is that Hasselblad will be
> making very big announcements in the near
> future which will move the camera very much
> into the digital age.

I prefer to wait until rumors are confirmed or invalidated by reality.

> Additionally, word from my photo processing
> equipment suppliers (I have a Konica mini-lab
> in my studio, for both 35mm and 6x6 format) is
> that film manufactures are slowing down their
> film development programs, and we will likely
> see very few improvements in film in the the
> future.

Perhaps; but they could always speed up again, too.  It's hard to say with
certainty what the future holds.  While a general move to digital is almost
guaranteed to be inevitable over the long term, I expect the pendulum to
continue swinging for some time.  Digital imaging makes incredibly huge
demands on hardware and software, and getting from theory to reality in the
imaging realm is thus much more difficult than it might at first appear.
That is why we are only now seeing digital imaging become a reality, whereas
digital audio happened a quarter-century ago and conquered the markets
nearly overnight.

> Basically, film is as good as it will ever be ...

And computers are as small and as fast as they will ever get.

> ... and more and more film stocks will be
> discontinued, until only the most popular ones
> will be left...and then only in limited sizes
> (i.e. 120, not 220, etc.).

That would necessarily happen with or without digital.  Nobody makes
products that don't make money.

> Professional photographers like myself see all
> this and understand why, but it does leave some
> amateurs left holding the camera bag, as it were.

The amateurs are driving the digital change at the moment, particularly
amateurs with no previous exposure to photography.





Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 
From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?


Someone raised an interesting question about the need for MF/LF when
creating digital prints. It has to do with the ultimate size of the
print and the dpi of the printer.
Assume the average user can make 13xwhatever prints from an Epson
1280/2000 or the like at 300 dpi. Then the image would need to be about
3900 pixels in the short dimension.

I would like to propose the following experiment to someone with the
necessary equipment. They could post the results on their web site, if
they have one, or send them to me and I'll put them on mine.
Here is the experiment.

1. Take the same picture with a good 35mm camera and a good Medium
Format camera on the same type of film with the normal lens for each.

2. Scan the images in using the latest generation of 4000dpi scanner
(Nikon, Minolta, etc.). Set the parameters so that the image will be
13xwhatever at 300dpi. Don't do any sharpening, etc. Contrast,
brightness and the like are ok. Save the files as lossless tiff.


3. As an extra experiment shoot the same scene on the latest generation
digital 5-6Meg camera and save losslessly.

4. Post images online. Each interested user can download them and tweak,
print as they see fit. This way everyone can set their own criteria for
acceptability.

The logic is that 3900 pixels on MF needs only about 1800dpi from the
scanner while 3900 pixels from 35mm needs 4000dpi so using MF and a
4000dpi scanner is just going to have about 1/2 the data thrown away.
So why bother using MF? I realize that people are going respond about
the larger film area, etc., etc., but rather than having endless
discussions let's have some actual examples to compare.

The latest digital cameras have about 1300 pixels in the short dimension
and should thus be obviously inferior, but there are examples online
which compare well to 35mm film.
Part of the discussion is that many digital imagers seem to have a
different criteria for acceptability. For example, printing at 200 -
260dpi instead of 300dpi and accepting different levels of sharpening
artifacts. By posting the actual files online each person can judge for
themselves without having to look at screen rez jpegs, etc.

If someone would like to do this please let us know or if you have
already done so point to the sample files. The MF/35mm comparison and
the MF/digital comparison don't have to be from the same person.

--
Robert D Feinman
robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com




From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002



And here's another thought. If you take pictures to make the most of
photography's most unique characteristic time: the photograph's place in
time (thus the objects place in time), then shoot MF or better if you can.

Consider a moment years from now when someone wants that precious,
historically important photograph - what do they get but this low
resolution, shortsighted friggin digital image tuned to the year 2002's
metrics instead of considering posterity.





From: "Bit Bucket" bitbucket3@earthlink.net
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002


Much ado about nothing.  Even Kodak endorses 150-200 PPI.  (That's image
PIXELS not printer DOTS)
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/dlc/book3/chapter5/lesson1/p07.shtml

They don't really explain there, but I tried to here...
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/dcnotes/filmflam.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/dcnotes/printing.htm

--
On the web...
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/

"Robert Feinman" robertdfeinman@netscape.net wrote 
...
> I would like to propose the following experiment to someone with the
> necessary equipment. They could post the results on their web site, if
> they have one, or send them to me and I'll put them on mine.
> Here is the experiment.




from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002  
From: Craig Zeni clzeni@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The antique 2,8 GX/FX

you wrote:
>Yes on the large format camera.  My current model monorail is seen as an
>"antique" by many.

Saw a fellow at a new local shopping center on Thursday working a shoot
with a wooden view camera fitted with a Super Angulon...and a Nikon
D100.  Quite the combination :)


Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -- clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html





From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 


Hi
I've done some of these experiments and have several
web pages on the results:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail

The page at
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
has a direct comparison of in the field images on 4x5 and 35mm.
The 4x5 was scanned at about 3300 ppi for a 650 MByte file
and 35mm scanned at various resolutions up to 8000 ppi
(I also have 11,000 ppi but didn't show any images).
(ppi - pixels per inch, each pixel = RGB)

In general, I do 4x5 (mostly velvia), drum scan at about
3300 ppi, and make large prints (e.g. 30x40 inches) onto
Cibachrome with a lightjet 5000.  The these large
digital prints are stunning: far better than similar sized
prints done by traditional enlargement.


My view: digital prints in the small range: 11x14 and smaller:
400 ppi is really stunning.  With my poor eyes, I can tell the
difference of 4x5 and 35mm printed at ~400 ppi versus
300 ppi.  (Fuji Pictography is 400 ppi).  300 ppi for larger
prints is very nice.  Less than 300 ppi and apparent sharpness
suffers.  So, if doing large prints, large format high resolution
scans are necessary.  The lightjet 5000 can do ~300 and 400 ppi.

400 ppi is close to a large format contact print in quality; I've
yet to see an inkjet print match this, but its close, and better than
my experience with good quality pro lab custom prints (but similar
in shaprness to what I've done printing myself).

I've gone entirely digital after the film step; my enlarger has
not been used in 7 years.

Roger Clark
photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Robert Feinman wrote:

> Someone raised an interesting question about the need for MF/LF when
> creating digital prints. It has to do with the ultimate size of the
> print and the dpi of the printer.
> Assume the average user can make 13xwhatever prints from an Epson
> 1280/2000 or the like at 300 dpi. Then the image would need to be about
> 3900 pixels in the short dimension.
>
> I would like to propose the following experiment to someone with the
> necessary equipment. They could post the results on their web site, if
> they have one, or send them to me and I'll put them on mine.
> Here is the experiment.
...




From: "Susan Young" Bramleylodge@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 

...
> I would like to propose the following experiment to someone with the
> necessary equipment. They could post the results on their web site, if
> they have one, or send them to me and I'll put them on mine.


This has been partly done at  www.luminous-landscape.com/d60.htm
There is also an interesting , if technical, article at
www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Sue




Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?



"bj" billjanes1@attbi.com a écrit 
> The images from the Kodak back completely blow
> away my images in terms of tonal gradation,
> sharpness, and complete lack of grain. Presumably
> a scan from a 6x6 Velvia transparency would be
> quite good also, but I don't have a scanner that
> does that film size.

I actually have a Velvia 6x6 scan at 4000 dpi before me right now, next to a
ProBack digital capture (the photo of the guy on the boat):

Upon close examination (200% magnification, after upsampling the digital
shot by 100% in linear pixels to make it the same size as my scan--I set
them both to 8144x8144 pixels, in other words), the differences are obvious.
The detail of the Velvia scan completely blows the digital shot out of the
water, but it does show grain (although the grain is smaller than any
visible detail in the digital shot).  The digital shot also shows a lot of
colors bleeding in transitions, i.e., skin tones bleeding into the
background, etc.

My conclusion is that the MF film scan would be preferable for big
enlargements where preservation of fine detail is important.  The digital
shot would probably be nicer for smaller enlargements that don't require the
detail or color registration of the scan, because it shows no grain.

It is somewhat telling that the raw digital file is only 19 MB, and the
interpolated TIFF is still only 47 MB.  The raw scans from the 6x6
transparencies that I obtain are 470 MB in size.  Obviously, something is
missing from the digital shots.  On close examination, it's easy to see what
has been sacrificed, too (mainly color registration and fine detail).





Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Is MF/LF needed for digital prints?


"Robert Feinman" robertdfeinman@netscape.net a écrit 
> For these people would medium format have any
> perceptible difference on their prints?

It seems to make a very slight difference in sizes of A3 or larger.  For
A4s, no difference.  You need really huge enlargements to see obvious
differences between MF and 35mm, and very few printers are capable of
producing such huge enlargements in one pass on full frames.

If you crop a lot, MF makes a much larger difference.

Nevertheless, I've printed full-frame ISO 800 shots scanned at 2700 dpi from
35mm on A3 sheets with an Epson 2000P, and depending on image content, they
can look great.

Most inkjet printers have trouble exceeding 90 ppi of effective resolution
or so, so it's hard to see differences.


> As to digital cameras which produce about 1500
> pixels, I've seen some of the online examples
> and am hard pressed to explain the results.
> They seem to violate the requirements for high
> quality prints.

The secret is that the vast majority of photographs do not come close to
exhausting the maximum resolution of the image-capture method used.  If you
shoot a pattern of black and white lines one pixel in width, you'll see a
huge and obvious difference between resolutions for different methods of
image capture.  But how often do you take real-world photographs of black
and white lines one pixel in width?  The smallest important details in an
image are often many times larger than the pixel size of the image.

If you want to see differences more easily, look at things like landscapes
or photographs of large groups, in which important details also tend to be
small details that blur rapidly as resolution diminishes.  It's no
coincidence that MF shines for these types of photos.




Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: I think I'm going digital


Another way to look at this is that the difference in cost can get you into a
really nice film scanner. At the higher end, you almost have the price
difference to an Imacon, or a used drum scanner. Any of these scanners (film,
Imacon, drum) will provide a much greater colour capture capability, larger
file size with higher resolution (and without up sizing in software), and
depreciate slower.

If you like something like the D1 now, wait a couple years and you should be
able to get one at a huge cost reduction. Meanwhile, your investment now in a
film scanner now should be able to easily match results of any 35 mm digital
bodies in the next two years. If you do this for a living, you have the added
benefit of charging for scanning, instead of having clients asking you to pass
on the cost savings of digital.

The true benefit of digital is the speed advantage of getting the images into
an editing program. I have noticed that many new to digital shooting tend to
take quite a few more shots. More photos will not necessarily make for more
good photos, but it may be the technique for creativity in some people. If you
are into sports, news, or photojournalism, the speed to press, and high shot
volume may work better than any film solutions.

Similarly, if you are into MF, and do lots of product, or catalogue shooting,
then a digital back may be a good investment. The increase in volume possible
from this method of shooting could generate more revenues, and easily offset
the cost of acquiring the gear. Not a bad tax deduction either.

I agree as well that the image sensors may need a revolution in design. Not
sure that the Foveon is the right direction, but it is simpler than having a
CCD (or CMOS) for each colour channel (like some digital video cameras, 3 CCD
systems). Improvements in colour quality may generate more digital sales . . .
. we shall see.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Stik wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote 
>
> > Well, you can get a really nice 35mm film camera for $500 or so, and a
> > really nice digital SLR will cost you about $5000, or ten times more.  And
> > the film camera will still provide higher resolution.
>
> Hmm, let's compare Nikon for example:
>
> (Professional)
> Really nice 35mm = F5  ~ $2,000
> Really nice 35mm = F100  ~ $1,000
> Really nice Digital = D1x ~ $5,000
>
> (Serious amateur)
> Nice 35mm = F80  ~ $450
> Nice digital = D100 ~ $2000
>
> It looks like a factor of 3 to 5 times.
> And, yes I agree ... the film will provide higher resolution (for now).
>
> Personally, I am going to wait about three years and see how
> the Foveon sensors work out in the digital arena.
> I predict that another company will introduce a color sensor
> within three years.   Then, it will be Foveon vs ? in digital as in
> Fuji vs. Kodak in films.
>
> Stik




From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: hassy gear going, going.. Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002

John Stafford wrote:

> fotocord at
> fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
>
>> So you still want to claim that "most" film is scanned and only a few
>> "hobbyists" do optical printing?
>
> Zing!
>
> But what of the argument that optical and digital printing further
> diminishes sharpness?  Digital printers don't really do better than
> 360dpi, and enlarging lenses still diminish film resolution. I forgot the
> rule, but a 100lppi negative going through a 100lppi lens produces
> something like 70lppi on the print. Say, that's darned good, isn't it? :)

{G} I wonder how many people who claim that this digital stuff doesn't
degrade the image have actually done a side by side test? I did and doing a
"blind test" with people at work (about a dozen) they all thought the
optical print was sharper. YMMV but until you've actually tested it,
you're just guessing.

From a "normal viewing distance" the digital print looked OK, but my
original coment was a 35mm olympus point and shoot can do the same thing so
why even bother with anything better if that is all you want out of this?
They are $100 and very easy to use!
--

  Stacey





From: "William E. Graham" weg9@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 98% drop in income etc. Re: Is Nikon camera division for sale?
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002


> "Alan Chan" wlachan@telus.net wrote...
> > The news I heard was that Canon stated at a conference in NY recently that
> > they would not give up 35mm film based products for the next 50 years.

I think that Canon said this to keep people from scurrying
away from film toward digital like a bunch of rats leaving a
sinking ship.....They must know that in another ten years
film photography will be completely obsolete.....As soon as
you can buy a 30 megapixel sensing plane camera for under
$1000........




From contax mailing list:
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 
From: Brian Slater slater.39@osu.edu
Subject: Re: [Contax] 645 vs Digital N

Here is a useful discussion comparing the quality of results from a 645
digital back and medium format film:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0802-1.html

The writer was using a Mamiya, though I believe the discussion is relevant
for those of us considering a digital back for the Contax 645.

Brian





From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A theoretical question for you...
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002


"Joseph S. Wisniewski" wiz@netfrog.net wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> >
> > My gut feeling is that you would see images of equal resolution (assuming
> > sensors and supporting firmware are equal in quality) but you would see
> > differences in the DOF dictated by the different focal lengths required to
> > achieve the same field coverage.
>
> Your gut feeling is a little off. The difference in focal length is
> accompanied by a difference in the size of the circles of confusion. You
> get exactly the same picture from each camera, provided you're not
> diffraction limited.

You've obviously not been using consumer digital {g}. It turns out that DOF
is radically different if your sensor size is a factor of 4 (linearly)
different. For the same size print and print CoF, smaller sensors result in
greater DOF. For size differences less than a factor of 2, the difference is
on the order of a single f-stop, so you'd almost never notice it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan









Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: A theoretical question for you...

cerebros wrote:

> Excuse the ignorance, but what's IRIS?

Hey . . . no problem . . . IRIS is also called GiclM-ie print. You may see some
of these in art galleries on occasion. Basically it is a very complex system of
inkjet like technology printers that can print onto nearly any material,
including gesso covered canvas (like an oil painting). Some of these are used
for proofing as well.

Many places can do these, but check this vendor for one:
http://www.irisprints.com

> Because sooner or later (please note I'm not saying now people, I know how
> some of you love to miss the qualifiers in a statement :) ) the technology
> is going to be there to record an image with a resolution and colour depth
> equal to or greater than that that can be captured by shooting a slide and
> then scanning it.  And on that day when you can take an image of equivalent
> or better quality image using digital, why would you put yourself through
> the expense of both money and time using the chemical process and then
> scanning the transparency?

Definitely, that time is not now, and likely not next year either, a point upon
which I agree. Film has a great deal of latitude, and provides many different
variations of capturing the same view. Current contrast capturing abilities of
film are far beyond digital capture (DV magazine, and AV Producer have had
quite a few articles about this, mostly comparing 35 mm and 70 mm movie film to
HD, and many discussions of capture chip technology).

There are products out there in the "film look" category of software, mostly
for video editing, though many will work in PhotoShop as Plug-ins. I have used
a few of these, and they are poor imitations of the real thing, despite the
high cost and claims otherwise. However, there is one system that can do this
now, called a DaVinci. Actually, they sell a few different packages, all
starting at about the $1000000 (million) mark. I have seen one in action, and
it is very impressive.

As to why continue with film when digital equals the colour accuracy, and
resolution: cost would be the main issue. Other reasons would be that a
particular film has colour response characteristics not possible to duplicate
digitally. Remember that film has gone through a much greater evolutionary time
period than digital, allowing for wide variation. Possibly transportability and
lack of electrical power in remote locations may be other reasons for film to
continue to be a good option.

> > Another factor is that a MF digital back can turn your very expensive
> > wide angle into a normal lens due to focal length multiplication.
>
> Understood, but irrelevant since, as was set out in the theortical example,
> the sensor sizes are 1:1 with the film frame size, so there is no
> multiplication effect. There is already one digital SLR (the Contax if i
> remember correctly) that has a full frame sensor, and it is only a matter of
> time before full frame sensors will be the norm rather than the exception in
> both digital SLR's and medium format digital backs.

The Contax is for 35 mm. The Horseman Digiflex is another option, though also
35 mm. All fine if you do not wish to use MF wide angle lenses, or only want to
use 35 mm lenses. I would love to see a full frame size 645 digital capture
back, but I think a revolution in chip technology may be needed to get there.

> > Resolution is not the greatest issue in digital image capture. Most of
> > the current chips, backs, and bodies capture to and analogue chip and
> > use an analogue to digital converter to get an RGB image
> ....
> >  The colour accuracy of these chips could still be improved, and is still
> not
> > up to what film and good drum scans can provide.
>
> Again, only a matter of time before that is not the case

I think what would help that is if the devices captured directly to CMYK,
rather than RGB. Unfortunately, this makes storage, circuitry, and chips
possibly more complicated, and costly. If there is enough market demand, it may
happen, but it could also go the way of Polaroid.

> > Wait five years (or less) and you will see digital image capture devices
> > built into portable phones.
>
> Already been done
es . . . in Japan and Korea. Not common yet, but available in the US by the
end of the year. Give it another year for just the early adopters, and I think
this may be the hot item for Christmas 2003. At which point, what incentive
would there be to make more complex devices? Consumers buy more gear, and
dictate technology directions more than pros.

> > You will also likely see full frame chips
> > for 35 mm at much lower prices. Perhaps you may even see full frame size
> > MF digital backs, if anyone other than Kodak is making any, though I
> > would expect the current $16k+ backs to be less than half that cost in
> > the near future. I would also expect film and drum scanners to improve
> > during the next five years, and drop further in price.
>
> But you can't keep on dragging extra resolution out of the film no matter
> how good your scanner is, unless there is a dramatic increase in the amount
> of detail that can be resolved onto the 35mm frame by an increase in lens
> quality and film grain fineness.  For 35mm, 4000 dpi (approx 21 Megapixels)
> seems to be pretty much the maximum you can use before you're not getting
> any more detail out of the film.

I will have to try to dig that University article out again (think it was MIT),
where they tested image resolution limits for scanning. I seem to remember the
limit being 6000, at which point there was not discernible image improvement,
even under high magnification.

Without remembering that article location (I have over 800 bookmarks . . . too
much information), here is a great article showing different films, scanning,
digital capture, and details.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm 

It may take a while to download if you are on a dial connection, but worth a look.

Just to qualify my opinions a bit. I get approximately 60% to 80% of my income
from Photography. The rest comes from graphic design and illustration. Almost
all the client images I shoot end up going to print, rather than chemical
enlargement. I have been using drum scanners, film scanners, digital camera
bodies, digital backs (rented), Betacams, DV camcorders, and 16 mm film cameras
since 1995. I received a degree in fine arts from San Diego State University in
1998. I do extensive colour correction work of my own images prior to them
going to print, and I usually do the prepress preparation layout work for my
clients as well. I feel that digital is important, yet there are many ways to
achieve the required digital image. Many digital systems work quite well,
though some are limited in their abilities. Current technology has digital and
film coexisting, though that may change in the future . . . but I doubt if it
will be next year . . . and I am not placing my money on soon to be outdated
high priced gear.

If digital works for your workflow, then by all means use it. If you are making
more money without film use, and a strictly digital workflow (medium format),
then you are in a rare position that few others share. Probably you would be in
the product and catalogue shooting world, areas that I do not intend to compete
in.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html





Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Standardised digital back connections?


cerebros wrote:

> > > But not gaining any of the advantages of shooting digital on location
> > > (although considering the _current_ techonology you can also argue
> avoiding
> > > the limitations).
> >
> > I have enough lead time on my shoots that I am able to scan images for my
> > clients.
>
> But think of the time you can spend relaxing instead of having to do the
> scanning...

Scanning takes little time. The image edits and colour correction for printing
take similar time, whether digital capture, or scanned film. Editing the images
in PhotoShop is what takes the most time, especially if you want great results.

If I really wanted to save that much time, I could just order a PhotoCD when I
drop off the film, and then charge that to the client. While in college, this
was a common way to do this, but less used now that film scanners are more
affordable.

>
>
> > Another issue is that the secondary lighting on location is rarely good
> enough
> > to do colour correction for print work, especially given the difficulties
> > already in colour correction on LCD displays. So other than pleasing the
> A.D.
> > (which you can do with a Polaroid back), or impressing the client with
> your
> > laptop, what advantages do you see to MF digital on location?
>
> Eventually significant cost savings for the MF photographer.  When the
> quality of a MF digital back reaches a level acceptable to the photographer
> and/or their clients, the photographer (especially those who for a living
> shoot large amounts of film) will initally have an outlay on the back and
> memory and bulk digital storage devices (like the mindstor), but these costs
> will be offset by the financial savings through not having to buy film
> (unless expressly called for) and gettting it processed (and scanned if the
> scanning is not done by the photographer).

I think you are missing something about professional photography. The costs.
like film and processing, are passed on to the client. The costs of the camera
equipment are carried by the photographer. If I need a particular lens for a
shoot, or certain lighting, I pay the cost of rental, or purchase. Same thing
would go for a digital back, computer gear, etc.

You can see some of the adverse results of this for photojournalists. It is now
almost universally expected that if you shoot for a news agency in the US, you
should carry at least one digital body. Rarely do any news agencies pick up the
cost of those bodies.

Here is an excellent article about this:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0205/colburn.htm and be sure to check out
the rest of this site. Nice images, and excellent commentary.


> in addition there is the time
> factor of being able to review the images on scene (as opposed to not
> realising you've done something stupid in between taking the polaroid and
> shooting your final shot).

This is something that some newer ADs are asking to see on location. Polaroids
are not foolproof, and neither is an LCD display. When in doubt: bracket!
Polaroids on location are still fairly inexpensive, fast, and still cheaper
than digital backs. Even digital back rentals are not that cheap, though that
may be a solution. Leasing is an option, but most of these go for around $300
per month . . . not exactly cheap.

What can likely happen is that more clients will ask for digital, or instant
screen views during the shoot. The bad thing is that it creates a scenario
possibility that you are merely someone carrying in the equipment, and the
client does all the shots . . . quite possible, and could create a condition
that makes the photographer almost redundant. Regardless of the likelihood of
that, this could still create a need to acquire the gear.

This push for digital creates an initial high acquisition cost that is
difficult to recover from the clients, since the day rates have not gone up
enough to justify the gear, except for a few pros. When clients move towards
always asking that it be present at a shoot, then there will be no other
choice, unless one wants to give up photography for a living.

Realities currently show ad revenues down, advertising expenditures down, and
little increase in rates paid to photographers (and a few decreases). With
rising equipment costs, and slow growth in day rates, how many photographers
can afford to get digital MF backs?

This is very different from quality issues. Digital for pro shooting is a cost
item, unlike film and processing that can be easily billed to the client (thus
almost no cost). Comparing the pro to amateur worlds, it is easy to see that
the consumer may have some advantage to digital, but how many rolls of 120
(with processing) does it take to equal the cost of a PhaseOne, Leaf, or other
high end digital back?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] digital lens?

Oh Anthony,

> > Is there any enhanced for digital photography
> > kind of lens available? Is there such thing?
>
> Digital sensors make fewer demands on lenses than film.

That is not entirely true.  Digital movie cameras have sensors that have
sensor elements smaller than some film grain (and some still cameras too,
such as the D60), and do require the use of a "better" lense.

> As such, film
> lenses are fine for both.

That's wrong.  The only way a lense works with a digital camera is if the
sensor has a low pass filter over the sensor OR the lense has its MTF
matched to the sensor.  If not, you get aliasing.

Austin




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 
From: istvan istvan@bulletnose.com
Subject: [HUG] Re: digital lens

Greetings All,

> I haven't personally see the shots yet, but have
> anybody here did such test? Can I have your comment
> please? Is there any enhanced for digital photography
> kind of lens available? Is there such thing?

Yes, there are "Digital" lenses, Schneider and Rodenstock make them for view
cameras. They are optimized for the ccd format of Digital backs. also they
are "Reversed" telephoto designs (straight from the Rodenstock literature)
allowing greater back focus distance which results in steeper angle of
incidence of light.

> Im not sure i understand. The person has a sinar back and was able to mound
> the back to a nikon camera and the same back to a hassleblad body? Im not
sure
> how this comparison can be made as the yare two completly different formats .

see http://www.sinarbron.com/sinarback.htm

The Sinarcam 2 (a body/shutter) can mount a Sinarback (digital back similar
to film magazine) on the back and has various lens mount plates for the
front. So, it is possible to compare a Hasselblad lens to a Nikon lens.

Of course, we would like to know which lenses are being compared and at what
fstops.

> Digital sensors make fewer demands on lenses than film.  As such, film
> lenses are fine for both.  The few differences that exist (e.g., the
> inability of digital photosites to handle relatively oblique light rays) are
> drawbacks of digital image sensors, not defects in lens designs.

Not true. Digital makes higher demands of lenses than film. If for no other
reason than 1:1 viewing in photoshop. I know this won¹t make a difference in
the final print, but since we can examine it so closely we do. When was the
last time you put your film under a microscope. with digital when you open
your file and examine it at 1:1 magnification you are examining the lens
preformance under a microscope. I recently had a demo of the Sinarback and
Sinarcan 2. the vendor set it up with a high quality Nikon Zoom. when we
examined the files they had terrible color fringing. we switched to a 60mm
macro and it looked great. with film I dont think you would have been able
to examine the film that closely. Back to Hasselblad, My favourite lens is
the Makro-Planar 120mm f4 887XXXX. It holds its own against a Rodenstock
Apo-Sironar Digital HR 100mm f4 when used with a Jenoptik Eyelike CCD back
even in 16 shot mode.

regards,
istvan




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: digital lens

Hi Ken,

SOME digital does, like the digital sensors used in professional video
cameras.  They use a much higher "density" sensor than used in today's
digital single shot cameras/backs...like the Canon D-60 (which, btw, is high
enough "density" that DP Review says they notice the difference between the
L series lenses and non-L lenses).  The penalty for smaller sensor size is
higher noise...but video can tolerate the higher noise because the noise
isn't as apparent, since each frame only lasts for a fraction of a second,
and the subsequent frame will have "different" noise.

Regards,


Austin

> I am trying to learn, but I do not understand why digital would require
> higher resolution.  Could you be so kind as to explain?  Thank you!
>
> Ken
...




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: digital lens

> Austin writes:
>
> > resolution.
>
> Digital sensors do not require as much resolution as film.  A lens with
> enough resolution for film has enough resolution for digital sensors.

Anthony,

That's simply a VERY incorrect generalization.  Some digital sensors are
denser than film, and some are not.  It depends on what film, and what
digital sensor, you are comparing.

DP Review noticed a difference in image quality between the L series lenses
and non-L lenses on the Canon D-60.  Professional video cameras use sensors
that have smaller sensor sizes than quite a lot of film does.

Austin




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: digital lens

Austin writes:

> SOME digital does, like the digital sensors
> used in professional video cameras.

The discussion here concerns digital still cameras.

In any case, photosites small enough to tax the resolution of still-camera
lenses will also be so noisy that resolution will be the least of their
problems, as you already imply.  In addition, diffraction places some
significant ultimate limits on resolution which no lens will fix.

I think that future improvements in digital sensors will have to concentrate
on making the sensors larger so that photosites can be larger while
maintaining pixel counts.  This is one reason why a true 24x36 sensor is a
good idea for 35mm-equivalent digicams (in addition to the obvious advantage
of maintaining focal-length conventions).  And obviously a 6x6 sensor is a
good idea for a MF digicam, although I don't know that such sensors will be
commonly seen or affordable any time soon.




From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 
From: Darrell Jennings darrell_jennings@yahoo.com
Subject: [Leica] Lenswork article on digital photography

We've often gotten into debates on digital vs. film,
wet vs. digital darkrooms, the validity of digital as
a photograph, and the impact of altering reality in
the digital image. The best article I have seen on
this subject is by the editor of Lenswork Magazine in
this months issue. If you don't subscribe, you can go
to www.lenswork.com and pull down a PDF file of this
months issue.  The article starts on page 7 of that
file.  DJ




From: spicaofla@yahoo.com (spica)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002

"Ron Sussman" ronsuss@earthlink.net wrote:

>Most pro digital labs will tell you that to get an decent 8x10 image you
>need at least 3 meg pixel min. With pixels - the more the merrier!!

i have a 3meg Nikon coolpix,
and i printed a 8'x10' from a street scene
the details on the street sign is not there on the far distance.
so i think 3 meg is not adequate

>"spica" spicaofla@yahoo.com wrote...
>> This is a question i hope someone can answer
>> For a landscape 8'x10' print (focused on infinity),
>> to product the same kind of quality and details on the print from a
>> medium format 6cmX6cm,
>> what kind of megapixel camera is needed from a digital camera to match
>> that? 3, 4, 5,or 6 megapixel?




Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question


A bit of math, or playing in PhotoShop may give you an idea of what is
required. High quality magazine printing specs often suggest 300 ppi
files at the final printed size. Obviously, the choice of screening,
paper selection, and ink quality can all play into this as well. Since
most digital backs, and digital cameras capture to RGB, this relieves
some of the storage file size problem of a final CMYK image used for
printing.

Using our figure of 300 and the 8" by 10" dimensions gives approximately
a 2400 pixel by 3000 pixel image requiring about 17.2 MB of storage.
Comparing to the specifications of digital cameras requires a bit more
math, since most of these do not capture to a 300 ppi file. Anyway, an
easy way to see what is going on, rather than look at meaningless and
confusing megapixels, is to look at the maximum file size capability. So
for a 17.2 MB image capture, which would contain enough information for
the desired print size, only a few digital cameras, and backs can
accomplish this. A Nikon D1 at maximum quality setting just gets to
around this file size, but there is a bit more to it than just that.
Resolution does not tell the entire story, and quality of colour is more
limited in digital than film.

Okay, so now you may think that it is possible to use a 6 megapixel
camera to get your 8" by 10" out to 300 ppi. The other factors to
consider are many. The smaller chip size, and capture area greatly
multiply the depth of field and the lens focal length. While you may
enjoy having everything that way, and try to avoid pleasing defocus
highlights in your images, not too many people like the results. The lens
multiplication also eliminates much of the advantage of buying expensive
wide angle lenses for MF gear when using digital backs.

Many MF digital backs are full frame 35 mm size, a few at 36 mm square,
and (I believe) just one from Rollei that is 56 mm by 56 mm (no lens
changes). All MF digital backs are fairly expensive, especially in
comparison to good MF film scanners, or even an Imacon, or used drum
scanner. The film scanners and drum scanners are all capable of capturing
more colour information as well.


The colour range is often expressed as dynamic range on scanners.
Unfortunately, every manufacturer seems to use different ways of
measuring this, making direct comparison difficult. Claims often look
more like marketing speak than reality. Regardless, film captures a wider
range of colour information than any digital, including drum scanners.
The best digital systems (drum scanners) can capture the most colour
information. If you want to test this simply, compare a printed image
from a 12 bit capture to an 8 bit capture (using the D1 specifications
again). On a limited gamut computer monitor, that may or may not be
calibrated, you may see little difference; same thing with newsprint; but
on good paper you should see a colour difference.

So do not just look at megapixels. This is an unfortunate choice of
marketing term designed to sell more products, and is not a valid
specification for comparison. Now if you really want MF digital with the
least limitations, look here at the Rollei Gamma S12:

http://www.rollei.de/en/produkte/produkt_detail.cfm?id=1943&name=digisys

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


spica wrote:

> This is a question i hope someone can answer
> For a landscape 8'x10' print (focused on infinity),
> to product the same kind of quality and details on the print from a
> medium format 6cmX6cm,
> what kind of megapixel camera is needed from a digital camera to match
> that? 3, 4, 5,or 6 megapixel?




From: bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Aug 2002 
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question

>From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net

>Using our figure of 300 and the 8" by 10" dimensions gives approximately
>a 2400 pixel by 3000 pixel image requiring about 17.2 MB of storage.

2400 x 3000 -> 7.2 million pixels or 21.6 million bytes ... or ~ 20.6 MB




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Question re: printing a negative...

This technique has been developed to a pretty sophisticated level,
although you don't really need Piezography for it. I don't know how the
Piezo inks do on transparencies. There's a workbook on the subject by Dan
Burkholder  ... "Making Digital Negatives
for Contact Printing". Well worth the money!

One of my friends has been working on techniques inspired by this book.
The results have been nothing short of amazing.

Godfrey

Darrell Jennings wrote:

> Anyone have any experience printing on some sort of
> clear material (acetate?) with peizography inks to
> make a large size negative for contact printing in a
> wet darkroom environment?





From: John Stafford john@stafford.net1
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002

 Gordon Moat at moat@attglobal.net wrote
> Honestly, I would rather point you towards digital video. The current crop of
> 3 chip camcorders have great colour quality.

Sorry, but everyday hands-on use of a quality 3-ccd professional camera
leads me to far different conclusions. I use the Canon XL-1 at work and I
find no such quality.  Highlights are blown out so easily I'm often forced
to use contrast filters.

Stills? Quality of stills from the camera best approximate blister-packed
disposable cameras. Or has the technology improved drastically since last
year?





Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups:rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?


"Paul Saunders" pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk a écrit 
> That's what I really wanted to know.  Is the
> difference that obvious?

No, it's not very obvious at all, mainly because the resolution of inkjet
printers is really low (only about 150 ppi--that 2880 dpi stuff concerns the
number of ink dots on paper, but it requires many dots to form each pixel).
The printer does not really exhaust the quality of either 35mm or MF at A3
size.  However, the MF image is a bit sharper and smoother, if you look
closely.  On a high-resolution print (a true 300 ppi dye-sub or chemical
print, for example), the difference would be much more evident, although I
still don't think it would really hit you in the face that much, depending
on your viewing distance.  For larger enlargements or closer viewing
distances, the difference really does start to stick out.

> Maybe I should start making very big enlargements
> and create a good reason for MF.

Well, MF is nice, even if you don't need it.  The MF scans I'm fiddling with
tonight are very, very nice.  They are 170 times larger than what will fit
on a typical computer screen--the equivalent of a wall-mural-sized
enlargement.




From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002


spica wrote:
> This is a question i hope someone can answer
> For a landscape 8'x10' print (focused on infinity),
> to product the same kind of quality and details on the print from a
> medium format 6cmX6cm,
> what kind of megapixel camera is needed from a digital camera to match
> that? 3, 4, 5,or 6 megapixel?

Suppose you take a 6 x 6 cm image (actually about 57 x 57 mm) and scan
it.  You have to crop to get an 8 x 10 aspect ratio.  10 inches is 254
mm, so you have to enlarge 254/57 = 4.46 times.  If you want to send the
printer 300 ppi, the usual upper limit recommendation for current inkjet
printers, you need 300 x 4.46 =1337 ppi scanning resolution. If you crop
to 8 x 10 aspect ratio before scanning, and you scan at 1337 ppi, you
get an image 2400 x 3000 pixels in size.  (Of course, no scanner will
allow you to scan at precisely 1337, but you may be able to scan at
something close to it.)   That is 7.2 megapixels.

However, there are several other considerations.  First, a well made
conventional 8 x 10 print made from a 6 x 6 negative or transparency may
be better than an 8 x 10 inkjet print.  Second, current digital cameras
don't record 3 values for each pixel as a scanner would.  Instead they
have two green sensors for each red and green sensor, with the total
number of sensors equalling the number of pixels.   An algorithm is
applied to convert the sensor data into pixels, each of which has a R,G,
and B value.  So scanning records more direct information than a digital
camera with the same number of pixels would.

Of course, the 6 x 6 negative, either by scanning at a higher resolution
or by printing conventionally can also be used to produce larger prints,
even up to 20 x 24.  But if you are sure you will always be satisfied
with 8 x 10 prints, a 6+ Mpx camera will come reasonably close to
satsifying you, at least with current inkjet printers.

--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu  




From: "Doug Dolde" doug.dolde@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002


In a test of the Kodak DCS Pro Back (48mb) for the Mamiya 645, Darwin
Wiggett seems to indicate that it's superior to 645 film scanned at 3200 dpi
on an Imacon. And there are other benefits such as increased exposure
lattitude over transparency film.

Whether it is better than 6x6 is questionable though it's probably close.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0802-1.html

...




From: aaron@post-modern.net (Aaron van de Sande)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Woes in scanning 4 x 5 images.
Date: 10 Aug 2002 


There seems to be alot of confusion here over gross dpi and halftoning
resolution. There are plenty of resources on the net that describe the
difference.


http://www.naples.net/partners/kwikkopy/scanning.htm

--Aaron

> the best way to go. For example, with the Epsons, while resolution is
> stated to be 1440 or 2880, depending on the model, etc., the Epson
> printer driver for Windoze appears to discard input image data beyond
> about 300 DPI, and then fiddles with what's left to produce its output
> resolution. If using an outside printing service with commercial,






From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Woes in scanning 4 x 5 images.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 


Leonard Evens wrote:

> In that connection, what kind of CDs do people generally use for storing
> digital images?  There is a web site which explains some of this, but I
> haven't seen the recommended CD types on sale anywhere I shop.   Right
> now I use standard brands like Imaton, and I presume the stored images
> will last as long as I am likely to.   But it would be nice to leave
> something more permanent for any of my descendants, biological or
> spiritual, who might want to recover those images.
>
> --
> Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu    

Be careful about cheap CDs--they may last only a few months.
See:


http://www.silverace.com/dottyspotty/issue12.html

Around here (Denver area) only cheap CDs seem to be
available, even though they say "Gold" on the cover.
I buy mine mail order in lots of 50 to 100.

Contrary to many of my recent posts in this thread, I do
have a life (of sorts).  This morning I woke up at 3:30am.
hiked to a mountain top (a little one: ~11,500 feet) before
sunrise, and got some nice 4x5s at sunrise with the continental
divide in the distance.  Then I went up
a ~14000 foot mountain and photographed mountain goats,
including 4x5s of mountain goats.  And including baby
goats playing. A very good morning!
Only I didn't see any Perseid meteors while hiking the
trail.  ;-)

Roger




From minolta MF mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 
From: "saycheese9" saycheese@wave.net
Subject: Us oldtimers sticking to SLR's and film??????

*uhhhem* 

Excuse me here,, but why do the good magazine art directors insist on
slides and good glass?  Some of them may be kids compared to us old
timers but they know their stuff - backwards, forewards and
sideways.  You might find it helpful to read their guidelines.
Digital is not a sole reason to switch to another brand. I can
understand immediate photojournalism being one motive. But don't drop
one girlfriend because the other tempts you with her new cologne. Try
playing the field. You may just catch yourself high and dry unable to
paddle your own canoe.  Besides, I've yet to see good digital action
photos.  There's always a blur somewhere.  And what's with all these
ISO settings on digital cameras?  Is this really a necessity?  Well
just look at covers on sports illustrated.  Can't you see the
difference.  It's going to be a long long time before digital matches
good glass and transparancies.  Then there's printing them out.  And
by the way, contrary to popular belief, not everyone owns a computer
either.  All said, name me a couple good magazines who use digital
photos on their covers.

Larry




From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick iconmags@btconnect.com
Subject: Re: Us oldtimers sticking to SLR's and film??????

saycheese9 wrote:
> *uhhhem* {cough, sputter}
>
> Excuse me here,, but why do the good magazine art directors insist on
> slides and good glass?  Some of them may be kids compared to us old
> timers but they know their stuff - backwards, forewards and
> sideways
(castrated)

>All said, name me a couple good magazines who use digital
> photos on their covers.


In the small island on the right side of the Atlantic there are more
than a few. In fact, most, now. The sad fact is that digital shooting
offers such a massive increase in reproduction quality that people as
asking whether fashion photographers have started using 5 x 4 all the
time. Rankin just switched to 100 per cent digital (if you don't know
who Rankin is, he's probably the most successful and best known magazine
  *owner* and photographer in Europe, and the originator of 'Dazed and
Confused').

I publish photo magazines and my brief is to get optimum quality. For
Minolta Image, we still scan 90 per cent prints and slides, since it is
sourced from amateurs. For 'Freelance Photographer' we are probably
50-50 files on disk, of which maybe 80 per cent are scanned from slides,
and having to scan slides ourselves; however, this is reducing monthly,
and I can see the possibility of an issue soon when the only originals
we scan would be contest entries. For 'The Master Photographer' it's 90
per cent digital delivery, 60 per cent digitally shot - the Fuji S1,
Nikon D1 and Canon Eos 1D or previous cameras are universally used.
Where not digitally shot it's because it is legacy material.


We've seen a quantum leap in the reproduction quality of images since
digital shooting arrived. My old criticism of professionals - that they
made worse mono prints than amateurs, and sent me inappropriately
'pitched' lab machine colour prints with the wrong density and surface
for repro - is gone. They now have full control, and some of them are
doing wonderful stuff.

I am a heretic - I'm happy with my Minolta Dimage 7i and I don't like
this bulky digital 35mm SLRs at all, or digital rollfilm backs. To me,
they defeat all logic; we get a wonderful new format, offering a chance
for reduce the size and weight of pro cameras for ever, and all the
buggers want to do is heft around kilos of familiar old oversized glass.
I saw a wee little lady photographer at a public event last week with
this HUGE Nikon D1X round her neck and some massive wide-angle zoom
trying to compensate for wide-angle 'loss'. And there's me with what
looks suspciously like a handbag, made by Lowepro, holding just a Dimage
7i and my wallet. She probably thought 'there's a bloke a silly hat with
a toy camera...'.

Having tried and having reproduced the images from all these cameras,
but not yet from the EOS 60 or Nikon D100, I can assure you the 7i holds
it own against any of them. Our first digital camera magazine cover was
in 1992 and was shot on a Kodak DCS (tiny file size) SLR by John
Henshall. Since then we have used countless full page digital camera
magazine covers, including two from the Minolta RD-3000, three from  the
Dimage 7, many from Nikon D1, studio backs of different types, etc. Ok,
it's our business to be up to date. But that was ten years ago. The
magazine world has not been slow to adapt and digital is universally
accepted in the UK; all the major mail order catologues now shoot
exclusively on digital cameras and backs. The London ad agency scene has
enjoyed a 5 x 4 real film revival this year in BACKLASH against the way
digital backs took over about three years ago!

I love film, and enjoy making prints. I like slides for projection,
nothing beats a pair of Leitz Pradovits showing Duncan McEwans's superb
Minolta 35mms (enough to persuade me to move to Scotland - it was
Duncan's scenes which did it). But as a magazine editor, the sooner I
get EVERY shot by email or on disk the better - no hassle about lost
trannies, no filing drawers full of submissions, no tedious half-day
spent scanning and then retouching all the crap which some previous
repro house has plastered on the originals.

My experience will be shared by others and the idea that good art
directors and editors expect real slides ('good glass' is even more
essential for digital than for film) will soon be as outdated as the
same statements made in the early 1950s that cut sheet film would never
be replaced for newspaper pictures by rollfilm.... let alone 35mm!

David




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 
From: "vividnite" mystikraze@aol.com
Subject: Re: Us oldtimers sticking to SLR's and film??????

I wouldn't exactly get rid of any SLR camera quite yet.
Until you read Digital's Dirty Little Secret

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm




from contax mailing list:
From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
Subject: RE: [Contax] Digital Vs 400 asa film
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 

There seem to be constant attempts by digital users to reassure themselves
that they haven't spent 5x as film camera users for nothing. The most famous
attempt was the infamous http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ attempt to show
that the old Nikon D1 was 'better' than Fuji Provia.

Of course, all of those reports are based on questionable methodology and
structured to show the digital camera as superior. This usually means that
the digital image is silently 'enhanced' while the film image is 'degraded'.
For example, in the luminous-landscape example they used several image
enhancement tools on the digital image (3rd party sharpening plugins etc)
before they made the print while the image from Provia (which is slide film)
was an un-enhanced digital print of a scan. The results were
predictable...and meaningless.

I would have to look more closely at the British Journal methodology but I
expect there would be similar problems found. For example, are the
comparisons made with a digital print from a digital camera vs. a digital
print of a scan of a print.

You never see a comparison of a $5,000 digital camera image projected by a
$10,000 a 'multimedia projector' to a slide from a  $500 film camera
projected by a $300 slide projector. Why? Because the digital is going to
LOSE that comparison!!

You don't see an unenhanced digital enlargement from a digital camera
compared with a traditional enlargement from a lab. Why? Because digital is
going to LOSE that comparison!

Think of it like this!!

Headline: Test PROVES 1972 Milk Delivery truck faster than 2002 Ferrari!!
When you read the article you notice that the Milk Truck had a jet engine
installed and the Ferrari was chained to concrete block! If one subject  of
the comparison is enhanced and the other degraded...what is the value of the
comparison?

Meryl

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Michael Wilkinson
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 
Subject: Re: [Contax] Digital Vs 400 asa film

In this weeks British Journal of Photography.there is a comparison between the Nikon
D100 D100H and Fuji Superia colour neg film  with images being printed for comparison.
It Establishes the superior sharpness of the D100 images compared with Fuji
Agfa and Konica 400 asa neg film.
Sorry Luddites but extinction is just around the corner

Regards

Michael Wilkinson.




Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So going digital's gonna save money, eh?


For less money, you could go with medium format instead.  That's why I did.
Instead of paying $8000 for 2/3 the quality of 35mm, I paid half as much for
four times _more_ quality than 35mm.  It was a no-brainer for me.

"Future Assassin" newgroups@soundselecta.com a M-icrit 
> I wanted to go with a digital camera but thought it over and couldn't justify
> spending $4000 CDN (body) and have the cameras resale price drop like a
> brick.
...
> "Patrick L." oiu@cp9uc.com wrote...
> > I noticed and Ebay seller selling his D30 for $1300.   A year ago that
> > camera was a thousand more.  So now he wants to upgrade to a D60,
> > which is over $2000.    Next year,  they will come out with a 8
> > megapixel camera, and the D60 will drop to $1300.    Digital cameras,
> > price wise,  are going down like computers, always being replaced and
> > rendered obsolete.  Who needs this insanity?  Let me keep my film
> > cameras,  which will hold their value better, and still work twenty
> > years from now, and if I managed to use good archival film,  those old
> > negs will still be scannable or developable.  I doubt that any
> > computer twenty years from now will read a cdrom made today.
> >
> > Am I right?





From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So going digital's gonna save money, eh?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002


100,000 keepers? ! ! I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was
estimated that Ansel Adams made 40,000 photographs in his life time of
photography (about 70 years) and of those, about 1,000 were worth printing.
You're doing much better than Ansel Adams in a much shorter time.
Congratulations.

"Godfrey DiGiorgi" ramarren@bayarea.net wrote 
> - quality:
> For the photographic work I enjoy and the size/aesthetic factors I need, I
> find that the Sony produces quality prints satisfactory enough that I've
> sold my Leica and Nikon gear, and am putting several other cameras on the
> market as well. I'm reducing my small format film cameras to compact 35
> and a Canon EOS IX system, plus a few of my favorite subminiatures for
> fun. For better quality work, I have moved most of my film work to medium
> format.
>
> -  power consumption:
> A full charge on the Sony battery costs less then $0.50 worth of household
> electricity. That amount of additional expense would be saved if I turned
> off the bedroom light an hour earlier every night. It's simply not
> significant.
>
> - depreciation value:
> Leica cameras are exceptional in the marketplace for holding value. The
> vast majority of 35mm cameras sold are fully depreciated after 3-5 years
> and their residual value is as close to zero as is significant. There are
> exceptions, of course, but by and large this is what I've experienced over
> the past 30 years of being involved with photography. This does NOT mean
> that they are incapable of taking excellent pictures nor does it mean that
> they are valueless and free, it just means that they have a small fraction
> of their new value in terms of resale valuation.
>
> > what do you do with them ...
>
> I take pictures for my friends, for my family, for me personally to enjoy.
> I have notions of doing a couple of books someday, in my next career. I
> show many of them on my website but it turns out to be only a tiny
> fraction of the total number of photographs (either film or digital) that
> I actually take. The digicam is producing about a 50-60% "keeper" rate,
> about the same as what I get with film, and I actualize about 5% of those
> to a final print or web display form. The rest I archive on CD-R and enjoy
> wandering through at my leisure, or occasionally I get a project going and
> I mine my picture archives for photos to support it. All told, since 1968,
> I have a picture archive that's now running in the 100,000 or so exposed
> frames which I consider "keepers" for possible development into a print.
>
> Godfrey




Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 
From: "JIM" Firewagon1@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So going digital's gonna save money, eh?


"Godfrey DiGiorgi" ramarren@bayarea.net wrote
> Ah, time to feed the trolls... {grin}
....{cut}.... Meanwhile, I've taken 4000+ photographs with it already.

And, of those 4,000, how many have you printed? What would your cost be to
print your "keepers" with your 'no-cost' printer? Last I checked, photo
quality print paper/printers/ink aint being given away......Oh yea, I forgot
that you store your pics on your no-cost computer and process those 4,000
pics w/no-cost software, not to mention your no-cost *time* involved working
those images into some acceptable/likeable print result....Or?, do you just
view your pics over that 1.5" LCD?:)

 ....
>cut..... film, at $3.50 apiece - $350 bux. At $4 each
> to process C41 negatives, another $400.

You are getting robbed, or just don't know where to buy your film or
processing.

....So if I bought a
> similarly capable 35mm camera and used it the same amount, it would have
> to have cost about $500 for the same use in the first year.

Similarly capable?? Doubt you are running anything near a 9MP digital rig.
....
> The Sony will keep on taking pictures at no further cost too. It will no
> longer be state of the art but who cares? It will keep taking pictures at
> the current, satisfactory quality level...

"No further cost?"  The ole digital dew theorem of "no cost" pics.  I scan
some of my film work into the computer and do some printing, nothing like
you might do if digital was your main output, and have gone through three
(3) photo quality printers to date! Ink cartridges @ +/- $35 a pop and photo
quality paper that runs $1+ per sheet(8.5x11) are the prime reasons printers
come so cheap ($500 each). Cheaper printers are out there; however, none
that will allow you to print 11"x14" or panoramic at photo quality. BTW,
what's the degeneration rate of those CCD's/other imaging devices?

If digital were so much more convenient and cost effective, this group would
be indicating such. If you read in here much at all, you find too many folk,
spending way too many hours, wasting all manner of media, trying to get
results comparable to what they had with SUC gear (that's Single Use
Camera - not some camera w/a high quality lens)!

Digital may indeed be the wave of the future, just not my future:) 'Course,
my age is a factor, too old to get interested in 'gamma' settings, how many
MP required to make acceptable 4"x6" prints, how to make what appears on
your computer screen print like it looks, which memory card/flash
reader/storage medium/USB/Firewire/JPEG/TIFF/RAW/++++++ is best in which
application, and on and on and on.........:)  You younguns out der, enjoy!!
End of troll:)

Shoot'em up, film, digital, whatever, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest
will love you for it!!

Jim




From: "Patrick L." oiu@cp9uc.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So going digital's gonna save money, eh?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002

Amardeep S Chana usenet01.20.asc@gourmet.com wrote 
> "Patrick L." oiu@cp9uc.com wrote
> This is a common argument but holds very little merit.  The reality is that
> the duration of support for a medium is proportional to its market
> penetration.  There are billions of CD-ROMs in the world and reader will
> continue to exist for as long as somebody wants to read them.  You can still
> buy a brand new LP record player.  Why?  Somebody still wants to play LP's.
> Laserdisc players are getting hard to buy.  Why?  Very few laserdiscs
> actually sold.
>
> Suppose 100 years from now someone's great grandchildren unearth some CD-R
> discs.  There will exist technology or commercial services to get the data
> off them just like we use modern techniques to get data off of 9-track
> tapes, paper tape, and punch cards more reliably than the equipment did when
> they were in wide use.


On the subject of recovering data on mediums produced by high end
professional equipment by mass producers, your argument has some
merit, but here is where I am concerned:  I have a Plextor CD burner,
which, by the way, is considered an excellent product, and I burn CDs.
I always burn two.  I do this because, in the past,  I would try to
open and archived cd only to get a error, rendering the CD to coaster
status.  This doesn't happen often, but, sometimes, it does.   This
can only be because, in my view,  consumer grade CD burners do not
work at the same standard as professionally mass produced CDs.  Now
then, being a photographer,  the Plextor is all I will have available
to use for clients CD-ROMs, and thus I don't trust the medium as far
as securely archiving photographs.  Film is more secure in this
regard, no matter which way you slice the argument.   Perhaps I should
purchase the same equipment that commercial mass producers use to
create a single CD for a client?   I don't think this is doable, given
the price, space requirements, and practicality of such equipment.
Every few months I find myself getting out archived CDs, just to see
if they are still good.  I don't have this issue with mass produced
CDs, only those produced by my consumer grade CD burner.

I don't know if the following statement is true, but given my limited
knowledge, let me state thusly:

A film negative IS a photograph.   A bit and a byte is only a PROMISE
of a photograph.

No?

Patrick L.




From: "Greg Macklem" gmacklem@rev.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So going digital's gonna save money, eh?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 

...(quotes above posting)

On this note, I have read that current CD's have about a 17 year shelf life.
I don't know if this is true, but it is something to consider.

Greg Macklem
gmacklem@rev.net




From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Film vs. digital resolution (and nonsense)
Date: 11 Aug 2002 


Michael Quack michael@photoquack.de writes:
>Well, then. The D60 does 136 lines per millimeter.
>How much can your films do?

Where does that 136 figure come from?  The D-60 sensor has a pixel size
of 7.4 microns, so there are 136 pixels per mm.  However, that doesn't
mean that the camera will actually *resolve* 136 lines per mm - the
real useful resolution will be 70-80% of that, something like 105 lines
per mm.  Also, this is LINES, while film and lens resolution is always
given in LINE PAIRS, and it takes two lines to make a line pair.  So
the D-60 will actually resolve about 53 line pairs per mm at best.

In any case, it makes no sense to compare resolution in lines per mm
when the sensors in question are different sizes.  The 35mm film frame
is about 1.6 times larger than the D-60 CCD, so the D60 needs to
achieve 80 lp/mm resolution on its sensor to produce the same
resolution on the print (or in the original subject) as a 35 mm camera
resolution of just 50 lp/mm.  Thus lp/mm comparisons are misleading.


A better way to specify resolution is in line pairs per picture height,
or lines per picture height.  The dpreview review of the D-60 gives its
(measured, not theoretical) horizontal resolution as 1600 lines per
picture height.  The review says the vertical resolution is less (1400)
but I don't see that difference in the test chart image, so let's say
the D-60 is 1600 lines both horizontal and vertical.  Note that this is
measured with a high contrast test chart, probably 100:1 contrast, so
it should be compared to film high-contrast resolution, not
low-contrast results.

>Kodak states in:
>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.jhtml
>that TMX can resolve 63 lines per millimeter at a contrast of 1.6:1.
>This makes the D60 far superior. With a contrast of 1000:1 it rises to
>200 lines per millimeter. Which is pretty academic because that
>is no real condition and a lot of the consumer zooms will have a hard
>time to deliver even the 63 lines per millimeter.

Well, let's convert those numbers to lines per picture height.  Film
and lens resolution is always given in line pairs per mm, while video
and digicam resolution is usually given in lines, and there are two
lines per line pair.  So, with a frame 24 mm high, a film resolution of
63 line pairs per mm is 63 x 2 x 24 = 3024 lines per picture height.

So TMX, with a 1.6:1 low-contrast target, can achieve nearly twice what
the D-60 can do with a high-contrast target!

With a high-contrast target, TMX does 200 * 2 * 24 = 9600 lines per
picture height, 6 times the resolution of the D-60.  However, this isn't
realistic, since most lenses won't deliver an image of that contrast and
resolution to the film.  This is a film spec, not a lens/film spec.


But, given the same 100:1 contrast target that was used for the D-60
tests, most half-decent lenses *will* deliver more than 63 lp/mm to the
film at more than 1.6:1 contrast.  So the resolution limit of a 35
camera with TMX *will* be about double what the D-60 can do.

And remember the 1.6X difference in sensor size:  Suppose you capture
an image on film using a 100 mm lens resolving 50 lp/mm.  To get the
*same* image with the *same* amount of detail with the D-60, you need a
160 mm lens that resolves 80 lp/mm.

Working backwards, the D-60 measured resolution limit of 1600 lines per
picture height is equivalent to a 35 mm camera resolution of 1600 / 2 /
24 = 33 line pairs per mm.  Just about any lens and film combination
will beat that, including the "consumer zooms" you disparage.
Besides, anyone who can afford a D-60 will be using good lenses on it,
so it ought to be compared against a 35 camera with good lenses too,
not consumer zooms.


Basically, your figure of "136" cannot be compared the the "63" figure
for film because (a) the first is theoretical, the second is measured,
(b) the first is in lines, the second is in line pairs, (c) the first
is measured on a smaller sensor so the image needs to be magnified more
to give the same size output.

>At 400 (800, 1000) ASA, the D60 still delivers 136 lines per millimeter
>(more noise, yes), while TMY ends at 125 lines per millimeter at 1000:1
>or mere 50 lines per millimeter at 1.6:1.

Both of which are still better than the 33 lp/mm equivalent resolution
of the D-60's sensor (with a high-contrast target).

>Well, then trust into Kodaks specs and my calculations.
>Or borrow a D60 for a day and see for yourself.
>You can bet that film resolution in color is even worse.


Your calculations were off by a factor of more than 4, due to a chain
of mistakes.  I suggest you actually photograph a real resolution chart
with a D-60 and with a decent 35 mm film camera and lens.  Then compare
what's resolved on the chart.  The film should easily beat the D-60.
Colour film isn't significantly worse than B&W film, in fact sometimes
it's better.

Now, there are a number of reasons you might prefer the D-60 instead.
But greater resolution is just not one of them.  The D-60 is still at
least a factor of 2 away from what 35 mm film can easily achieve.

What digital cameras like the D-60 *are* good at is maintaining high
contrast at lower resolutions.  If the D-60 resolution limit is 1600
lines per picture height, its contrast drops to near zero at that
resolution.  But the D-60 seems to get full contrast from zero up to
about 800 l/ph, and it's still pretty good at 1200 l/ph, dropping
rapidly after that.  Although film may have double or more the
resolution limit, let's say 3000 l/ph, contrast tends to drop slowly and
evenly.  So film contrast at 800 lp/ph is about 75%, while with the D-60
it's still at 100%, and this can make the D-60 image look better.
Better contrast at low frequencies has more influence on the perception
of "sharpness" than the actual resolution limit.

On the other hand, if you take the film image and digitize it then apply
the right sort of sharpening, you can get a digital image that has as
much contrast as the D-60 one *and* twice the resolution.

        Dave





Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs
From: Steffen Kluge kluge@dotnet.org
Subject: Re: when a hobby becomes too expensive
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002


According to Meryl Arbing marbing@sympatico.ca:
>Think about this...why do professionals charge a premium for digital shots
>if they are cheaper than film? The fact is they are not cheaper! The cameras
>cost more to begin with (up to 5x the cost of a comparable film camera) and
>the post processing of the pictures falls upon the shoulders of the
>photographer who must spend HIS time doing the retouching and/or
>manipulation of the shots. The traditional film photographer has the lab do
>it all while he takes more pictures...yes you COULD hire somebody to do the
>digital post processing for you...but the cost of that is 5x what a film lab
>would charge since it takes much longer.

Hmm, very good point. I tried digital for a while (and still use
it on and off for web sites etc), but turning digital shots into
something useful (even just preparing them for inkjet printing)
takes a lot more time than mounting slides.

Cheers
Steffen.




Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002
From: Milburne Drysdale milburnedrysdale@aboy.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Too good?


>Yes, but the whole tonality thing is a statistical one, since the silver
>grains are opaque. At any point, there is a grain or there is not. The
>emulsion is quite a few grains thick, except for certain Lippmann
>emulsions used is some scientific studies. But the actual silver grains
>are so small that I cannot believe the tonality would ever exhibit steps
>that are finer for the apertures used for large format films compared to
>miniature size films.

Hmmm.  You do understand that silver grains are not specks, but are
curly threads & strings.  That the "grain" we see on films and papers
is really the light coming through "holes" in the "fabric" of threads.
And that those "holes" created by the strings of silver grains, are
themselves apertures through which light must obey the same rules of
diffraction limitation that it obeys in camera apertures.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film vs. digital resolution (and nonsense)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002

...(much snipped)

*: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html has the D60 being 0.72 of
35mm film. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml has the D60
being 0.78 of film. These certainly match my experience with 4000dpi
scanning and downloading D60 samples.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002
From: "Woody Windischman" woodywindy@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film vs. digital resolution (and nonsense)


David,

While we can debate charts all day, for most "practical" purposes, the D60's
imaging is good enough to not be the limiting factor in just about anyone's
photography if they are coming from 35mm. (I'm leaving AF speed/accuracy out
of this debate for the moment)

Let me give a more complete picture here from the referenced web sites. On
Koren's tutorial, the normalizing reference marks of 1.0 came from a
*sharpened* Provia scan, and on  the Luminous tutorial, from a Provia 100f
scan with the sky's noise reduced through a gaussian blur.
Unblurred/unsharpened Provia came in at .84, and Velvia  at .73, which puts
the D60's .78 smack-dab in the middle of two of the finest color films in
the world, when used at 35mm with the best available lenses and technique.

A Medium Format (6x4.5cm) Provia scan, with noise reduction, rated a 1.75,
so the D60 is clearly not there, yet, for any purpose that requires medium
format quality output;but, if/when they manage to build a full-frame sensor
at the D60's current quality, MF is going to have a pit bull tight on its
heels...

 - Woody -
...




Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film vs. digital resolution (and nonsense)


Your statements are quite true enough. It reminds me of the studies done by
Kodak prior to releasing the APS format. Though slightly smaller than 35 mm, it
was found that many of those polled in test groups found the images from APS
acceptable. It is an interesting coincidence that digital SLR chips are close
to the size of the APS frame.

As for the MF digital world, there are several 36 mm square chip backs
available, but at a cost. There is also the Rollei Gamma S12, which has a 56
mm  by 56 mm chip, giving full frame MF digital with no lens magnification
factor.

http://www.rollei.de/en/produkte/produkt_detail.cfm?id=1943&name=digisys

However, I think that many people will be jumping at the $250 to $400 digital
camera built into their mobile phones. Some are just showing up now, but by
this time next year, these will be quite common. Looking at the PMAI figures
that show only about 11% of people using digital cameras actually printing
anything, these digital cameras built into phones may be very attractive
options for many people.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html

Woody Windischman wrote:

> David,
>
> While we can debate charts all day, for most "practical" purposes, the D60's
> imaging is good enough to not be the limiting factor in just about anyone's
> photography if they are coming from 35mm. (I'm leaving AF speed/accuracy out
> of this debate for the moment)
...




Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Input specifications for Fuji Frontier digital minilabs?


"Michael Quack" michael@photoquack.de a écrit
> 22.7 x 15.1 cm / 0.89 x 0.59 inches.

That would be 6.3 megapixels; less than one third of the 21 megapixels I'm
getting from 35mm scans.

> This is why the D60 outperforms some of
> my lenses and asks the ultimate of the others.

Once you reach the diffraction limit, there is no way to surpass it with
anything.

Your D60 is not "outperforming" lenses that are limited by diffraction; it
has a sensor too small to make proper use of them.  Having a billion pixels
on an area the size of a pinhead is of little use if diffraction prevents
you from ever focusing details small enough to use them on the sensor.  At
that point, you need a bigger sensor, not more pixels.  Film provides this.

> Film with a theoretically identical resolution
> however would run into the same problems.

Yes ... but fortunately film frames are quite large, so the problem does not
arise.

> Then you lose information.

Only if random noise is the information you are looking for.

> Oh yes. Fine grained film is made of grain
> the same.

The grain is too small to see.

> The subject contrast is projected onto a recorded
> contrast. A print on photo paper can hold a contrast
> of 1:32 to max 1:64. Printing from a slide of 1:600,
> this higher density variation has to be projected
> onto the curve of the paper.

You can do that with film, too.

> You're kidding.

No.  You need a good scan, of course.

> With the D60 the brightest part may be 11 stops
> brighter than the darkest part of your subject.
> With film, it must be less, or you are losing
> information.

That depends on the film.

In any case, however, nothing in real life covers eleven stops.  The
difference between the surface of a light bulb and the unlit interior of a
bar is about nine stops (I know, I was measuring this just last night), four
times smaller than an 11-stop spread.  Most real world scenes are much
smaller in range, usually only 4-5 stops at most.

> But certainly not 11 stops dynamic range.

Yes, eleven stops.  Not as much detail as you extend the range, but it is
surprising how much is really there.

> That is your belief.

No, it's a fact.  I've seen and used both.  And that's why I still shoot
film.  Better quality for less money.




From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Input specifications for Fuji Frontier digital minilabs?
Date: 12 Aug 2002 


john@darkroompro.com writes:

>       Unfortunately it is. Digital imaging sensors always use
>interpolation to achieve their images. Divide the resolution by
>the 3 colors (RGB) to get the actual resolution.

No, that's not true either.  Just take a look at the resolution test
image for the Canon D-60 in the dpreview review, for example.

The sensor is 3072x2048 pixels, so the absolute maximum theoretical
resolution such a sensor can achieve is 2048 lines (1024 line pairs)
per picture height.  This is the limit for *any* sensor with that pixel
count, including any 3-CCD colour camera, any B&W camera, a scanning
back, or a flatbed scanner.

The actual measured resolution of the D-60 is 1600 lines per picture
height, which is nearly 80% of the theoretical maximum - better than
the 1/3 you suggest, and even better than 2/3 of the theoretical.
Moreover, any of the other sensors mentioned above would be hard pressed
to do any better.

So the luminance (B&W) resolution of a camera using a Bayer mosaic
sensor can be almost as good as if it had a 3-colour sensor.  The colour
resolution will be worse, by a factor of 2.  But your eye's colour
resolution is *much* worse than its luminance resolution, by a factor
of about 10, so this usually isn't a problem.

        Dave




From: "Milan Pollé" ln.bewfmt.lausivitra@nalim.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do You Have a Crytal Ball into Canon Digital SLR Evolution?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002


I'm waiting for an affordable SLR that uses a Foveon sensor instead of the
current CCD chips. The Foveon captures the full light color per sensor
pixel, instead of having primary color pixels next to each other, which have
to be combined, resulting in loss of sharpness and unwanted effects.
The Foveon sensor is also larger in size, so it should work better with
current SLR lenses.

The results are excellent, check it out here:
http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/
http://www.foveon.com/

I hope Canon will support this one, as I'd be able to use my current lenses
:^)

best wishes,
Milan





From: asfl@freemail.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002

spicaofla@yahoo.com (spica) wrote:

>This is a question i hope someone can answer
>For a landscape 8'x10' print (focused on infinity),
>to product the same kind of quality and details on the print from a
>medium format 6cmX6cm,
>what kind of megapixel camera is needed from a digital camera to match
>that? 3, 4, 5,or 6 megapixel?

Onbe problem with this whole question is that you are considering only
resolution.  The problem with digital is that it still doesn't have
the tonal range to match up to film.

That issue is common to the 35mm vs sheet film argument.  There is
less area in a 35mm to get the range but with digital its not
physically capable yet.

Then they throw in things like 64,000 vs 16million colors on a
monitor, well guess what???  The average human being can only see
about 58,000 colors!  Having a pallet with 16M is a waste of
resources.

Finally you have the age old problem of reflected vs transmitted
viewing.  If you look at a slide you see the full tonal range its
capable of but once its on a print you loose 90% of the tonal range
because its not fully reflected.  That's why slides look so contrast
ptinted.  Same with the color from your monitor vs an ink print.

I'd stay away from digital for a few more years.  They aren't up to
scratch yet and are still over priced.

THOM




From: "Doug Dolde" doug.dolde@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 

Here's a review that seems to indicate the Kodak DCS Pro back at 16
Megapixels is superior to 645 film scanned at 3200 dpi on an Imacon.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0802-1.html




Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question


"Thom" asfl@freemail.com.au a écrit

> The average human being can only see about
> 58,000 colors!  Having a pallet with 16M
> is a waste of resources.

Not so.  Typical human vision can distinguish about 16 million separate
colors.  64K displays often show visible posterization in gentle gradients,
especially in blue.




From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: "tbroadley1" timb196@mchsi.com
Subject: OT-CCD Resolution Development

I know some on this group are interested in the  Digital Imaging
development. Therefore as a data point only;

The new camera in the Hubble is a 17 megapixel array
The astrophysic boys are currently playing with a 10 Megapixel ultra
thin chip that can be matrixed into large arrays and, last but not
least
a 50 Megapixel chip has been prototyped for the US Navy for ultra
high resolution reconnaissance applications

These are obviously very expensive chips and for very demanding
applications  but I do not believe it is out of the norm  that this
type of development will  flow into other markets

cheers
Tim




From Leica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re:  digital leica R system

 Dan States wrote:

>The shot looks quite good!  Which makes me wonder about all the talk we
>hear about digital needing "special lenses".  It reminds me of the days
>when CD's were brand new and stereo shops told everyone that their
>speakers were not "digital ready".  I'm still using my old "non digital"
>Allisons...hmmm.
>
>Best wishes,
>Dan States


To be true to the sensor frequency, digital cameras (sensors) need
specially designed lenses.

The current high end SLR digital cameras, like the 1D, D3, D3, whatever,
have a low pass cutoff filter permanently mounted over the sensor which
cuts the lens MTF down to that which is acceptable by the sensor pixel
spacing. So in effect, all lenses are dumbed down to the sensor pixel
spacing frequency. That's just how it has to work.

Remove that filter and you will get aliasing, color fringing, pixelated
pixels, vertical stripes turned into a solid, etc. Unless, of course, you
mount a lens that was designed for a digital sensor.

Sorry... no free lunch.

Jim




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 
From: Marc McQuade marc@seeingandwriting.com
Subject: [HUG] aw: provia - velvia - digital

i have had the same experience as tarun with digital.
i used a sinar back with a hassblad 501cm and the quality was amazing.
unbelievable detail. able to adjust the colors/saturation fine... BUT this
was in a studio! with strobes.
i wouldn't mess around with the digital back outdoors (in the future i'm
sure it will be fine - or maybe there's a better back). besides the
difficulty of post production photoshop work  of an outdoor environment
where one is not able to control the lighting as in a studio, there were
often erratic focusing problems with the digital back. i can't imagine being
out in the wilderness with a digital back and a laptop in the pooring rain
with dirt and mud and cold trying to digitally capture shots... i wouldn't
trust it. but that's just me, and i realize that the digital backs are
getting better all the time.

for me i love provia quite a bit. the velvia is nice as well, but it's a bit
too hyper for me most of the time - saturated. provia seems to be a bit more
'natural', warm, yet still be quite stunning.
of course i realize it depends on the photographer and the shot.

Marc McQuade
http://www.seeingandwriting.com




[Ed. note: handy note on color calibration hardware and software...]
From: "Kelvin" spam.me.not@nospam.com
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Prints from scans ... are there really any differences anymore?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 


If you interested in just the Spyder monitor sensor with PhotoCal software,
and don't need LCD capability or the Adobe software, the device is only $139
at B&H, or so someone mentioned on the DP Review forums recently.
--
Best Regards,
Kelvin

"Mike Lipphardt" mlipphardt@ameritech.net wrote:

Yes, it does.  The system cost me about $370 from Adorama.

"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
> Doesn't that require an ex$pen$ive hardware sensor stuck on the monitor or
> something, or am I confusing it with something else?  How much does it
> cost?




From: mr_maserati@hotmail.com (Jim)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: when a hobby becomes too expensive
Date: 16 Aug 2002 


I disagree. Ink carts are $14.95 I usally get 22 or 23 8x10 per cart.
That's .68 per add .07 for a black cart once in a blue moon. .75 for ink.
Best premium glossy paper .59-60. Matt .22-25 sheet. Worst case .75 +
.60 = $1.35 for print that most folks can not tell from 'real' photograph. If
your going to mount or perfer mat .75 + .25 = $1.00 print.

Even the cheapest CVS, Costco, Wal-Greens 8x10 is 7.95 one hour labs
8-10, pro shops I have no idea.

So you have $1.00 - $1.25 vs $8.00 - $10.00. looks like a good deal to
Me. Of course there is the caveat that 'real' prints last longer. Obviously,
inkjets are not for family airlooms and wedding books. But for everyday
put on your desk, hang in your cube, next to your computer, ect. I say
they can not be beat. It is much actually cheaper to get the 2-4 keepers
printed at 8x10 then to get a roll CVS. My girlfriend was averaging about
$22 a roll (36 exp) at CVS. Slide film add mailer $8.50 even at  4-5 keepers
per roll 8x10' $1.25 each  = $13.50-$15.00  and I have the slide that I can  market.
Spread the cost of hardware (scanner and printer) over time and you add $1 to
each print and you are still saving a small amount and you have 8x10sv instead
of 4x6s

I print three similar pictures every week or so bring them in to work
and have co-workers vote on them. If there is one that someone really
likes when the voting is over I give it to them. I have 35-40 11x14
frames. I hang about a dozen in my apartment. When I get tired of a
I change them. About every six months I take the winners from work,
my personal favorites, most popular on website, highest rating from
photo.net and swap them into the frames. I always have fresh pictures
to fit my mood.

I bought the frames a camera shows and sell-outs at an average cost of
about $8-15 matts average $3-5. Add in $1.00 for glue and backing
board razor knives etc, $2-2.25 print( material and hardware)
making total framed cost about $20, mounted $3, mounted and matted $6-8,
cheapo front loaded 8x10 plastic frames from CVS are 4.95 + 2-2.25 = $7.00-$.7.25
At these prices I consider them disposable. If they only last  6 or seven years
It is not a big deal.  If somebody sees framed picture
that they really like, I sell them one for $50-60 bucks. I have sold two so far.
After the picture is cycled through take the mounted un-matted to flea  markets,
open studios, church bazaars, ect. Sell them for $10-15. Bring 10 – 15 of favorite
framed. Sold two at $50 each. I have sold one framed and 3-4 either straight 8x10
or mounted 8x10.  Not exactly breaking the bank. But you are reducing your cost
and you do get a lot of invaluable feedback on your work. Anything you sell from
website is gravy. The website is for publicity and getting a feel  for what is popular. Sometimes I am
yery surprised. The Boston Harborfest the most popular picture I consider of such
poor quality I almost did not include. It is the vertical sunset parade shoot (5-812-04).
It gets clicked on twice as much as any other photograph on the entire
website.

Just my $.02 worth.

Jim




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Hassy lenses

> Fortunately the large percentage of income producing work required the
> digital, which translates into lower cost on the film side and less time
> in production.

Hi Waldo,

I know a lot of people who do use digital complain that they actually spend
MORE time in production, as they have to "fuss" with ALL the images in
PS...and that takes time.  It does save time in the shoot to start working
with the image category (called latency), no doubt...but I do not believe it
saves "overall" time, because though film takes longer to develop, it's
print cycle can be shorter...and while it's being developed, you can be
doing other things...so the development time, though causes latency, is
really no time out of your clock (unless you develop it your self, that is).

Regards,
Austin




From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: Waldo Berry WBERRY@dce.ksu.edu
Subject: RE: [HUG] Hassy lenses

Not really, a lot depends on how your workflow is set-up.  let me give
you a comparison.

With film I had the following work flow:

Meter and take image.
Remove film at every 12 exposure or 24 and place in film container
Client leaves
Fill out film processing forms
Place in mailing bag and mail or call for airborne pick-up
Proofs arrive, review proofs, remove bad ones   (after 4-5 days)
Grimace about misplace hairs or eyes partially closed.
Call client and set-up appointment
Scan proofs for presentation to music, build presentation  (scan- 35-45
min) (presentation 15 min)
Client comes in, see presentation
Selects images
Pull out proofs and use crop card to determine crop  ( extra 10 min to
line up card and mark on print)
(client picky about crop being just right, I have to mark on proofs to
make sure)
Note request for retouching or other corrective work  ( 10 min)
Client wants wrinkles under eyes smoothed, stray hair removed, and
hates husbands smile on this print, wants head swap.
Client leaves, pull out negatives
Crop and fill in glassen   Fill in order forms  (25 min)
Fill in retouch forms  ($7.50 per head, $15.00 for hair removal, $50.00
for head swap) (5 min)
Package up negatives and mail or call airborne   ($5.00 shipping)   (10 min)
Prints at lab for 1 week while retouching is done and shipping time.
(1 week)
Prints arrive, I sort them, file the negatives and package order
Call client, client complains it took to long to get pictures and they
missed the grandfathers birthday as a present

With digital I have the following workflow:

Meter and take image.
I immediately notice stray hair and shoot a few more images with hair
out of the way.
I notice husband pose is not as appealing and I adjust pose and add a
few more exposures.
I vary the light and exposure for other looks.
Session last same length of time as it did with film.
I place media card HD in firewire reader and download takes 3 minutes
with 24 16 Meg exposures
I ask client if they would like to return or if they can wait 20
minutes I can show them a preview.
They elect to wait
I open the images in my computer on windows XP.
I create a flip folder and drag in all images that need rotation.
I open PHOTOSHOP and run the batch automation flip action I wrote
several months ago.
It flips all the files in the folder and saves them in 1.5 minutes.
I drag the flipped images back into the original folder and review the
thumb nails.  (10 sec)
Obviously bad images go into the out folder I create.  (1 minute)
I blow up each good one and check the image.  Any rejects go to the out
folder,  (4 minutes)
I run a few images through a black and white action, and some through
some specialty filters
I open a show player program I use for presentations and point the file
upload at the client folder
It uploads the 18 remaining prints in 2 minutes.
I sequence them and use the default fade transition, I add music with
the sound link feature and set the transition speed  (4 minutes)
I do a quick trial run and it is okay
I go retrieve the client
I show the show
They are of course floored and they really like the B&W and the sepias
tones
I ask if they are ready to order, they say yes,
I bring up the windows XP my computer and we look at the thumb nails
As they select each image I drag it into PHOTOSHOP and do the crop they
want.
They notice the wrinkles under the eyes and I tell them we can fix it
and what the cost will be.
I do a quick swipe over with the clone tool at 30 % and they are happy
(1 minute) ($$$$$)
I ask them if they liked the presentation, they love it and wish they
could afford to by all the images
I offer them a CD with the presentation to music, they buy it
($$$$$)
They ask when the prints will be ready and mention the birthday date, I
tell them 1 week max.
They leave, I go to my labs file upload website and load the images
online (10 min)
Two days later the prints arrive via airborne, I package and call
client.
Client arrives and is very happy and wants to order more if possible.
I deliver prints, CD.
Client wants to know if I can place images so family can see them to
order, I say yes
Client leaves, I file upload to album page for Proshots and build the
group
Lab e-mails me that the files are ready, I like the album and call
client to give them the site and password

Now you may say, there are more steps involved, but are they steps or
are they better services for the client.   You may also say they take
more time, but If you look at it, it took less time, to the difference
of many days and hours.   I did in 40 min what would take me several
hours with film.   I also made more money, I got payed for the retouch,
I sold the CD, they got the crop they wanted, I avoided the "you should
have noticed the stray hair"  from the client.   I bet I can do a
session meet with the client and deliver the product with less work,
more profit and better client satisfaction.   How can I say this, try
45% increase in sales, 30% more reorders, 50% more sales after initial
sales, clients who have me shoot the senior, then the wedding, then the
family, etc.

Hmmmm
makes you wonder....

I do consultations, training and lecture to photographers on how to
streamline there workflow and leverage technology while enhancing their
photographic capabilities while using digital and other technologies

Waldo Berry

>>> darkroom@ix.netcom.com 
> Fortunately the large percentage of income producing work required the
> digital, which translates into lower cost on the film side and less time
> in production.

Hi Waldo,

I know a lot of people who do use digital complain that they actually spend
MORE time in production, as they have to "fuss" with ALL the images in
PS...and that takes time.  It does save time in the shoot to start working
with the image category (called latency), no doubt...but I do not believe it
saves "overall" time, because though film takes longer to develop, it's
print cycle can be shorter...and while it's being developed, you can  be
doing other things...so the development time, though causes latency, is
really no time out of your clock (unless you develop it your self, that is).

Regards,
Austin




from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: Karl Wolz wolzphoto@worldnet.att.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Velvia or Provia F?

Don't think so.  The best you'll get is a Provia to Velvia filter for
that particular image, since in different lighting conditions, the
Provia and Velvia will have completely different responses.

Karl Wolz

-----Original Message-----
From: fritz olenberger [mailto:olenberger@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Velvia or Provia F?

Suppose you take two photos of a scene, one with Provia and one with Velvia.
Scan them both, open them both in Photoshop, RGB mode.  For every value of
R,G, and B of a given pixel in the Provia scan, there will be a
corresponding value of R,G, and B in the Velvia scan.  In theory, Adobe
could create a lookup table that would map all 16,777,216 possible R,G,B
combinations from Provia to Velvia, and call it the "Provia-to-Velvia"
filter.  You apply it to a Provia scan, and "poof," you get the Velvia-scan
equivalent. It might take a lot longer than simply adding color saturation,
but it would give you the "Velvia look," right?
-Fritz







from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Velvia or Provia F?

Fritz writes:

> Suppose you take two photos of a scene, one with
> Provia and one with Velvia.  Scan them both, open
> them both in Photoshop, RGB mode.  For every value of
> R,G, and B of a given pixel in the Provia scan, there
> will be a corresponding value of R,G, and B in the
> Velvia scan.  In theory, Adobe could create a lookup
> table that would map all 16,777,216 possible R,G,B
> combinations from Provia to Velvia, and call it the
> "Provia-to-Velvia" filter.

No, it could not.  The reason for this is that the RGB value rendered by
Velvia for a given pixel is not a function of the RGB value rendered by
Provia; it is in fact a function of the light in the _original scene_.
Thus, without full information on the original scene (and not just a limited
rendering of the scene obtained with a different film), no filter can
convert Provia to Velvia digitally.

To illustrate it more dramatically, consider infrared film.  The pixel
values obtained in infrared film images are determined by the amount of
infrared reflected by the original scene.  The pixel values obtained in
visible color images are determined by the amount of visible color reflected
by the original scene.  Since information on the infrared content of the
scene is required to generate an infrared image, there is no way that a
visible color image of the scene can be manipulated digitally to obtain an
infrared image--the former simply does not contain the necessary
information.

This concept is much less obvious with ordinary color film, but it remains
true.  Every film responds different to the spectrum of light to which it is
exposed.  Typically the response of one film is not homeomorphic with the
response of another film, and so no one-to-one transformation between the
two is possible.  And so you cannot really convert Provia to Velvia
digitally, no matter what type of filter or manipulation you use.

If you look at the response curves for Velvia and Provia, you'll see that
Velvia records frequencies in the blue and red that Provia does not.  There
is no way to reproduce these lost frequencies digitally.  Furthermore,
Velvia has sharper response curves for each primary, which is what produces
its greater saturation; these same sharp curves produce better resolution
between colors than Provia obtains, which means that you cannot create
Velvia saturation with Provia because Provia confuses primary colors to a
greater extent than Velvia, and this confusion cannot be undone.  (Provia
may record a color as a more even blend of two primaries, and while this
renders the color correctly in the original image, any attempt to increase
saturation digitally will be hindered by the fact that both primaries are
much closer to the same level, and thus there is less difference to
emphasize between them.)

And this is a favorable case: Provia is already pretty saturated, so it's
easier to make it resemble Velvia than it is for other films.  Trying this
with Portra is a nightmare; all you get is a cartoon.

> It might take a lot longer than simply adding
> color saturation, but it would give you the
> "Velvia look," right?

No.  See above.






from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Velvia or Provia F?

D writes:

> Someone wrote bout the obsolecence of the
> storage media...That's what worries me...

The obsolescence of the storage media itself is not a _danger_; I wouldn't
worry about that (there are always ways to read obsolete media).  It is,
however, an added expense of digital--not for any intrinsic reason, but
because digital photography is linked to computers, and computers for
decades have been afflicted by an endless cycle of "upgrades" that shows
little sign of ending.

If you need reasons to worry about digital, you might try worrying about
these endless upgrades that manufacturers are trying to create instead, or
about the strong tendency to sacrifice image quality for convenience and
other considerations.  The latter might eventually be resolved, but I
seriously doubt that manufacturers wish or intend to resolve the former,
since it is such a cash cow.  Right now you can just change film as purposes
dictate, but with digital, you must change the entire camera body (at least
for 35mm).

Hasselblad has an advantage in that you can just add a digital back.  But
apparently even that is not as simple as it sounds, and Hasselblad and
others may be tempted to offer more complex solutions that require replacing
a lot more hardware each time the image sensor needs to be changed.  The
temptation to come up with excuses for forcing customers to "upgrade" is a
strong one, which made microcomputer companies greedy for decades, and I'm
not sure that camera companies can resist the temptation.

So my concern is that photographers will eventually be stuck in the same
upgrade cycle that plagues computer owners:  buy new hardware every six
months, and throw the old hardware away because it has already lost 99% of
its value.  If this occurs, all the economic advantages of digital will be
wiped out except for a very small handful of users.  Even today, there is no
economic advantage at all to digital photography for the average consumer; a
digital camera costs more than he would spend on film in 25 years.

> I've been trying to decide what is the best way
> to go...keep on buying hard drives or a DVD - R
> or a tape drive...I just want something stable
> and reliable...is that too much to ask?

Yes, as long as there is a computer anywhere in the loop.  "Stable" and
"reliable" are foreign words to computer hardware and software
manufacturers.  Their business and revenue models are predicated on a
perpetual series of frequent "upgrades" by customers; even machines in
perfect condition are expected to be replaced with entirely new hardware
every year or so.  Interfaces and peripherals might work for many years, but
they are often technically obsolete--and impossible to replace--within a
year or two, or sometimes within months.  The result is that you must pay,
then pay again, they pay again, and so on, forever.

This cycle has cooled slightly in recent years, now that the average new,
cheap computer provides more horsepower than any ordinary consumer ever
really needs, but software bloat (the tendency of software vendors to create
ever more bloated versions of their software in order to attempt to justify
pricey upgrades with minimal investment on their part) eventually overloads
the hardware.  So the continuing software upgrade cycle ultimately drives
hardware upgrades.


If you can avoid ever upgrading software or hardware, you can escape this
cycle.  The problem is that sooner or later you might need to replace a disk
drive, or a scanner, or whatever, and you'll discover that nobody builds
drives or scanners with an interface compatible with your machine, because
your machine is more than 18 months old and thus hopelessly obsolete.  You
must then replace the entire system.  Or you'll need a specific software
upgrade for some purpose, and you'll find that it doesn't run under your
current operating system version.  So you'll try to upgrade the OS, but the
upgraded version will no longer run on your hardware.  So you'll have to buy
completely new hardware _again_.  Worse yet, that will require that you upgr
ade most of your other software, and the cycle repeats.  Sometimes a trivial
change in your system can force you to invest thousands of dollars in
upgrades.

Nothing about digital technology requires anything along these lines
intrinsically; but that's the way the computer market works ... and
unfortunately, when you buy into digital, you lock yourself into the
computer market in a serious and irrevocable way.  It need not be that way,
but it IS that way for now, and you need to factor in the tremendous cost of
this when you go digital.

> Oh...and affordable wouldn't hurt either....
> 4.7 gb dvd but then there's the rumor of a
> 9.4 gb...I've got a crappy DVD-RAM...worthless
> as not too many people have them.

Get used to it.  The PC world is the opposite of the bulk of the camera
world.  Your Hasselblad might work for 40 years flawlessly, but you'll be
lucky to be able to use the same PC for 30 months, or even 18 months.
(Actually, the best PCs can easily continue running for one or two decades,
but other forces explained above will force you to abandon them long before
that.





From: "maf" maf@switchboard.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ansel Adams/John Sexton Prints vs. Digital
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002


Digital printing cannot achieve the maximum black (dmax) of a silver gelatin
print toned in selenium. This would cause problems for many of Adams' famous
images, but some images by other photographers do amazingly well when
printed digitally when less contrast is needed in the print. Typically,
digital printing excels in its ability to render fine gradations in the mid
tones.

There are still significant digital printing issues related to permanence,
difficulty in attaining cold prints tones, and color shift (even on using
gray scale inks). The digital world changes rapidly, and who knows what the
future will bring.

sean@seanross.com wrote...
> Hi all,
>
> Living in New Zealand I haven't had the opportunity to see some real
> life 4x5 or 8x10 fine art prints.  Has anyone seen some of Ansel's
> prints, or others such as John Sexton -and compared these to some of
> the new digital methods out there?  I've seen some samples on the web
> that do not impress me but that could be related to viewing on a
> monitor screen.  Sometimes I find with digital that it may actually
> appear damn good, but when you put it next to a traditional print you
> see a huge difference in how weak the digital print actually is.  Has
> anyone seen a digital b&w fine art print that rivals traditional, or
> even surpasses traditional printing?  If so, how far away is this
> method from practical consumer use?  In other words what good is a
> digital print that rivals traditional if the scan costs me 100 bucks
> and the print costs me 200 bucks...
>
> I'll never go digital because I love the craft of printing by hand too
> much.  Thanks for any views on d vs. t printing, Sean





rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri Sep 06 2002
From: deryck  lant deryck@deryck.com
[1] 22 meg 1-shot digital back

Sinar 22 million pixels 1-shot digital back for 645 cameras.
Chip is Kodak KAF-22000CE CCD sensor 4080x5440 pixels
38.5 x 50mm.

http://www.sinar.ch/press/release/PMKAF-22000-e.pdf

Deryck




From: "Ralph Brown" spam@mva.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format?
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002


I'm not saying this effect will happen for professionals, but rather,
specifically for amateurs who do both snapshooting and artistic work in
color. People in camera clubs who sell a few prints but also shoot their
kids and friends at parties are whom I'm thinking about. In the past, they
used 35mm and had their work professionally printed, however, now with the
advent of reasonably priced photo printers and the widespread ownership of
computers, many are doing their own photo finishing digitally. This is
particularly true for color where the cost and complexity of a wet darkroom
is beyond what even most enthusiasts are willing to tackle, and the cost of
quality custom prints is very high. After messing around for a couple of
years with custom printing, I went completely to digital printing and
wouldn't even consider going back, because of the increased control over how
a print comes out and the drastically lower cost.

For this category of photographers, I think there are two distinct types of
photography, snapshots and artistic (do you have your tripod with you or
not). My thesis is that with the advent of reasonable quality and priced
digital cameras and printers, it may become more attractive to them to split
their equipment into two types as well, both using digital output.

For artistic work, if there were reasonably priced MF scanners, I think a
lot of these people would be interested in the increased resolution
available in MF, particularly because with photo printers, doing prints up
to 13" wide is very reasonable. The overall size of color prints being
exhibited in photo shows is getting larger, and I think will continue to do
so if the input can be reasonably produced. The new Epson 24" wide printers
are still a bit rich for most people, but definitely are getting down to
affordable for a camera club or similar small group to buy. Enlarging a 35mm
image to over 12" is not going to work very well if you want a sharp image,
no matter what the technology, and I doubt that digital cameras will be in
the 20+ megapixel range for some time, hence MF.

For snapshooting, digital shouldn't be judged by a 2 megapixel camera.
That's like deciding that film is useless because the prints from a
disposable camera loaded with cheap 400 film, developed at Wal-Mart, were
soft and grainy. You've got to be over 4 megapixel and have a decent lens on
the camera to get reasonable results - about $750 today. This will produce a
very nice 4x6 and an acceptable 8x10 if you don't crop very much, which is
fine for snapshots.

As for cost, I've been doing digital for years and must say that I don't
know what all this talk about digital being high cost is about. Using an
Epson 1270 with a bulk ink system from MIS, printing on Epson Matte
Heavyweight, for a 13x19" print I pay about 70 cents for the paper and 40
cents for the ink, so less then $.15 each for 4.5x6" prints with no film or
processing costs. The result from my Sony F707 (after a little digital
tuneup) is much higher quality than anything except individually printed
pieces from a good shop, which are well over $1 each, just for the printing.
Plus, you only do the ones you want, whereas with film you pay for the film
and processing on all the throw aways too. I plan on keeping the camera
about 2 years during which time I'll take well over 1500 pictures, then sell
it for 1/3 what I paid for it, so I'll easily pay for the camera just in
film and processing. Now, to be sure, I already have a computer and CD
burner for other purposes and the printer and software for artistic photos,
so I don't count that cost for digital snapshots. There is no battery cost,
it's built in, CD's cost less than $.10 each and hold about 300 images, and
there are no backup tapes (I use the CDs).

If you don't want to do your own snapshot printing, you can take the CD's to
a photofinisher, but the quality won't come close to what you can do on your
own with very little effort. Even for snapshots, I think most people want
the prints they show to others even casually to look good, the rest just
stay on the CD and can be shown on the computer screen if anyone wants to
see them.

Actually, I have friends, who are very casual photographers, who don't do
any prints at all, they just show their vacation shots, etc. on their
portable and post them on their web site. That may be the real future for
snapshots, but that's another thread in a different newsgroup.

Incidentally, the approximate new costs for my setup 2 years ago were:

computer - $1300
printer - $400
ink system (with 24oz ink) - $180
35 mm scanner - $700
photo software - $200
screen calibrator - $200

consumables per 13x19" print - $1.10

I use the computer for other things too, but it still replaces a complete
color darkroom setup. Today, if you bought stuff used on ebay it would be
probably be about half that.

Ralph
My email address is: ralph AT nca DASH corp DOT com




Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002
From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format

RD haijack@onr.com wrote:
> As a relative newcomer to MF, I am also disturbed by the fact that the
> format carries approximately four to six times the cost for film plus
> finishing, and that such a high cost produces only similarly sized

  I guess you're talking about getting your 120 processed at a pro lab
versus a non-pro lab for 35mm? I'm looking at the webpage for one local pro
lab. The cost to develop one roll of 120 is exactly equal to the cost to
process one roll of 35mm[24 frame]. The cost to make proofs is bascially the same per
proof but since you get less  per roll of 120 [no matter the format] the
total cost is less. Doing a quick check at an online photo store and the
price for film is cheaper in 120 format then 35mm/24 frame. Some times quite
a bit cheaper. Now I'm comparing the same film versus the same film.
[Assuming brand X is the same in both formats] It might be possible
to find cheaper 35mm film.

Nick





From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002

 RD haijack@onr.com writes
>As a relative newcomer to MF, I am also disturbed by the fact that the
>format carries approximately four to six times the cost for film plus
>finishing, and that such a high cost produces only similarly sized
>prints. Larger prints capable of more fully exercising the MF format
>cost even more. Because of the acceptance factor noted above, I also
>must either bear the cost of driving relatively long distances for
>processing, or pay roundtrip shipping.

I found the price difference of prints to be hardly noticeable depending
on the lab you choose. If you want fairly big prints, my usual lab
charges for the print size, not the format it comes from. They offer
reductions if you have whole rolls printed at once (worth it even if
some aren't worth printing). In this case the only difference between
35mm and 120 is that 36 exposures cost 3x more to print than 12 (for
10"x8"s about $50 for 36 exps, $18 for 12 exps), the cost per print is
the same, just the number different.

If you want 6"x4"s then you pay more for 120 than 35mm (but 35mm
processing is not cheap even then, around $10 for 36 exposures for
decent quality).

I mostly shoot transparency film for colour now though, it's easier to
file, looks better and costs a lot less. B&W 120 film is also much
cheaper than 35mm B&W for some reason.

--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format?
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 


"Ralph Brown" spam@mva.net wrote:
> I'm not saying this effect will happen for professionals, but rather,
> specifically for amateurs who do both snapshooting and artistic work in
> color. People in camera clubs who sell a few prints but also shoot their
> kids and friends at parties are whom I'm thinking about. In the past, they
> used 35mm and had their work professionally printed, however, now with the
> advent of reasonably priced photo printers and the widespread ownership of
> computers, many are doing their own photo finishing digitally. This is
> particularly true for color where the cost and complexity of a wet darkroom
> is beyond what even most enthusiasts are willing to tackle, and the cost of
> quality custom prints is very high. After messing around for a couple of
> years with custom printing, I went completely to digital printing and
> wouldn't even consider going back, because of the increased control over how
> a print comes out and the drastically lower cost.


Agreed. Basically, it looks to me that if you are printing digitally, 35mm
doesn't offer enough more than D60 digital to be worth the effort, but MF
does.

The problem is that scanning MF to get that quality is prohibitively
expensive. So until there's a decent 4000 dpi MF scanner for around
US$1,000, no one is going to chuck their 35mm and move to digital plus MF.

> For artistic work, if there were reasonably priced MF scanners, I think a
> lot of these people would be interested in the increased resolution
> available in MF, particularly because with photo printers, doing prints up
> to 13" wide is very reasonable.

Exactly. Although the D60 images I've downloaded look as good at 200 dpi as
my 4000 dpi scan do at 300 dpi, 13" wide is stretching it for the D60 and
just barely reasonable for 35mm. Basically, printer technology is ahead of
imaging technology, other than MF and larger.

> For snapshooting, digital shouldn't be judged by a 2 megapixel camera.
> That's like deciding that film is useless because the prints from a
> disposable camera loaded with cheap 400 film, developed at Wal-Mart, were
> soft and grainy. You've got to be over 4 megapixel and have a decent lens on
> the camera to get reasonable results - about $750 today. This will produce a
> very nice 4x6 and an acceptable 8x10 if you don't crop very much, which is
> fine for snapshots.

What I've found is that 2MP produces a nice 5x7 snapshot, but 5MP is often
problematic for borderless A4 (8.25 x 11.5). Tightly cropped images look
great at A4 and even larger sometimes, but full-length and group portraits
(and landscapes) often don't have enough detail.

> As for cost, I've been doing digital for years and must say that I don't
> know what all this talk about digital being high cost is about. Using an
> Epson 1270 with a bulk ink system from MIS, printing on Epson Matte
> Heavyweight, for a 13x19" print I pay about 70 cents for the paper and 40
> cents for the ink, so less then $.15 each for 4.5x6" prints with no film or
> processing costs.

I suspect that Epson has figured out how to prevent people refilling their
ink cartridges for the 950C/2100/2200 generation, so your printing costs are
going to be going up. Sigh.

> The result from my Sony F707 (after a little digital
> tuneup) is much higher quality than anything except individually printed
> pieces from a good shop, which are well over $1 each, just for the printing.

I'm finding the F707 doesn't quite produce the detail I want at A4.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
Subject: [HUG] NEW AND LARGER DIGITAL BACK FROM SINAR

Fellas,

So, there might be hope for medium format after all in the digital
future. Look up this press release from Sinar with their new digital
bakc with a CCD measuring 38,8 x 50 mm (4080 x 5440 pixles = 22.195.200
pixles!).
http://www.sinar.ch/press/release/PMKAF-22000-e.pdf

Interestingly, it fits a 645 just excellent...

Tom of Oslo




From: leah leah@apex.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002

I ran across this link that compared 35mm film and digital cameras:

http://www.shortcourses.com/choosing/sensors/05.htm

Here is an excerpt from that site: "The most expensive professional digital
cameras give you about 6-million pixels. Although impressive, not even these
resolutions match the estimated 20 million or so pixels in traditional 35 mm 
film and 120 million in your eye. "

synchro505 wrote:

> I read somewhere that an exposure on 35mm film is the equivalent to 1
> billion pixels on a digital camera. Is that 1,000 megapixels?
>
> I'm glad I'm starting over with SLR cameras. I recently got an old Canon T50
> and am collecting old lenses. The shots I'm getting are amazing to me. My
> old digital was 1.3 megapixels L
>
> Mike





From: "Kinon O'Cann" fuged@bout.it
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002


Don't expect someone to rush out with the prints. That costs time and money.
I have seen prints, of the same scene, taken by a Nikon D1x and an F100
loaded with Reala. Same scene, same size enlargement. The traditional
chemical process blew the digital out of the water, no contest. The facility
I work in has a very nice photo lab, and while they do much of their work in
digital, when quality is a must, film rules the day.

Here's the problem with most so-called comparisons: take a look at American
Photo this month. They claim to compare the Canon D60 with medium format.
Right. However, they actually compare the D60 to a scanned slide or neg.
Sorry, this doesn't work, since once you introduce a digital conversion, you
have poisoned the test. What you need to see, and I don't really know where,
is a test that truly compares a full-digital process with full-chemical. The
difference is incredible, and chemical wins every time.

...
> I'd like to see real proof, using side by side comparisions, rather
> than blanket statements.  It's easy to say that film has 20 million
> pixels.  If it's true, it should be easy to show a side by side
> comparision showing films huge advantage.  Someone show me.





Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?


"synchro505" synchro505@nospam.hotmail.com a écrit
> I read somewhere that an exposure on 35mm
> film is the equivalent to 1 billion pixels
> on a digital camera. Is that 1,000 megapixels?

It would be, but 35mm film doesn't come anywhere close to 1 billion pixels.
Technical Pan, under absolutely ideal conditions, will give you about 310
megapixels.  Under more realistic circumstances, Provia 100F will give you
about 35 megapixels.  The number of usable pixels varies with the film and
lens, of course.  With coarse-grained, low-resolution films, 6-8 megapixels
is about the most you can get (equivalent to the best digital SLRs).




Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Steffen Kluge kluge@dotnet.org
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002


According to Tony Spadaro tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com:
>Actually that is about 100% bull.

Only about 50%, I'd say.

First of all, the film is hardly the limiting factor. Good lenses
for the 35mm format give about 80 lines/mm resolution. That's
actually 80 line *pairs* (one white and one black) at a contrast
of 1:1000 (about 10bit). Thus, translating to 160 pixel lines per
millimetre and a format of 36mm x 24mm that yields about 22
megapixels.

This completely disregards the analog nature of film, though.
With film, pixels are randomly arranged (perfectly "dithered"),
of largely differing sizes, and (more importantly): who says the
contrast has to be 1:1000? You can actually make out vastly more
detail if you scale down the contrast requirement.

Anyway, 22 megapixels is of course far short of the capabilities
of film. Velvia does 140 lines/mm I think, and I had read a
resolution test of some slow Ektar that managed 180 lines/mm.

Cheers
Steffen.




Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?


"Shmoo" no@mailplease.com a écrit...
> Actually the need to record full color at
> each pixel is not completely true. It would
> be nice, but is far from the necessity people
> make it out to be.

It's not important for human viewing at normal distances.  The matrix filter
on a CCD and the Bayer pattern are designed to mimic the structure of the
human retina, as you have correctly observed.  Thus, although color
resolution on a digicam is about three times worst than luminance
resolution, exactly the same is true for the human eye, so it doesn't matter
(you can't see the lack of color resolution).

In enlargements, however, the smearing of the colors eventually becomes
apparently, generally well before the lack of luminance resolution starts to
be a problem.  The solution, of course, is to avoid big enlargements, or to
show with more resolution.




Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: downgrading to digital? ;-) Re: Used Medium format...


I think you may be missing something on this. The photos in National
Geographic are from scanned film. They have an extensive Creo Scitex set-up,
including drum scanners. Typical of many high quality magazines, their
printing is better than 150 lpi.

They have an offset press that cranks out the nine million copies each month,
located in Mississippi. While the exact press used was not listed, these are
usually 2400 or 2450 dpi systems. While these numbers to do translate to
lp/mm directly, the appearance of continuous tone colour can still be
achieved. Very different than chemical prints.

Normal printing rule of thumb for 150 lpi (and sometimes higher), would
normally need a 300 ppi, file at 100 % print size, plus bleed on relevant
edges. The paper quality at National Geographic is quite good, though their
media kit lists 300 % total ink, and conforming to SWOP standards when
submitting materials.

Perhaps the clue to comparing lp/mm is in printing techniques. The 300 ppi
image is separated into four colour channels, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and
Black (K). The screening of each would normally be offset for each colour
channel, and through a RIP would provide a 2400 (or 2450 dpi) plate (or
printing negative) for each colour. These then overlap on the paper, giving a
continuous tone appearance. So short of offset printing a test chart, how can
you actually get any lp/mm from any printed materials?

If you use a loupe to look at high quality books and magazines, you can
sometimes see the screening angles. Stochastic printing eliminates those, but
it is less commonly used. Look at the edge of white areas in photographs
using a loupe, and you may actually see the CMYK dots.

Anyway, the bottom line for digital in magazines is that often the image will
look soft. Newsprint use of digital masks this because the paper is unable to
handle large amounts of ink, and certainly not 300 % total. A 300 ppi file at
100 % size for letter, or tabloid output is a fairly large file. Some MF
digital can do this, but 35 mm based digital SLRs are not there yet without
interpolation.

What really kills me about the "selling to go digital" mentality is that MF
backs are better than 35 mm based digital SLRs. Also, MF scanners are really
at bargain levels compared to digital SLR prices, and the results blow away
Nikon D1s and similar devices.

You have coined a new term Bob, "downgrading to digital". I dare predict we
will see it all over the internet photo groups within a month.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





From: "Tom" seaskate@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002



"Ralph" nospam@nospam.net> wrot...
> So is it possible that actually digital may enhance the acceptance of medium
> format because (like myself) amateur 35mm photographers who used to use
> their SLRs both for artistic work and snapshots will use digital for
> snapshots, and go to medium format when they are trying hard. The only big
> issue I see with all this is the lack of reasonably priced medium format
> film scanners.


If interested in seeing what can be done with medium format digital, take a
look at Vadim Piskaryov's portraits here:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=24067

Amazing.
Tom




From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002

Ralph nospam@nospam.net writes
>This is not an attempt to start a flame war!!
>
>So is it possible that actually digital may enhance the acceptance of medium
>format because (like myself) amateur 35mm photographers who used to use
>their SLRs both for artistic work and snapshots will use digital for
>snapshots, and go to medium format when they are trying hard.

I've tried 'snapshooting' on digital (2.14 Mp Pentax EI-2000). It just
didn't work for me because a snapshot today often becomes more important
later, and I want the best quality (and ease of storage) I can get in
that case.

I found medium format often much less hassle than 35mm when 'casual'
shooting. The fewer frames and removable backs often mean I'm shooting
the films I want much more often (instead of just using what's left in
the camera from the last time). I have however stopped getting prints
(on cost grounds), preferring to shoot transparencies and B&W (I process
the B&W myself).

--
John

Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk





From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 
From: John Wall jnwall@unity.ncsu.edu
Subject: [Nikon] Canon 11 million pixel, full frame SLR on the way

FYI, saw this today on another site. Can the Nikon D-2 be far behind? NikonJohn

"Canon Lets the Digital Camera Out of the Bag

The press release was only on the Web for half an hour, but that was enough to
let the cat out of the bag. Yesterday, on its European site, Canon accidentally
posted a press release announcing a significant addition to its line of digital
SLR camerasâthe EOS 1Ds, a model that will offer higher resolution than any
professional camera on the market. The release, dated September 24, wasn't
supposed to reach the Web until just before the Photokina tradeshow, where the
camera will be officially unveiled.

Canon won't discuss the camera at length, but it has acknowledged that the
release, though prematurely posted, was accurate. "We are confirming that all
the information in the release concerning the product was correct and that we
will introduce it at the Photokina show," says Chuck Westfall, assistant
director of Canon's Technical Information Department. "But we will not divulge
any details about the productâbeyond what was said in the releaseâat this
point." Photokina, the largest photography trade show in the world, will be
held in Cologne, Germany from September 25 through September 30.

In addition to offering a resolution of 11.1 million pixelsâtoday's leading
digital SLRs afford half as many pixelsâthe EOS 1Ds will, according to
industry sources, accommodate existing 35mm lenses without a change in
effective focal length. The camera will likely sell for around $6,000."




From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002

"David Eppstein" eppstein@ics.uci.edu a écrit...
> I'm not sure about that part.  When I've
> overcropped digital photos, it's the lack
> of luminance resolution that looks bad to me.

I agree.  My mistake.

The smearing of colors is still a problem, too, of course.  When you examine
film scans next to digital photos up close, the digital photos always show
smearing of colors, whereas the film scans do not.





From: "avecfrites" avecfrites@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: Going Pro.. Equipment Requirements.
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002


If pixel resolution is an important aspect to your work, be
careful. Any digital camera you buy now will be uncompetitive in a year
or so, because your professional competitors will have twice the
resolution.  So if  you buy a digital camera now your work had better
either: 1) pay for the equipment in terms of greater efficiency within
a year, or 2) not invove hi-res (e.g., photojournalism).

If you care about hi-res and don't see a quick payback on a new
digital camera, you're better off with a film camera and a good
film scanner.

This will be true until resolution reaches perhaps 12Mpixel or more;
at that point digital will approach small format film cameras, and
you'll be able to live with your camera for a while.  That is, the
technical battleground will shift away from resolution to more
traditional camera characteristics such as lens selection and
quality, ruggedness, etc.
--




From nikon Manual mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: [Nikon] who pays the costs of digital? ;-)

quote:
i don't know about you guys, but the last assignment i did involved $240
for film and processing. and the one before that was pretty close to the
same .... my tax reciepts say that i spent about $4,000 on film and
processing in 2001, i figure a lot of you all did the same. granted, i've
bought a few 250 meg digi cards for $99 this year.... the d100 was $1999,
i suspect this will be $1600 by xmas.....
end-quote

yes, but don't you bill the client for the costs of film and processing
when on assignments? So they are paying those bills, right? Now when you
buy those memory cards and computer stuff and printers, you are paying for
that out of your pocket, right? Granted, you may bill your clients and pad
in your costs there somehow, but the depreciation and costs and investment
are yours and not theirs as part of your business.

So the choice is between you paying major $$ for investments in rapidly
depreciating digicams and gear and just billing the clients for the cost
of film and processing directly, isn't that the case?

And doesn't digital manipulation and printing take lots more time than
simply dropping off film and picking it up? If you are billing your
clients for this extra time, aren't they paying as much or more than they
would for simple film processing? Or are you doing all this work to use
digital for free, as part of passing on the "savings" to your clients? ;-)

IMHO, digital makes sense only when you have the volume (catalog shots) or
low quality and high speed (newspapers..) requirement; the "savings" are
illusory and simply shifting costs and lost (unbilled) time to photographers




[Ed.note: a handy reminder on easier color calibration trick..]
From: "Neil Gould" neil@terratu.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium format to digital
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002


Hi,

Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net wrote:
>
> I prefer color negative films as they have much more exposure latitude
> and are easier to get good scans from because of that. Color
> transparency work is fussy to expose properly in contrasty conditions.
> Remember: just as in wet lab work, the best prints are made from top
> quality film originals...

I agree with you completely. In order to capture the contrast range of a
transparency, one needs a scanner with a very high D-Max capability.
Most consumer level scanners are only capable of D-Max in the under 3.4
range, which is insufficient. Even my ArtixScan with a D-Max of 3.9
won't capture all of the shadow detail in a really contrasty shot.

As for being able to color match, the old practice of shooting a target,
such as a Kodak color chart, is still a good practice, as it was in the
wet darkroom. Decent scanning software allows the user to save
adjustment settings for use with subsequent scans. Therefore, it is easy
to establish some baseline setups for various kinds of film.

Regards,
--
Neil Gould




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; Tech Pan 25 B&W 354M
Date: 15 Sep 2002

Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca wrote 
> I calculate the "best case" for Velvia (1:1000 Contrast) as 88 Million
> pixels. (160 lp/mm)
>
> For the "old Royal Gold 25" it is even better (138 M)
>
> For Tech Pan 25 (B&W) it is 354M.
> Alan.


In practice the figures you've calculated are meaningless.  I've got
10MP and 53MP images at my site that you can view on your screen or
download and print:
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/FullSizeMosaicMain.html

I would be very interested if anyone living in or visiting New York
City would go to the same site and shoot the same scene with a 35mm
film camera and then compare images.  I doubt that 35mm - even Tech
Pan - would do very well even compared to the 10MP image.  Large
format would be required to get to the same quality level as the full
size 53MP image because 35mm and medium format would be inadequate.

Consider it a challenge:  if you doubt me, then prove me wrong with
actual images.  Statements based on half-baked calculations that
ignore most of the important variables are completely uninteresting to
me.

The image in question can be approximately re-created by shooting a
28mm shift lens on 24x36mm format.  The required amount of shift is
beyond the capabilities of any real 28mm shift lens, but you will
still be able to compare resolution near the horizon line if you shoot
with any old 28mm lens.  If you want to cheat a little to give film a
fighting chance you can use a 35mm lens instead and only match the
horizontal field of view.

Brian




From: "John Stafford" john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Large Image Test Page
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002


http://arts.winona.edu/i/wv_test.html

Nothing fancy, just a quick pass at displaying a 135mb photograph on the
web. Intended in this project for _documentary_ photographs. See the notes.
(Specifically that the photo displayed is not a documentary photograph.)

I'll be putting up a 256mb (or larger) LF image next week.

Sorry it is slow  but this "server" is just a little pizza box in my office.






Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Viewpoint, Big Images, the Net...


Seems a bit like LuraWave technology. Similar results can be had with QuickTime
VR, SVG, and Flash. It is unfortunate that all these require Plug-ins, or
add-ons, to Browsers. The need to download and install these limits their
adoption.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html


John Stafford wrote:

> This is NOT a digital-vs-MF post!
>
> One of the frustrations of MF (and LF) and the 'net is viewing large (high
> res) images online.  I'm working now with 'Viewpoint ZoomView' software
> which seems very promising if one can accept a the concept of 'zoom for
> detail' instead of in-person viewing distance changes.
>
> To date there have been few references here to large images that we can
> share but this software might help us a great deal in bringing MF work to
> view on the net, and I'd be happy to facilitate occasional serving of large
> images if it would help in this group. I am already funded for this project,
> so a little overtime for the Rest of Us is no problem for me.
>
> Or you can do it yourself as long as your provider is generous with disc
> space. You don't need Photoshop if you use a Wintel platform, and the
> software is free for hobbiests.
>
> Shall we get into this?
>
> See here for details: http://www.viewpoint.com/zoomview/




Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...


"Ralph" nospam@nospam.net a écrit 
> So is it possible that actually digital may
> enhance the acceptance of medium format because
> (like myself) amateur 35mm photographers who
> used to use their SLRs both for artistic work
> and snapshots will use digital for snapshots,
> and go to medium format when they are trying hard.

I'm not at all convinced of that.  Most amateurs are not even aware of
medium format.

> The only big issue I see with all this is the
> lack of reasonably priced medium format
> film scanners.

Everything about medium format is more expensive than 35mm ... along MF is
considerably less expensive than digital.





From: "Todd" nashtn212@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF renaissance? Re: Digital
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 


After shooting 35mm for about 15 years, last year I jumped on the digital
bandwagon with enthusiasm and bought a Kodak DC290.  I used it exclusively
for a two week trip through Italy.  I wasn't disappointed with the camera,
the pictures, or it's convenience.  But when I realized the biggest
acceptable enlargement was 8x10 in the high resolution mode (3.3 Mp
interpolated), I was really disappointed.  Even in smaller sizes the image
sharpness wasn't quite right compared to a film camera.  It's a great way to
go for snapshots, but not for professional "keeper" quality photos intended
to be enlarged and hung on the wall.

That's what got me interested in MF.  Otherwise I probably never would have
looked into it.  So, count me as one who's been driven to film (and bigger
film) by the limitations of digital.  I happily bought a Fuji GSW690III and
feel it's the best investment I've ever made.  The best digital camera on
the market doesn't have a prayer compared to the pictures I get from that
camera.

I've got another trip to Italy, Ireland, and Scotland coming up next month
and can't wait to make some poster size enlargements from 6x9 Velvia
transparencies.

I'm also of the opinion that no amount of digital manipulation in Photoshop
will look as good as a well exposed photo on film (esp. Velvia).

Of course, opinions vary, but that's mine.

Todd




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Leica M based Digital Camera
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002




Have you heard?

Leica will be introducing a 1.3MP digital camera based upon the old and
trusted M3 design. It will hold up to 99 shots on internal storage design
and will fit in even the modest of pockets.




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 
From: "lensman3" lensman32@attbi.com
Subject: Re: Re:  Foveon

These are astounding photos. Obviously, they were done in ideal circumstances
with lights, tripod etc., but then so are many of our film photos. If the
shutter lag problem is solved on the eventual cameras, I'm going to have to
have a tag sale!

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. Patterson
  To: Minolta@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 
  Subject: Re: [Minolta] Re: Foveon


  Just for the fun of it, the following is the URL for the Web pages
  displaying a gallery of test photographs trying out the protoype
  versions of the Foveon X3 sensor. The Photo.net discussion says that
  Sigma's engineers are trying to make Sigma the third ranking player in
  professional digital photography via digital cameras and lenses built
  around the Foveon X3 technology. Supposedly, a full frame Foveon sensor
  is already in the works for the Sigma bodies and lenses fllowing the
  Sigma SD9.

  Can Minolta meet or beat Sigma's challenge?

  Note the detail in the photographs.

  See:
  Gallery, Photographs by Stephen Johnson, Test Photographs Made with the
  Foveon X3 Prototype Sensor
  http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/

  Dallas Patterson
  nye@fidalgo.net




Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; TechPan 25 B&W 354M


While I will admit that you have pieced together some interesting samples, some of your
assumptions of comparison are not entirely accurate. While it may be a work practice in your area,
it is quite possible to do greater than a 1000 ppi scan using a drum scanner.
Just a look at the specs of one of the Imacon scanners
http://www.imacon.dk/usr/imacon/wppImacon.nsf/htmlpages/prectechspec.html which shows one
scanner capable of 5760 dpi optical. It can also handle up to 5" by 7"
transparencies.

Drum scanning a single frame of 35 mm film would not reach the same size. While it is possible to
do better than 6000 ppi scans using some drum scanners, it is about the upper limit for useful
information from 35 mm. This serves as a practical limit, since there is little useful information
capture about that. Moving to medium format film would be one way to capture more information.
Even a 5760 dpi scan of 6 by 4.5 film would be larger than your stitched image, but only by a
little bit.
 
It appears that your image is created from several digital acquisitions and then stitched. You
have 42 such captures shown. If I am wrong here, please correct me, but it would seem that even
accounting for some frame loss for overlap, there are at least 20 equivalent full (CCD) frames for
the resulting image. I also wonder why you did JPEG, since it is a lossy
compression; why not use TIFF or raw format?

What would keep someone from taking 20 to 42 full frame 35 mm film sections, drum scanning each,
and stitching those together? That would seem to me to be a more accurate comparison, after all,
you did not just do one digital frame. Also, it does not seem there is any limitation to using the
same tripod head as you did.

Your 5761 by 9194 image is created from several to make one complete frame. That is about a 19" by
30" image using high quality 300 dpi printing, (similar to many high quality magazine offset
printing specifications). I can see where this could be better printed than a chemical
photographic print, but is that what your comparison challenge is all about? I would think that
scanned film compared to direct digital would be a better comparison.

Drum scanned medium format would exceed your image on pixels alone. Colour depth, and the amount
of colour information are other possible comparisons. Resolution is only one issue. However, all
this might be moot, since the end printing technology used would be the true comparison, and could
make the differences difficult to discern.

Kodak Pro Photo CD has an upper limit of 4096 by 6144. While this is close to your 5761 by 9194
image, it would only give a 13.5" by 20.5" image at 300 dpi. Obviously a cheap alternative does
not get too close to what you have. Interestingly, cost is another issue. Locally, I can get a
Scitex drum scan up to 650 MB file size for around $100 from 4" by 5" film, or medium format. Not
really too much, unless I have many scans to complete. I have worked on up to 2 GB image files on
my computer gear, though the computer gets noticeably slower when doing these. My normal working
scans are 70 MB to 160 MB in file size as three channel files.
 
B&H shows the Kaidan QuickPan Spherical at under $500. They also have the Nikon D1x at $4650.
Using that same $4650, and a quick check of scanners, shows the Imacon Flextight for $4900, though
it will only do 3200 dpi from up to 6 cm by 7 cm roll film. That is still good enough for a 7050
by 8750 image, from one frame of film. Using several frames, a smaller format, and/or a lower cost
film scanner, could achieve the same. You have achieved excellent results from your expenditure,
but there are comparable options, some for even less expense.

I wish I was in New York, so I could take your challenge . . . not to prove you wrong, but to show
there is more than one way to get the same results, or better results. I take nothing away from
what you have achieved. It may even be quite possible to do it for less money, even using the same
tripod head you used, by originating on film, and scanning that film. It may even take less than 4
minutes and 21 seconds for the shot, or shots, needed to get the same final image.

Your information has been very informative, and well prepared. I do not think it is fair to
compare stitched images to individual, but I would be interested in your answer as to why you
would not consider stitched and scanned film images. Of course, you could easily dismiss my post
because it does not meet your rules or criteria, though I think are too professional to do so.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


brian wrote:

>
> In practice the figures you've calculated are meaningless.  I've got
> 10MP and 53MP images at my site that you can view on your screen or
> download and print:
> http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/FullSizeMosaicMain.html
>
> I would be very interested if anyone living in or visiting New York
> City would go to the same site and shoot the same scene with a 35mm
> film camera and then compare images.  I doubt that 35mm - even Tech
> Pan - would do very well even compared to the 10MP image.  Large
> format would be required to get to the same quality level as the full
> size 53MP image because 35mm and medium format would be inadequate.
>
> Consider it a challenge:  if you doubt me, then prove me wrong with
> actual images.  Statements based on half-baked calculations that
> ignore most of the important variables are completely uninteresting to
> me.
>
> The image in question can be approximately re-created by shooting a
> 28mm shift lens on 24x36mm format.  The required amount of shift is
> beyond the capabilities of any real 28mm shift lens, but you will
> still be able to compare resolution near the horizon line if you shoot
> with any old 28mm lens.  If you want to cheat a little to give film a
> fighting chance you can use a 35mm lens instead and only match the
> horizontal field of view.
>
> Brian




Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; Tech Pan 25 B&W 354M


"brian" brianc1959@aol.com a écrit...
> I would be very interested if anyone living
> in or visiting New York City would go to the
> same site and shoot the same scene with a 35mm
> film camera and then compare images.

It is okay if they cheat and stitch multiple film images together, as you
had to do with digital?

> I doubt that 35mm - even Tech Pan - would do
> very well even compared to the 10MP image.

Oh, I think they would.

> Large format would be required to get to the
> same quality level as the full size 53MP image
> because 35mm and medium format would be inadequate.


Medium-format is easily 80 megapixels.

As long as you cheat by stitching multiple images together, you can get
whatever quality you want.  I could stitch 42 medium-format images together
and blow your example out of the water.  Even 42 35mm scans would pretty
much put your example to shame.

Additionally, a camera that requires 5 minutes to take one shot isn't very
practical.





Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; Tech Pan  25 B&W 354M


"William E. Graham" weg9@attbi.com a écrit

> How do drum scanners work?

The negative or transparency is mounted on a spinning drum using a mounting
fluid or oil and the image is scanned as it spins.  The use of
photomultiplier tubes (a special type of light-amplifying vacuum tube)
allows extremly large density ranges to be accurately scanned.

> - Why are they any better (resolution wise)
> than flatbed scanners?

They are not necessarily better resolution-wise (although many drum scanners
provide very high resolution), but they have slightly more ability to handle
a broad density range than do the high-end desktop scanners.  The gap is
closing, however.





From: Duncan Ross notmyreal@address.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasseblad or Mamiya??
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002

11 MP is approaching film in terms of resolution for 35mm, but in medium format
I get approx 500MB scans from 6x7 film at 16 bit and 280 at 8 bit.  Digital
backs have a bit to go before they can do that.


Don Farra wrote:

> Kym,
>
> Personal opinions follow: I have a RZ67 II pro and love the camera.
>  Like yourself years ago I had to decide between the Hassy and the
> Mamiya systems.
>
> I tried the Hassy for a while but found it better suited for outdoor
> shots such as weddings than the studio.  It is  fine camera and easy to
> hand hold.  Yet I found the Hassy film backs to be a little troublesome
> at times, and often had to search for the dark slide.  And on rare
> occasion the camera shutter would jam, requiring a special tool to unjam
> it.  Then there was the odd attributes of having the shutter cocked
> before mounting a lens, or at least that was I was taught to do.  Then
> there was the odd thing taught to me about releasing the mirror and then
> the shutter.  But the images were worth the extra effort, very sharp and
> nice colors.
>
> So for me I use the RZ67 in the studio and the Mamiya 7 for outdoor images.
>
> Reasons for me selecting the RZ67 over the Hassy.
>
> 0)  Image quality, bigger negative resulted in better image quality.
>  Comparing Zeiss to Mamiya only showed me that computers and the
> machines that grind the lenses have reached near perfection.  That
> modern medium format lenses don't have to be as sharp as their 35mm
> counterparts to create some super sharp and high quality images.
>
> 1)  What sold me on Mamiya lenses was their electronic shutter.
>  Accurate exposures no matter which lens I used, unlike the small
> variations found on mechanical base leaf shutters.  No odd attributes
> like cocking the shutter before mounting.  And they are built solid as a
> rock, and weight as heavy as one.
>
> 2)  The other consideration was system cost, the Mamiya represented to
> me a better value.  By this mean the cost of the lens and other system
> items such as film backs (dark slides mount on rear of back and two
> exposure counters), remote controls, motor drives and AE prisms was less
> than their Hassy counterparts.
>
> 3)  The film format of 6x7 and the rotating back and cropping AE prism
> was also a plus for me.  The 6x7 format "fits" better on to a 8x10 than
> a cropped 6x6 format.  The degree of magnification was also a plus,
> since the 6x7 required less to obtain the same rectangular print size.
>  (My mamiya M645 Super  is a pain to use with a flash bracket when it
> comes to rotating the camera, whereas the RZ67 is a breeze, just rotate
> the back instead.)
>
> 4)  A small consideration went to the fact that the professional fashion
> and portrait photographers that I admire most and who could afford any
> camera system used the Mamiya 67 II Pro.
>
> Again these are only my personal opinions and the choice is up to you
> and you alone.  Pick the system that will best serve you needs now and
> in the future.  Chose the system that you are comfortable with and that
> is the one you will do you best work with now and until it is stolen again.
>
> But if you don't mind I would ask you reconsider medium format option
> and consider instead the digital camera.  The Canon D60 and Nikon D100
> are nice for the money and produce good quality images.  The Canon EOS -
> 1Ds with 11.1 Megapixels (to be announced late September 2002) and full
> 35mm frame sensor array is also a winner in my opinion.  The clients of
> tomorrow are going to expect digital results and so will the consumer
> customers that come in for portraits and weddings.  It might be a good
> time to switch over and take advantage of the new medium now that it is
> becoming affordable.
>
> Best of luck to you,
> Don
>
> Kym wrote:
>
> >I am replacing a stolen Hasselblad 500c system and have been asked to
> >consider a Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II instead, I don't have any experience with
> >Mamiya so I was hoping for some advice from users?
> >
> >Kym
--
Duncan Ross
http://DuncanRossPhoto.com




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Shooting with digital to preview exposure
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 


"John Halliwell" john@photopia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I'd also be wary using the digital to check exposure, however if you
> know how your digital meters, you may be able to get an idea how much
> compensation is needed for really difficult shots (assuming you can dial
> compensation into it?).

Obviously one should test carefully first, but the better consumer digital
cameras tend to have very tight spot meters. I'd guess the Sony F707 spot
meter is tighter than any separate spot meter spot when the lens is zoomed
out.

The only glitch with the F707 that it only reports +/- 1.7 EV (the
+/- 2.0 EV readings mean "more than +/- 1.7 EV off") Sigh. (You can make a
first approx to zone 5, open up 2 stops (zone 3) and check your shadow
areas, then close down 4 stops (zone 7) and check your highlights. (Here,
the +/-2 EV readings are actually useful.))


The above assumes setting the camera to manual mode. You could also set it
to A mode and convert shutter speeds to EV values in your head, but it's a
pain since the camera computes shutter speeds in 1/3 stop increments.

> I'd also recommend a reliable meter as a first option.

Of course. And a gray card. You need something to calibrate the digital
camera against.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




from nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: "Carl E. Feather" cfeather@suite224.net
Subject: [Nikon] Digital camera in 10 years

Perhaps, but consider how the industry makes the equipment obsolete,
requiring you to purchase updates:

1. Nikon's D100 will not allow you to meter with the huge volume of AI, AIS
and Ai'd lenses out there. They designed the camera so you have to buy new
lenses to go along with that camera.

2. Ditto for the new G lenses. Will the next generation of digital cameras
require G lenses, just like the current generation of pro-sumers are
requiring you to mothball all those beautiful pre-AFd lenses?

3. The current formats for digital files, JPEG, TIFF, and RAW, are likely to
be antiquated in 10 years, requiring you to purchase more software, at the
least, or a whole different camera that will write the latest compresison
format.

4. Storage media options are likely to change dramatically -- indeed, they
will have to in order to accommodate the huge files that will be produced by
the next generation of cameras. That will mean our CF cards will have to get
much faster, much larger, or a new generation of cards or storage media
invented. Consider how the floppy was the standard rewritable media just
five years ago. How many manufacturers are using them in cameras today? I
suspect flash cards will go the way of the floppy in a few years.

5. Manufacturers have a way of forcing consumers to upgrade all the time,
via software that won't run under older versions of Windows or Pentium
computers, require huge hard drives/memory allocations, and
peripherals/ports not compatible with older devices.

Let's face it, the consumer is going to be underwriting technology's R&D for
years to come.




From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: Rome adnixon@tin.it
Subject: [Nikon] Re: who pays the costs of digital?

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> yes, but don't you bill the client for the costs of film and processing
> when on assignments?

Digital aside, the model I'm familiar with is precisely that you do not bill
the customer for the film. That way, you the photographer own the negatives
and the client has no legal right to them, because he never bought the film
they're exposed onto in the first place. If the client wants the negs he'll
have to pay extra for them, and by this time they'll cost a lot more because
it's no longer raw film, it's negative pictures, the duplicable fruits of
your labours. It would have been cheaper for the client to buy the films
first, but of course, you don't tell him that before the shoot, and he never
thinks to ask. Only afterwards does the client who asks for the negatives
discover that they are not and never were for sale, except for a nice fat
wadge of cash.

Anyone else do this, or is this a British-only practice?

But of course, digital will change all this -
Digital pictures only become tangible after they are burned to a CD and
handed to the client. Up to that moment, even if they are on the Microdrive
or storage gizmo in your camera or on your computer's hard drive, or even
inside the Fuji Frontier, poised to make hard copy, they still don¹t really
tangibly exist in the same way that a negative on an exposed strip of film
can be said to tangibly exist. Therefore, there is nothing to sell and no
reason to sell it or be talked into selling it, and least of all a reason
for giving it away just because it cost you next-to-nothing in storage
material, like film did. It is still your creative work though, and that is
it's value. Sell it cheap or give it away for duplication and you are
cutting your own throat.

Even when written and saved to the Microdrive, the digital images are as
fleeting as the light, as disposable as piss, but it is OUR light, OUR piss,
and we the photographer have controlled how it fell upon the sensor chip.
With digital, professional photographers must now learn a new politic of our
trade and get it very clear in our heads about exactly what it is we're
selling in these digital days. Just because we don't have the continual
expense of film stock any more doesn't automatically mean we're any better
off, or that we can just give our work away on CDs. Interesting that the
ability to burn CDs, ie to digitally and cheaply store and copy huge volumes
of near-disposable data has developed in tandem with high resolution,
affordable digital photography. But don't let the combination of those two
facts distort your sense of reality about the safe future of the
professional photography business. You are not safe unles your get your
sales policy straight here and now, today, ready to deal with tomorrow's
clients, who as usual, want something for nothing, and are now closer than
ever to getting that. If you're a small operator, don't think that the
business practices of the big or niche operators will apply to you. They
won't. In most cases, you cannot afford to give your work away cheap or
free, not in the short run, and certainly not in the long run, for that way
we all suffer, and the little guys will go to the wall first. You didn¹t
work cheap when you used film, why suddenly start working cheap when you're
digital? Watch out!

Otherwise we will find our rights and our artistic property and its value
eroding fast. Professional magicians and illusionists do not give away the
secrets of their tricks, if they do, it devalues the work of the entire
profession. Likewise with photography, especially digital - Just because we
can spit out freebie CDs full of jpegs right left and center for
distribution to our clients as commission-clinching incentives, doesn't mean
it will be good for the photography business in the long run. Let's continue
to keep the magic to ourselves, inside our cameras where it belongs, for as
long as possible, and guard 100Mb of in-camera storage memory as jealously
as we would once guard our negatives. And devise new business models to
plausibly make the client pay for it.

The key to photographic commerce has always been as much in preventing the
client getting possession of the duplicable source material as it was in
artistic expertise with the hardware. Digital has brought a revolution in
the photographic industry, and as professionals, we now have the chance to
rewrite the rules of photography commerce to our lasting financial advantage
over the client. If we handle it right, we can move the duplicable source
material even further from the client's reach than it was with film, and
shroud our craft in an even deeper layer of mystery and expertise. But if we
use digital and the duplicating flexibility it offers as simply a means to
progressively undercut the local competition, we weaken the Brotherhood of
the Lens and will undermine and lose this stunning new lucrative business
opportunity forever. And if that happens, we may as well all go back to
using film, for digital will ultimately offer us no financial advantage. At
the speed the technology is moving, this disintegration of the market could
take as little as five years. Many professional photogaphers in certain
niche fields have already fallen by the wayside due to radical recent
changes in the industry that digital and computing power has brought, and if
we aren't careful, our cameras may become as redundant as typewriters,
horseshoes and hand-weaving looms, and like all Luddites, we will have to
abandon our ancient and honourable craft and retrain in something completely
different, alongside a million other wandering, landless journeymen of
redundant crafts. It may be necessary to start thinking in such radical
terms as re-introducing the medieval concept of guilds to protect the
sanctity, respect, quality and future of the photographic craft and
industry. Where will photography be in fifteen or twenty or years or so when
the current fad of home-computing wears off?

If we're not careful, by abusing the flexibility of digital as a cutthroat
way to undercut the competition, we'll kill the goose that's laid the golden
egg for us, and photographers will be as plentiful and valued in society as
toilet-cleaners. Necessary but not remarkable.

tube




Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; Tech Pan 25 B&W 354M


"brian" brianc1959@aol.com a écrit...

> I'm eager to actually see your results.  Can you
> post them?

Sure.  See http://www.smallevents.com/sunset.jpg (1.1 MB), and compare it to
the full-sized image of the Flatiron building.

Remember that the Flatiron picture is a composite of 42 separate digital
pictures.  I reduced the medium-format picture so that it matched what I
would obtain if I used 42 separate medium-format exposures to produce one
photo.  You can see that the quality of the medium-format shot very visibly
exceeds that of the digital shot.  I didn't bother to unsharp mask the MF
shot (not sure if the Flatiron shot has been unsharp-masked or not).




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; Tech Pan 25 B&W 354M
Date: 17 Sep 2002


"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote
> "brian" brianc1959@aol.com a écrit
> > The question to be answered is:  "how many pixels
> > are in a film frame".  A *single* film frame.
>
> About 100 megapixels for 6x6, and about 25 megapixels for 35mm, on Provia
> 100F.
>
etc., etc.

I'll try one more time, since you have not grasped the obvious.  What
I'm offering are clean 10megapixel and 53megapixel images for use as a
resolution reference.  How they were created does not matter.  All
that does matter is that they are as close to pixel-perfect as
possible.  This sort of perfection is nearly attained in the case of
the 10megapixel image.

To repeat:  the manner in which they were obtained *DOES NOT MATTER*.
All that does matter is that they are large and that they are as sharp
as possible.

Now that you have such images for reference, you can compare your
images to them.  For example, if you suspect that you have an 80
megapixels worth of real data in an image you can compare it to my 53
megapixel image.  The 80 megapixel image should look *better* than the
53 megapixel image.  If it doesn't look better then clearly it doesn't
really contain 80 megapixels of real data.

Similarly, your 25 megapixel Provia100 images should look much sharper
and more detailed than my 10 megapixel image.  Why?  Because 25 is
bigger than 10.  All I'm asking is that you simply show - visually
show - that this is true.  If you were to downsample your 25 megapixel
image to 10 megapixels then it should look identical to my 10
megapixel image in terms of sharpness and detail.  If it does not,
then your image clearly doen't even contain a full 10 megapixels of
real image data, much less 25 megapixels.

Is this really so complicated??  Why do you feel obliged to change the
subject and attack the method used to create the comparison images.
Your behaviour suggests that in your heart you've already conceded
that your statements about image quality are untrue.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pushing limits? ;-0) Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: 18 Sep 2002 

...

Hi Bob:
I thought the discussion was about how many "real" pixels are in a
film frame.  Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the plate and
offered real images for comparison.

I use stitching for everything I used to do with large format, namely
architecture and landscape.  I find that stitching digital images
gives me far better results for these types of images that I can
achieve with 35mm or medium format film.  I prefer the digital
approach because its less of a hassle than large format, and it has
really opened my eyes up to possibilities with color.  The one area I
struggle with is dynamic range, and here film (negative film) has a
decided advantage.  I generally don't care for panoramas because they
are too long and skinny, but I agree that this is the most popular
application of stitching.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: info@pacificimageworks.com (craig)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels? =Velvia is theoretically 88 Million; Tech Pan 25 B&W 354M
Date: 18 Sep 2002 


I'm not going to try to respond to specific claims in this thread, but
I think the discussion is running far afield and that there are
several issues to address. Some of which are obvious but bear
repeating.

1. The structure of film grain is very different from pixels and so it
is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Film grain behaves more
like "stochastic screening" or "frequency modulated screens" except
that even those dots fall on a grid. Film grain is more random. Pixels
in digital imaging are square in shape and form a perfect grid, thus
certain types of images may look better in digital form and others may
look better in film. For example, an image with lines that run at an
angle to the grid of pixels will appear "stair-stepped". Only at very
high resolution will this artifact begin to be inconsequential.
Whereas a image constructed primarily of tones but not lines, such as
a soft focus macro view of a flower may look better in lower res
digital because of the abscence of film grain.
The quality of an image from any particular type of film, whether
Ektachrome, or Velvia will still vary depending on exposure and
development and the quality of that batch of film and how the film was
handled before exposure.

2. If this were a discussion only about film, we could talk in terms
of Accutance, Grain, and Tonality. These are beginning to be topics in
digital imaging because the quality of the cameras has finally
arrived. Still, the issue of quality doesn't simply revolve around
resolution. Let me shoot that New York skyline with 35mm Velvia and
PRO lens and one frame will produce better results than a stitched
composite image from a Cannon 1D with a consumer quality lens.

3. Scanning. On a recent job I had a frame of 35mm Provia scanned on a
Crossfield drum scanner. It is a dynamite scanner, but because it was
designed to scan film into a CMYK color space, its RGB output is less
than stellar and so there was an undesirable amount of noise in the
blue channel, a frequent problem with scanners. If this same film had
been scanned on a Tango drum scanner, the image quality would have
been better. The 60MB (TIFF) image was printed at 24" wide which
produced noticeable grain when viewed up close. At 6 feet it look
fine.
-- Drum scanning with oil mounting produces image quality far superior
to CCD scanners such as Imacon. Good as these are, they tend to have
more noise in the blue channel, more blooming in the hightlights, and
despite manufacturer claims to dMax ratings, they cannot pull out the
detail in the shadows that drum scanners with photo-multipliers can.

4. The advantage of digital photos is that grain is never introduced
into the equation. So even relatively low resolution images, say 18MB
from a Nikon D100 when interpolated up to say 60MB with proper
sharpening, can produce an image which is superior to film because of
the abscence of grain.

Craig




From: David Eppstein eppstein@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pushing limits? ;-0) Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002


 Steffen Kluge kluge@dotnet.org wrote:
> Because it isn't possible to compare slides and digital images in
> an Internet forum (or on a web site), unless you subject the
> slide to digitising as well.

The other possibilities are to use formulas involving mtf and snr to try
to compute a number representing the information content of an image
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml), or to compare
prints.  Luminous landscape also tried the second approach in
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
and again in
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60.shtml but with
digitized inkjet prints of the film images, apparently because the
author already was convinced that inkjets produced superior prints to
Cibachrome prints of the same film.  The drawback of the print
comparison is that there are too many other variables such as
photographer quality, print technology, and subjective evaluation, so
nobody else gets convinced by the results.


Anyway, both methods show current DSLRs as being roughly comparable to
35mm film now, with film having a small advantage for very large prints
(larger print sizes for the D60 than for the D30, in case you wonder at
the seeming contradiction between the two comparisons above) that will
probably go away when the 1Ds and its inevitable competitors come out.
We'll see what the print comparisons tell us when that happens, but I
find all this far more believable than the people who tell me they are
getting useful information when they scan their negs at 10000dpi and
therefore that 35mm should somehow be considered equivalent to 150Mp
digital images or worse.

--
David Eppstein       
eppstein@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/





From contax mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 
From: aoldani@gmx.ch
Subject: Re: [Contax] OT: Canon EOS-1Ds 11.1Mp Full Frame

> I agree with you. The new Canon D1s is using CMOS sensor and the physical
> size is 6M pixel.


2x6Mpixels and then glued together? :-)

I am still curious if the stuff about mount diameter and other things is
true and ther ARE problems with some geometric things. It was very interesting
to hear about an issue from a Kodak DCS Pro Back plus user that you cannot
receive good results with lenses shorter than 60mm (in 6x6 MF terms) with that
multi-K-dollar back! The sensor is 36x36 and the conversion factor 1.67x. No
wide angle therefore with a highly praised back and such discussions more than
a year after introduction of it?

Any Kodak Pro Back 645 users out there with a Contax 645 and experience with
lets say the Distagon 35?

André




From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] OT: Canon EOS-1Ds 11.1Mp Full Frame
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 
...

Gary,

Digital will get to a point of diminishing returns, as far as number of
pixels.  When that happens, the playing field will be more so leveled, as
product cycles will be further apart...or at least should be further apart.
There are still many issues to be worked out on the digital front, one of
the major ones being power consumption and storage.  These problems are
universal to every manufacturer, large or small...and no one has any
advantage over the other, because they ALL buy technology from other
sources, and all have access to the same technology.

Now, whether Contax can survive until the 24M pixel 35mmesque camera is
"commonplace", and they can win on other grounds, I can't tell you.  The
point is, though the sensor is the main "battleground" now, it will not be
so in the near future.

Austin





From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens length spec
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002


"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
>
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Mead said that because of fundamental size limits in the wavelengths
> > > of light, it is unlikely that future digital sensors will gain much
> > > additional resolution. [Mr. Mead is head of Foveon 16 MP Chip Designer]
> > >
> > > -endquote
> > >
> > > basic physics (diffraction etc.) limit the sensor size, and we are already
> > > essentially there per Carver Mead's comments.
> >
> > This is not what Mead said in the press release. He was probably referring
> > to the limitations of CMOS designs, on which their Foveon chip is based. I
> > do not necessarily see what wavelength has to do with it.
>
> Perhaps the wavelength of light used in creating the electronic circuits,
> the "chips" itself?

Currently the details are approaching 0.1 microns, and experiments with
less than that have been carried out using X-rays. Clearly the problem
isn't in producing the detail.

The problem is efficiency. If the detectors are too small, their
sensitivity will be low, i.e. they will be noisy.

As a rule of thumb a dish antenna should have ten wavelengths of
mechanical size to be effective. It doesn't translate directly to a
detector that collects photoelectrons, but the analogy has similarities.
Since red light is around 0.7 microns, the detector pads can't be much
smaller than 7 microns. Carver Mead's 16 megapixels per sq inch
translates to about 6 microns.

-- Lassi






From: haijack@onr.com (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens length spec
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002


This strongly implies that digital cameras capable of competing with
the quality of film will eventually require sensor arrays and lenses
that are both physically much larger than those in current use. The
question is whether such designs will also be able to compete with
film in terms of cost.

JL

 Lassi lahippel@ieee.org wrote:
>As a rule of thumb a dish antenna should have ten wavelengths of
>mechanical size to be effective. It doesn't translate directly to a
>detector that collects photoelectrons, but the analogy has similarities.
>Since red light is around 0.7 microns, the detector pads can't be much
>smaller than 7 microns. Carver Mead's 16 megapixels per sq inch
>translates to about 6 microns.
>
>-- Lassi




From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens length spec
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002

...
> Perhaps the wavelength of light used in creating the electronic circuits,
> the "chips" itself?

Who knows what Mr.Mead is thinking ;-) but I doubt he is referring to the
lithography part of production. Anyway, a 16MP per square inch ("...able to
capture digital images with a resolution of 4,096 by 4,096 picture
elements - or pixels - per square inch" !) sensor is not that spectacular in
today's technological capabilities, for a CCD that is. A CMOS device needs
to sacrifice surface area for transistors in addition to the Photosites, so
the noise implications become more of an issue with small size. My guess is
that the CMOS limitations are what he was referring to.

Bart




[Ed. note: one reason for shutter lag on digital cameras explained..]
From MF minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 
From: "Kent Gittings" kent@ism.com
Subject: RE: Re: Minolta @ Photokina: Just more of the same

Noise in a digital sensor array is usually a function of temperature. The
same CCD array that has noticeable noise at room temperature will have
little or none often when cooled to 30+ degrees below ambient. Unfortunately
unlike an astro digital camera it is often hard to attach some kind of
cooling apparatus to the camera (water-cooling, Peltier effect, dry ice,
etc.). So the alternative is the so called dark frame subtraction technique.
Problems is you never get back what was on those noisy pixels exactly.
Astrocameras usually allow you to save one and subtract from all while
consumer/pro digital cameras do the save one subtract one. One reason
digital camera appear to initiate the shutter slower than some film cameras.
They shoot the dark frame with the shutter closed then open it for the
actual shot, after which they subtract the first from the second.

Kent Gittings
...




[Ed. note: why comparing scans of film is problematic..]

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Steffen Kluge kluge@dotnet.org
Subject: Re: pushing limits? ;-0) Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002



According to brian brianc1959@aol.com:
>A scan that clearly shows grain and all of the dynamic range in a film
>image does show all of the real information content.  I believe that
>this can be achieved with a scan of 4000-5000dpi or less.  For an
>interesting comparison of a 4000dpi CCD scan with a 5000dpi Tango drum
>scan see:  http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/nikon4000vsTango.htm

Let's talk about the seagull detail of the Tango scan. The grain
is indeed very clearly visible. Individual blobs of colour are
typically 3 to 4 pixels in diameter. Now, the detail is 690
pixels wide. At 5000 dpi scan resolution that corresponds to
section of film about 3.5mm wide.

We all know that slide film rated 100 ASA or slower can easily
reproduce 120 line pairs per mm. Across our 3.5mm stretch that
would mean about 420 line pairs, or 840 pixel columns. More than
the scanned detail has got pixels across. That one shows grain
about 3-4 pixels wide instead.


I'd hazard a guess that the finest discernible structure in this
image would have to be at least 4 or 5 pixels wide. It is a bit
difficult to estimate due to the random arrangement of film grain
and the nature of the subject, and it is not the same as lp/mm at
1:1000 contrast, but if we unscientifically substitute "finest
discernible structure" for "line" we'd have to say the film was
capable of resolving only about 25 lp/mm. (690 pixels / 4 pixel
per line / 3.5mm). Or, to put it this way: the film grain in this
example is about 3.6 times as wide as a single white line
sandwiched between to black lines (or vive versa), on film with a
resolution of 120 lp/mm.

I can only conclude that the scan was taken from slow and/or
underexposed film. It would be interesting to examine a 5000dpi
scan from a properly exposed Velvia shot.

Cheers
Steffen.






Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Steffen Kluge kluge@dotnet.org
Subject: Re: pushing limits? ;-0) Re: 35mm=1 Billion Pixels?
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002


According to Bruce Murphy  pack-news@rattus.net:
>> but if we unscientifically substitute "finest
>> discernible structure" for "line" we'd have to say the film was
>> capable of resolving only about 25 lp/mm. (690 pixels / 4 pixel
>
>This image, perhaps, but you're almost certainly talking about
>lens effects, not film.

Lenses are capable of lowering contrast or wiping out detail, and
of introducing colour fringes and geometric distortions, but they
cannot introduce grain. What we see in this scan is clearly film
grain. On the other hand, the lens (or technique) used in this
sample shot didn't even challenge 25 lp/mm resolution. But that's
not the point. There is grain over 3 pixels wide in this 5000dpi
scan, and that would simply not be the case with films like
Velvia.

Cheers
Steffen.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lens length spec
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002


"RD" haijack@onr.com wrote:
> This strongly implies that digital cameras capable of competing with
> the quality of film will eventually require sensor arrays and lenses
> that are both physically much larger than those in current use. The
> question is whether such designs will also be able to compete with
> film in terms of cost.

The new 14 MP 24x36mm Kodak has a pixel pitch of 7.9 microns, for a Nyquist
frequency* of 63 lp/mm. It's pretty hard to find 35mm glass (outside of
Leica and Contax) that could use a much finer pixel pitch. I find that D60
images look very good at 200 ppi, so even folks fussier than I should be
very happy with Kodak images printed at up to 12.5 x 18 (240 ppi). Unless
one puts up with grain, prints much larger than 11x14 are problematic from
35mm, so it seems to me that digital is here. (The Kodak camera is heavy and
expensive, so I'll be waiting for the next generation.)


Film cameras also require a scanner, so cost is much less of an issue than
many think. At US$2000, a digital camera is only slightly more expensive
than a decent mid-range 35mm body + 4000 dpi scanner.

*: And a presumed resolution of about 0.7 times that, or 45 lp/mm. I suspect
you needs the full 63 lp/mm from the glass to get an actual 45 lp/mm out of
the sensor. Of course, that's only 4 lp/mm on a 11x14 print, well under MF
standards. (D60 images seem to have sharper, better defined edges than 4000
dpi Provia scans, so I suspect that the 8 lp/mm standard is overkill for
digital images.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

>
> JL

> >As a rule of thumb a dish antenna should have ten wavelengths of
> >mechanical size to be effective. It doesn't translate directly to a
> >detector that collects photoelectrons, but the analogy has similarities.
> >Since red light is around 0.7 microns, the detector pads can't be much
> >smaller than 7 microns. Carver Mead's 16 megapixels per sq inch
> >translates to about 6 microns.
> >
> >-- Lassi






Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Haselblad H1

Dan Cardish wrote:

> Don't ignore the new Kodak DCS-14n, a full 35mm frame 14mp camera with
> street price of $4,000 USD.

And how about the Sinar M? SLR; 35 mm lenses (Nikon, Canon, etc.) and/or
(!!!) MF lenses; and takes the 22 MP SinarBack 54 (= full 4,5 x 6 cm medium
format, not 35 mm format!).





From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 
From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@softhome.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] H1/Kodak Pro back Sample Posted

Austin,

>I feel the exact same way.  I did download the full image, and put it on the
>screen next to one of my B&W scans...and it was day and night.  I found the
>digital image very fuzzy.

Interesting. I think part of the fuzzyness is caused by the AF selecting a
less than optimal focus. The eyes in a portrait must be in critical focus.

>Mind you, I don't USM any of my B&W scans from my
>Leafscan, they seem to have beautiful sharpness all on their own.

Just a side note: USM isn't necessarily a bad thing. I believe it's really
just an inverse-sinc weighing of the pixels. It compensates for the
low-pass caused by the scanning. The scanner samples the image with a
rectangular window function. This translates to a sinc function in the
frequency domain (sinc(x) = sin(x)/x), which is a low-pass filtering. By
using appropriate values on the USM you adjust the inverse-sinc to
(partially) compensate for the low-pass function of the scanner.
But you're an EE, you should know all this already... :-) Just don't overdo
the USM thing...

Tom





Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:17:04 +0200
From: Anthony Atkielski 
Reply to: hasselblad@kelvin.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] H1/Kodak Pro back Sample Posted

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

Tom writes:

> Interesting. I think part of the fuzzyness is
> caused by the AF selecting a less than optimal
> focus. The eyes in a portrait must be in critical
> focus.

I doubt it.  No portion of the image is really razor sharp, so either the
critical focus wasn't on anything in the frame, or the best focus the image
can provided simply isn't that sharp.

> Just a side note: USM isn't necessarily a bad
> thing.

It's a form of image degradation.  Looks better after USM, but you must
always apply it just before using an image--never in the archived image
(because it causes degradation, and because the USM required for two
different applications will not be the same, even for the same image).

> It compensates for the low-pass caused by the
> scanning.

USM creates an illusion of better resolution and detail, but it cannot undo
a lack of resolution and detail in the original scan.




From: Roland Karlsson roland.karlsson@bonetmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: The Great Magapixel Scam
Date: 28 Sep 2002 


Mark Allread mallread@flatsurface.com wrote 
> Lens resolution is more appropriately measured in terms of ANGULAR
> separation when comparing dissimilar systems. lp/mm measurements depend
> upon having a consistent imaging area (i.e. a 35 mm frame) as a basis
> for comparison. Thinking that you can carry lp/mm measurements for
> lenses used on 35 mm cameras to those used with much smaller electronic
> sensor is simply incorrect. Lenses of similar quality (=contrast and
> angular separation=resolving ability) will be able to produce similar
> images on the sensor, regardless of the sensor size.

Nope. Not at all. It is true that smaller cameras have larger
spatial resolution than larger cameras. There you are right.
That's why you can have lenses for digital cameras that resolve
170 lp/mm.


But it is also correct that larger cameras have better angular
resoultion than smaller cameras. If you want outstanding image
resolution, you must use large cameras.

Digital (small CCD) camera:
  170 lp/mm   10 mm diameter  1700 lp/diameter  max 6 Mpixels
35 mm camera:
  100 lp/mm   40 mm diameter  4000 lp/diameter  max 32 Mpixels
Large foramt camera:
   50 lp/mm  150 mm diameter  7500 lp/diameter  max 110 Mpixels

The megapixel value assumes Nyquist sampling and a low
pass filter in front of the sensor.

NOTE: 32 Mpixel for 35 mm cameras does NOT mean that film
cameras can reach this resolution. But, digital cameras have
that potential.

The reason for higher angular resolution for larger cameras is
diffraction. To get a certain theoretically maximum angular resolution
you need a large (in diameter) aperture. Small apertures means lots
of diffraction and you need big cameras to get a big diameter.

> Physically larger electronic sensors are preferred mostly because they
> offer improved performance in other areas (noise, linearity, speed,
> etc., ), not because they are able to produce higher resolutions.

Yes - noise etc are benefits from large format cameras. But ...
you also get more resolution.
--
Roland Karlsson





From: drsmithhm@hotmail.com (drsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Foveon X3 images
Date: 28 Sep 2002 


deryck  lant deryck@deryck.com wrote
> Smooth tonality and great colour. Pity the Foveon is not fitted
> to the Olympus 4/3 camera. Olympus glass and no 1.7 multiplier.
> Sigh . . .
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092702sigmasd9samples2.asp
>
> Deryck

Umm - download the image of the church.  You'll notice a good deal of
color fringing on light/dark transitions.  Reading from left to right,
a dark-light transition shows red and a light-dark transition shows
blue.  I'll be impressed when they finally eliminate that particular
flaw.

--drsmith




From: "Milan Pollé" ln.bewfmt.lausivitra@nalim.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Foveon X3 images
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002


"Bill Tuthill" ca_creekin@yahoo.com schreef 
> drsmith drsmithhm@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Umm - download the image of the church.  You'll notice a good deal of
> > color fringing on light/dark transitions.  Reading from left to right,
> > a dark-light transition shows red and a light-dark transition shows blue.
> > I'll be impressed when they finally eliminate that particular flaw.
>
> Yes, that's probably the lens.
>
> The picture of the watch has a *lot* of dust spots or digital noise,
> I can't tell which.
>
> Bottom line: we can't call it vaporware any longer.

From reading the forums at dpreview:
- The dust spots are indeed dust spots.
- The noise was caused by wrongly adjusting the images on a laptop display,
the images have been updated.
- The color fringing (which is everywhere, just look at the images
magnified) is caused by the RAW converter software and is one of the
problems that is being looked into right now by Sigma/Foveon.

A drawback is a maximum ISO value of 400. Also very bright elements in
images seem to lack detail, though that might be normal.

Compared to even the new Canon 1Ds the Sigma/Foveon images look a lot more
crisp, adding some unsharp mask effect brings out even more detail still.
With the current problems fixed, I think the Foveon will provide amazing
quality.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Time Exposures/Digital
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002

"John Stafford" john@stafford.net wrote:
> (Lost the thread, sorry)
>
> Long exposures with a digital camera are possible, but the consumer digitals
> still have problems with it. The 'astronomical' CCDs are specially cooled in
> order to obviate dark feedback.  Shoot a very long exposure with your
> digital camera with the cap on sometime. You will get subtle bright spots.

Dunno what this has to do with MF, but the better consumer digitals have
dark frame subtraction for long exposures. Works great. The Sony F707 has
the glitch that it knows to kick in this function if you manually set the
shutter speed, but doesn't figure this out if it sets the shutter speed in
aperture priority mode. Oops. (Oh, yes. The bright spots that happen aren't
subtle in the slightest.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokoyo, Japan




From: estudivan@aol.com (Estudivan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 30 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: Slave Flash for Digital Camera


Take a look at this url and see if you can use a similar approach with your
digital camera. This approach allows using any standard off camera flash and a
wein optical slave for additional flashes. Works great (parts for the nikon are
about $70US).

http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro_en/hit/dc/dce900/en/HIT_dce900_en_12.htm

Good Luck,
Earl




From nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: Re: [Nikon] ? on digital SLRs

 DChrestens@aol.com wrote:
>I was looking at the specs on the D100. It gives the maximum "shutter speed"
>(1/4000 if I remember right) and the maximum flash sync speed.

That's correct for the top shutter speed. The top flash sync speed is 1/180
for the D100.

>  But, as I
>understand it, digital cameras don't have a "real" shutter.

Depends on the camera. ALL of the current Nikon and Canon DSLRs (Digital
SLR cameras) have shutters -- just like their film counterparts. They work
exactly the same way as their film counterparts -- in essence, for example,
a Nikon D1-series is sort of a film-less F5, in which the digital sensor (a
CCD for the Nikon) "merely" replaces film at the film plane. But a
D1-series, or D100, works just like any film SLR you are used to. There's a
prism, and a mirror, and a mechanical shutter.

>  Pressing the
>shutter button just turns on the electronics to transfer information from the
>CCD to memory.

Well, not really, not even in video-based digital cameras. There's a bit
more going on than that. 

>  So, why can't they flash sync at the maximum speed they are
>designed for, 1/4000 in this case. They don't have to wait for the shutter to
>be fully opened since there isn't one. Information appreciated. Thanks.

In the current state of the art, vis-a-vis digital cameras, there sort of
are two different technological approaches. One, what I'll call the
"consumer-grade" digital camera, uses what is essentially a video-based
digital sensor to form the image, and the image is sort of formed in real
time, just like a video camera. That's why the LCD (usually on the back of
the camera) is used to compose the photo -- it is the "viewfinder" for the
camera. Some of these sort of cameras have an auxiliary viewfinder
supplementing the LCD, which helps one frame the photo, but has no actual
relationship to the captured image. In this sort of camera, pressing the
shutter button indeed "captures" the image slice at that moment in time --
the camera has been "seeing" a continuous video image, and the "shutter" is
simply taking one small slice of that continuous image. That's one of the
reasons for the (sometimes horrendously long) shutter lag in these cameras.

A high-end digital still camera generally falls into one of two categories:
it's either a "scanning camera", which means the sensor actually works like
the sensor in a desktop scanner and "scans" the image formed by the lens,
or it's a DSLR. The "scanning camera" is mostly used in the studio, or for
stationary subjects, and usually is a separate back attached to a medium or
large format camera.

A DSLR such as the Nikon D1-series or D100, or the Canon D-EOS-series, or
D30 or D60, works just like the film cameras they are derived from. As
mentioned above, they do have shutters, and are subject to all the same
physical constraints imposed by a moving focal plane shutter when using
flash. The CCD (or CMOS for some Canons) sensor only "sees" the image at
the instant of exposure. It is *not* a video capture device, and cannot
capture a slice of a moving image. One of the reasons the D1-series can
have a much higher (flash) shutter speed than it's F5 or F100 siblings is
because of the narrower focal plane dimension it needs to uncover, compared
with film. The reason the D100 has only a 1/180 flash sync speed is mostly
due to the shutter it (most likely) inherited from the F/N80, and for
marketing reasons (if you really want a higher flash sync speed, Nikon
wants you to get a D1-series camera).
--
John Albino
mailto:jalbino@jwalbino.com




From: "Milan Pollé" ln.bewfmt.lausivitra@nalim.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Foveon X3 images
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002

"Bill Tuthill" ca_creekin@yahoo.com schreef 
"Milan Pollé" ln.bewfmt.lausivitra@nalim.nl wrote:
>
> From reading the forums at dpreview:
> - The dust spots are indeed dust spots.
> - The noise was caused by wrongly adjusting the images on a laptop display,
> the images have been updated.
> - The color fringing (which is everywhere, just look at the images
> magnified) is caused by the RAW converter software and is one of the
> problems that is being looked into right now by Sigma/Foveon.

> Thanks very much for summarizing, Milan.  Those dpreview forums are
> too slow-responding for me to read.

You're welcome :^) The forums indeed use a slow system.

>> A drawback is a maximum ISO value of 400. Also very bright elements in
>> images seem to lack detail, though that might be normal.
> Yes, the EOS-D1s goes to ISO 1250 and I don't know about the Kodak 14n.
> The brightness could be a curves or levels mapping issue.

Well, the clipping of bright parts in images turned out to also have been
caused by Phil of dpreview :^)

People at the forum are now trying to figure out why the limit is only ISO
400, in part it seems to be caused by the relatively large amount of
transistors used per pixel (9 versus 3 in regular mozaic CCD sensors, if I
remember correctly), the parts that areas per pixel that actually gather the
light seem to be relatively small. The part registering blue is the
smallest, so it suffers from the most noise. This also explains why the
first version is 'just' 3MP, otherwise the pixels would become too small to
gather enough light.

What is interesting is the way the RGB color elements are seperated, no
color filters are used, but seperating is based on the way (doped) silicon
layers absorb different wavelenghts of light, thicker layers absorb
different wavelengths than thinner ones. So they place the sensors at the
right depths in the silicon to register the right color elements. Pretty
impressive and it must have taken a whole lot of experimenting to get the
right results.

Even then the curves don't exactly match those of the RGB cones in our eyes,
so the curves are adjusted by the camera.

>> Compared to even the new Canon 1Ds the Sigma/Foveon images look a lot more
>> crisp, adding some unsharp mask effect brings out even more detail still.
>> With current problems fixed, I think Foveon will provide amazing quality.
> Shame about the focal length multiplier, though.  Hopefully Foveon engineers
> will figure out how to make full-frame sensors Really Soon Now.

I totally agree, and I'm not sure why they chose to go that way. I guess
Sigma might release lenses especially for this camera, though people who
have a collection of compatible lenses already will be a bit disappointed.

best wishes,

Milan




From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: The Great Magapixel Scam
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002


"roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com writes:
>I did extensive reading on the Internet. On Photodo for example. And here
>which is probably the best site
>http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html
>At 100 lp/mm you have hugely lost contrast in a lens.

Again, I think that all of the lenses you have looked at are for 35mm
and larger formats.  You can't expect that to apply to the tiny short
focal length lenses used in most digicams with small sensors and small
pixel pitch.  If you take a lens design and scale it down, the focal
length is reduced, the image scale *and the size of aberrations* are
reduced, and the resolution increases.  Diffraction does not scale
down in the same way, so that limits the gains.  But it's still silly
to expect a 10 mm "normal" lens for a sensor 7 mm wide to have no more
resolution than a 50 mm normal lens designed for an image 36 mm wide.
In fact, the lenses for the smaller format have much higher resolution.

>This resolving power
>for a lens comes from the time of astronomical telescopes. All they had to
>do was resolve the separation between two close-together stars. Extreme
>white on a pitch black background. A camera lens has to do the same for
>mid-tones which is far more difficult. If it CAN do this then it is an
>incredible lens and you would expect to pay through the nose for it.

It's true that limiting resolution for high-contrast subjects isn't the
only thing that determines how good a lens is.  The resolution at 50%
MTF, or the area under the MTF curve, might be more important for
pictorial photography.  But whatever criterion you use, when you scale
down a lens design for a smaller sensor, the lens score can be expected
to increase.  To a first approximation, a particular lens design will
resolve a certain number of cycles per *picture height* for a given
field of view and given contrast.  When you make the sensor smaller and
scale the lens to match, the relative resolution (cycles per picture
height) stays about the same, while "absolute" resolution (cycles per
mm) increases.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption (without any actual
measurements) that small digicam lenses will have the same absolute
resolution as larger 35 lenses, and thus the relative resolution with
the smaller sensor will be awful.  That just isn't the way that optics
works, at least at larger apertures.  Your assumption is wrong, so your
conclusion is also wrong.

On the other hand, diffraction does not scale down like aberrations do,
and that's why the small-sensor digicams have a minimum aperture of f/8
or so.  They would produce bad images at f/22.

        Dave




From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: The Great Magapixel Scam
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002


haijack@onr.com (RD) writes:

>What I remember about CCDs is...

What you remember is correct.  It's the other poster that is wrong.
There *is* a limit to the useful exposure time given by the dark
current.  That's why astronomical CCD cameras are cooled.

Dark frame subtraction helps, but only so long as the dark current plus
the desired image don't saturate the CCD cells.  That's why most
consumer cameras have a maximum exposure time.

For example, the Canon G2 has a 15 second maximum exposure time, and
automatically uses dark frame subtraction for exposures longer than 1
second.  The Canon A200, which uses tiny 2.5 micron pixels, has a
maximum exposure time of 1 second and uses dark frame subtraction for
any exposure longer than 1/6 second.

        Dave





From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: The Great Magapixel Scam
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 

haijack@onr.com (RD) writes:

>I'm curious about the concept of dark frame substraction. I would have
>thought that the noise vectors would be entirely random, and that
>therefore, subtraction and addition could not be differentiated

Dark current noise is mostly *not* random (and so calling it noise is
perhaps a bad idea).  Each pixel "leaks" a fairly predictable amount
of current at a certain temperature, though it varies from one pixel to
the next.  Capturing a dark frame, with the shutter closed,
immediately after the main exposure and for the same time, gives you a
measure of the dark leakage current of each cell under those shooting
conditions.  This is a pretty good estimate of the contribution of dark
current to the "good" image, so if you subtract the dark image from the
good image you remove most of the effects of the dark current.

Now, it doesn't work perfectly.  If the pixel saturates, you have lost
information that you can't get back, so exposures have to be kept short
enough to prevent this.  There *is* some randomness to the dark
current, so the subtraction doesn't cancel it perfectly, and in fact
the random noise level is somewhat increased by the process.  (Adding or
subtracting two random numbers gives you another random number with a
larger variance).  But overall it's worthwhile.

        Dave





Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 
From: Stephen Hui [deleted]@hushmail.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Actually Wanted to comment on Digital versus Film article


Dear: Robert

Your article is quite good and I do definitely agree that film for quality is
better than digital.  However I want to note that there's some problems in your
article.  

First of all your article notes that computers depreciate rapidly.  I
can't argue against that.  However you missed a couple of very important
points.  First off, computers are becoming as common as VCRs in households. So
for a lot of people, you don't really need to consider it as a cost since it's
already there.  Heck if you're reading this chances are you already own a computer.  

You could say that you need a new computer to do image editing which
isn't exactly true either my computer is a 700mhz and it can perform a
sharpness filter in a matter of seconds on a 3 megapixel image.  While I'd like
a newer computer it certainly won't be due to the fact I can't edit photos fast
enough.  Also don't forget that a computer can be used for a whole lot of other
things other than just digital photography. I for example do actual video editing 
on mine.  They're also getting cheaper all the time
which means you can buy a cheap low powered computer and still do all the
things you want to do.  

Also if you're lucky like me you probably already know a fair bit about computers 
and using a digital camera will be a piece of cake. I have to admit it took me much 
longer to learn the basics of photography so I could shoot decent photos period.  

Another point is your cost issue is a worst case scenario.  I have a rechargable 
LiIon battery so aside from tiny amount of juice it draws out of the electrical 
outlet it doesn't cost much to run.  

While yes digital quality is certainly not professional it is reasonable for most
average people at 3 megapix.  I rarely print out photos but instead archive
them on CDs in jpeg format.  Admittedly there's a tiny loss in quality in Jpegs
compared to Raw formats but seriously, it's not that bad as you might believe.

The other thing is not being a professional photographer I can't make every shot 
perfect so I end up shooting multiple shots of everything and deleting what ended 
up looking horrible.  

That's the nice thing about a digital camera, you can be more reckless and not worry
about paying for it in developer's costs.  Archiving is nice too. If you can
live with JPEG you can cram about 500 3-megapixel images on a blank $1 CD-R.
Compare that with a stack of developed postcard sized photos and the negatives
and well you get the idea.  Now I know someone will argue about longevity. But
basically if you treat CD's like you treat negatives (store in a cool dry dark
place), most CD's will probably last nearly a lifetime.  But wait what about
new media?  Well think of it this way, 3 1/2 inch floppy disks used to be THE
storage medium, they held about one 3-megapixel jpeg image and cost about $1.  Now
we have CD-Rs which cost oh what $1 and hold around 500 images?  Also if you
were a heavy user to floppy disks you'd also know that data on floppies lasted
only a couple of years at best too.  

Now I know what you're thinking you'll probably need a computer upgrade to use 
the new storage media but keep in mind computers are rapidly falling in price 
all the time and so is media.  Unless of course you're always for the best which 
is at times overkill for your average consumer.  In a sense, that's what scares me 
a bit about your article, digital cameras do have their place.  

My own experience with my cheap $500 pocket digital camera has been it's fun to use 
and I've learned and taken far more pictures than I would have otherwise hoped.  
And if you ask me that's what photography should be about for your average folk.  
Freely taking a lot of pictures and building an alblum to remember on.

Stephen Hui




Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital Question and Commentary



Resolution is only one issue, but is often used in marketing materials. It may
be a more quantitative comparison, and thus easier, but it does not give all
the comparison information needed. Another issue is that digital has meant
scanning for much longer than it has meant digital cameras and backs. Since
scanners continue to develop, and offer more information captured for less
money, these are often the true competitors, despite rarely being compared.

With wedding photographers, or some others just generating prints from their
work, the speed of direct digital can be such an advantage, that film may not
be worth the trouble in the future. Lower cost digital backs for MF may help
keep older gear still going. The lens multiplication really makes wide angle MF
shooting with digital backs a pain, with only a few exceptions (like Rollei 56
mm square digital back), though that may change in the future.

File size may be a better comparison, but looking at the histogram can be more
revealing. I could generate the same size file from a flat bed scan, a film
scan, and a drum scan, but which one will have better colour information?
Compare any of those to a digital back, and the same size file, and how does
the colour information compare? Some will show better shadow details, but have
blown out highlights, or conversely good highlight details, and crushed blacks.

Film still offers a greater colour range, and even scanned film can have more
information than direct digital capture. Also, film can be scanned again in the
future with better technology, while a shot made just on digital is forever
frozen at the level of the captured image. Of course, a shot that is deleted
after "editing" in the field (on a 2" LCD), is gone forever.

If digital fits into ones workflow now, then it is not a bad expense. There are
lease plans for many digital backs, with some ability to trade up to better
future models. If your workflow is high volume (like catalogue, product
shooting, etc.), or needs to be very quickly to your client (news), then
digital anything may be a good investment now.

I find that at the moment, it is easy to sell my photography based upon the
quality of film, and the ability for it to be scanned at many different file
sizes, and for many different purposes. While I do get many questions about
using digital cameras, people do understand that scanning film is digital, and
many clients are happy to have either option to use for finished printed work.

In many ways, direct digital is still the next Polaroid. The instant
gratification is the main selling point. This is the same marketing that sells
many consumer items, but has difficulty establishing brand loyalty. Many are
quite happy with mediocre quality, but does that mean we must cater to that?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html

DM wrote:

> Is there a correlation between grain and pixels?
>
> e.g. Assuming all other things being equal, a 6x7cm transparency will
> exhibit finer grain/resolution/definition at 50 ASA than at 200 ASA (ISO).
> Will, say, 5 megapixels on a chip 3cm x 2cm exhibit better
> resolution/definition than 3 megapixels on the same size chip (if that is
> the right word).
>
> I presume that it will. But, a fellow pro tells me that both choice of
> software and file size are at least equally important.
>
> I have asked for people's opinion in the past on the Fuji S2. In raw mode, a
> file size of 35MB is possible. He says that up to A4, this compares
> favourably with his Hasselblad shooting transparency.
> Comments please.
>
> DM
>
> ps....I hope that people don't mind me posting digital questions on a medium
> format newsgroup.
>
> Firstly, the medium format camera is the professionals' workhorse, so I am
> more likely to get fellow professionals answering my questions.
>
> Secondly, the 35mm digital versus medium format digital debate is entering a
> critical phase now. Strictly speaking, there is NO "format" in digital
> photography. There is only good and bad. I spoke last week to a dealer who
> just returned from Photokina. The view there was, apparently, that medium
> format's days are numbered. 35mm digital cameras are catching up rapidly
> with the medium format digital backs (Kodak are soon to launch a 35mm camera
> which is considered their near equal). The digital market is being driven by
> those who really need convenience - i.e. Press photographers etc...- not us
> lazy studio bods! ;-) Hence, the rapid advances being made in the 35mm
> digital arena. I predict that the medium format digital backs will collapse
> in price in the next year or two, and that anyone paying the price of a car
> to buy one now is nuts! Ultimately, this market will go the same way as the
> personal computer market. i.e. Instead of paying £15,000 for the equivalent
> of a Morris Minor, we will be paying half that for a Ferrari equivalent in a
> year or two. Watch this space! ;-)
>
> DM





From: root@mauve.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: CMOS imagers vs CCD
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 


Christian Rathjen christian.rathjen@cern.ch wrote:
> Hello!

> I have a few questions:

> Is there a (simple) explanation why CCD imagers are more sensitive than CMOS
imagers?
> Are these fundamental limitations?

> Is there a rule of thumb by which factor CCDs are better, i.e. more sensitive
(supposing same exposure time and same sensitive area)?

> Why do CMOS imagers not allow long exposure times?

CCDs are generally more sensitive both because they have more collecting
area, and have lower dark current and hence longer exposure times.

However, this is not fundamental, there are developments happening, in
that the newer CMOS sensors are almost as good as CCDs, with similar dark
currents to some older ones.

CMOS sensors also have the potential to be better, there are some designs
that propose putting a photosensitive layer on top of a CMOS chip that
does the readout. This could do near 100% fill-factor.

Both the best CMOS, and the best CCDs are getting pretty close to fundamental
limits.

Colour CCDs currently waste 70% or so of the light in filters, you could
potentially get a factor of three by stacking three sensors on top of
each other (search on foveon).

Current CCDs have a readout noise of a few electrons, though the best
(TC237 for example) claims a read noise of under an electron, in theory
letting you count one electron.

There is at best a factor of 10 possible improvement in the
sensitivity of the best colour imagers.

--
Ian Stirling.
http://inquisitor.i.am/ 
mailto:inquisitor@i.am





Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] He got my blood pressure up...

Bill writes:

> The real comparison is a side by side examination of
> large prints, one an optical print from the chrome,
> and one in the medium of your choice from the digicam.

No, scans are a much better form of comparison.  Prints introduce a lot of
additional variables that have nothing to do with the type of image capture
used.

However, to get the most objective possible comparison, you need the best
possible scan, and that means a drum scan at the highest possible
resolution, carefully adjusted to maximize the amount of information
extracted from the film.  The results can be very impressive.

Of course, most film isn't scanned that way, because most images don't have
to be of such high quality ... but if one is comparing the intrinsic quality
of film images vs. digital images, a fair comparison requires the best
possible scans on the film side, otherwise you are leaving quality behind
and pretending it isn't there.

Personally, the only thing I can see objectionable about film is grain.  But
grain in fine-grained films isn't that bad, and the rest is very nice.
Certainly I see no reason to go digital at this point in time; not only is
the absolute quality not really any better, but the cost to get into it is
cripplingly high, with no real return on that huge initial investment to
justify it (unless you need photos RIGHT NOW, instead of a few hours from
now).

> Unfortunately, many of the people touting digital
> cameras over film, especially those in computer magazines,
> have little or no knowlege of film photography.

Digital photography is vastly democratizing photography, that's for sure,
and a decline in general knowledge of photography is the inevitable result.
The most clueless questions asked about photography are often asked by those
who have used only digital cameras.  Then again, there are even seasoned
film photographers who are seduced by the Digital Side and incorrectly
believe that they can throw away all the existing rules of photography, like
correct exposure, composition, and so on.





Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] He got my blood pressure up...

> Personally, the only thing I can see objectionable about film is grain.  But
> grain in fine-grained films isn't that bad, and the rest is very nice.
> Certainly I see no reason to go digital at this point in time; not only is
> the absolute quality not really any better, but the cost to get into it is
> cripplingly high, with no real return on that huge initial investment to
> justify it (unless you need photos RIGHT NOW, instead of a few hours from
> now).

perhaps it's just a prejudice but i find film grain to be an enhancing
and attractive artifact of that medium, particularly when developed
with a non-solvent or dilute developer.

i find no digital artifacts, whether pixellation, aliasing or
jpeg compression algorithms to be attractive in any way.

-rei
--
Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
Ridgewood, New Jersey





Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] He got my blood pressure up...

Rei writes:

> perhaps it's just a prejudice but i find film
> grain to be an enhancing and attractive artifact
> of that medium, particularly when developed
> with a non-solvent or dilute developer.

It's nice when you want it, but terribly irritating when you don't.  Most of
the time, I don't want grain in my photos.  I'd like all films to be no more
grainy than Technical Pan in Technidol.  Provia comes pretty close.

> i find no digital artifacts, whether pixellation,
> aliasing or jpeg compression algorithms to be
> attractive in any way.

I agree with this.

Additionally, digital photos have a way of looking "sharply soft."  That is,
they give the impression of great sharpness, yet at the same time they
always look as if there is something mysteriously soft about them.  Perhaps
it is because the absolute resolution is lower, but the individual pixels
are "cleaner."





Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Film vs Digital

Charles,

The main problem I have with this guy's web site, is he pretends to be
independent, and I am VERY skeptical that he is in fact independent.
Unfortunately, a LOT of people read his site, and take it as fact, and his
word unquestionable.  Anyone can say anything they want on a web site, and
go unchallenged.  Most people are incapable of separating the "wheat from
the chaff" as you say, when it comes to digital.


One of the "big lies" in the digital world, that goes unmentioned most of
the time, is the Bayer pattern sensors.  When a camera claims 11M PIXELS it
is in fact not really 11M PIXELS.  The camera is 11M SENSORS.  One sensor
does NOT equal one pixel when they use a Bayer pattern imaging sensor.
These Bayer pattern sensors only have %50 green, %25 blue and %25 red
sensors, so an "11M" sensor really only has 5.5M sensors green, 2.75M
sensors blue and 2.75M sensors red.  How they get 11M PIXELS out of this is
to interpolate the data (basically use the actual data to create
intermediate data points that are "best guess" of what might have been
there), which means the resultant pixels are not in fact %100 original image
data, only about %33 is, the rest is simply algorithmically "rendered".

This is also why it is comparing apples to oranges when comparing digital
cameras to scanned film...as the scanned film DOES have REAL
resolution...every spot on the film has all three colors there, and no "best
guessing" is required to make up more data.

The inspiration that site has given me is merely to correct the
misinformation that people cling to...  I don't believe that counts, does
it?

Regards,

Austin
...





Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film vs Digital

Dr. Young writes:

> Film is still largely printed on photo paper...
> digital is still largely output on desktop
> computer printers ( esp if you "do it yourself").

And that is unfortunate, because the latest digital minilabs do an
absolutely stunning job of printing images from digital files, irrespective
of the original source of the files (scanned film or a digital camera).  Not
only that, but the true photo prints are no more expensive than inkjet
prints, even though they look much better.  I can get a very nice glossy
8x12 in 15 minutes at my favorite one-hour lab, from a CF card, using their
Frontier, and it costs me $4.  It takes 30 minutes to print the same thing
on my Epson 2000P, and it doesn't look as good, and it costs more ... so
lately I've been getting all my prints at a lab for sizes of 8x12 or below
(most labs can't print larger sizes on photo paper, unless they are pro
labs).

I've also gotten 20x24-inch prints from scans of Provia shot with a 501CM
and Planar 80mm from pro labs, printed on Durst Lambda printers, and the
results are superlative ... and the results look just like what I saw on the
screen, which is tremendously satisfying (compared to the games one must
play to get inkjet prints or optical prints that look as one expects or
wants them to).

Anyway, with the current state of the art and market, I think that inkjet
prints are largely a waste of time, being more expensive and of inferior
quality to true photo prints from a digital lab.







Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 
From: "Dr. Robert Young" rcyoung@aliconsultants.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film vs Digital

I believe you are correct on this. I have developed a little "test" that I
have tried 2-3 times in the last 2 years. I have an image that came from a
high resolution scan of a 6x6 negative. I have it printed as 8x10 on
whatever printer I am considering (ink jet, color laser, etc) with proper
paper, ink, etc. I also had it printed at a digital service center,  and
printed directly off the negative. Then I let "someone else" look at them
with instructions not too be worried about slight color shifts (I know
those could be corrected with enough time in Photoshop). I simply want
their opinion of which is "sharper or clearer". So far, the  ink jets and
color lasers have never been selected as "the best".

The sad part is  I like to manipulate the image (burning, dodging, etc)
...I am a darkroom junkie at heart...and when you have to send every
version off to the service center for reproduction, it gets way too expensive.


 >Anyway, with the current state of the art and market, I think that inkjet
 >prints are largely a waste of time, being more expensive and of inferior
 >quality to true photo prints from a digital lab.





Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film vs Digital

Ken writes:

> Are you also saying that the print you get
> from a digital file printed on photopaper
> and one off the negative are equally as good?

Chemical prints from film scans are typically _superior_ to optical prints
from film.  The reason for this is that an optical system must be capable of
resolving the entire image with high quality simultaneously, whereas a
scanner need only resolve one pixel at a time.  It's much easier to build a
scanner that can provide extraordinarily high resolution than it is to try
to build an enlarger (and lens) that will do the same.

For example, a chemical print from a film scan is unerringly sharp from
corner to corner, whereas achieving the same even sharpness across the field
with an enlarger and a lens is extremely difficult, since no lens can
provide perfect sharpness from corner to corner.





From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 
From: "Mark Stuart" madfamily at bigpond.com
Subject: Re: Fungus

Interestingly, I just read a letter in Amateur Photographer about
fungus on CD's. The guy had stored photos on them thinking it was
more or less permanent, but apparently there is a fungus that thrives
on polycarbonate and aluminium! Looks just like some lens fungi. The
result was that they couldn't be read. They were stored in air
condititoning all their lives, too. Beware!

Mark




Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How long to practical LF digital?


IMHO (which some say is not humble enough...)

Depends on what you're waiting for, and what you fear.  The economics of a
sensor that would be 4x5 inches, or even 3x4 inches is very expensive.  It's
easier for the industry to think in terms of squeezing more resolution into
the existing format.  Also the economics of capturing 100MB + files per
exposure, doesn't make field work practical from a power and bulk
standpoint, though that is the thing most likely to change with time.

Now the "scanning backs" are already for still in studio work.  The price of
those may start coming done.  Again the amount of data captured makes being
away a computer a problem. The fact that is scans lke a flatbed computer
means that "interesting" artifacts can be created if there is movement durng
the scan.    Though the physics of it are tough, its possible that the time
for the sensor to sweep the image area may become fast enough to reduce
this, I can't see it getting faster enough to eliminate it.

I find it more likely that the sensors that are for medium format cameras
will have a resolutoin to rival large format in image quality and that
either we'll mount those in our large format cameras or someone will build a
bellow camera around that sensor.  Could mean that those smaller speed
graphics become popular and that I'll wish I hadn't sold that 47mm F8
SuperAngulon.

As far as digital bumping off large format film, I am personaly more
concerned about digital bumping film in any format.  Since larger format is
using the same emulsions as 35mm, APS and medium format, I'd be concerned
that the lower use of any format of a particular emulsion might cause that
emulsion to be discontinued.  I'd guess that 35mm and medium format makes up
the lions share of any given elumsion's market.  I'd doubt that large format
alone would justify further R&D.

I know I plan to go digital capture at the point I can
1) afford the technology
2) take 20-30 image without returning to base.
3) capture a 300MB files (48bit depth)
4) get the equivelant of front tilt/swing.

The big variable is affordable.  Will depend on
1) whether this is a complete system replacement,
2) amount of film I think I'll shoot in the next year.  Right now I consider
digital backs as disposible after 1-2 years based on the rate technology is
moving.  Cost of the sensor essentially replaces like the cost of
film/processing.

Today Readyload at $3/sheet plus $1.5 for processing.  $4.5 per exposure.
250 sheets/year  means a back could cost $1-2K assuming the storage of
images in the field weren't a costly item.

Todd

"Collin Brendemuehl" dpcwilbur@excite.com wrote 
> Small form-factor digital is currently wrecking havoc with
> medium format film systems.  (Film stuff is going really
> cheap here in Columbus.)
> The question is:  How long until practical large image sensors
> start to do a job on LF film?




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 
From: "twm47099" montemaranotw@nswccd.navy.mil
Subject: OT - Dust & digital was -- Re: Lens cleaning advice needed

We had a guest speaker at our local camera club the other night.  He
is a local pro who had made the switch from film to digital.  He is a
Nikon user (F5) who at the demand of his customers made the switch.
He tried a number of cameras including the E-10, but felt that it
didn't support his style of shooting (He takes over a 1000 shots
(landscapes, portraits,closeups) on a 2-3 day assignment) and he
wanted to use the expensive glass he had accumulated for his F5.  So
he bought a D1X.  His first assignment was almost a disaster since on
the second day he noted that his CCD was covered in dust (found out
while he was reviewing all his shots for the day).  He described his
cleaning procedure, which was somewhat disconcerting (essentially
scrub the CCD).  However, also interesting was that he traced the
dust problem to his lenses.  At first he thought it was just dust
from the outside entering the camera when he changed lenses. By trial
and error he found out that the source of the problem was dust in the
lenses transferring into the camera.  He has reduced his dust
problems, by regularly blowing out his lenses with canned air.  If he
doesn't do it regularly, the problem keeps coming back.

Tom




From: Douglas A. fordprefect80@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: One more reason not to go digital?
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002


Interesting timing considering that I've been asking a lot of
questions about scanners, and whether the timing is right to go
digital. I just received an e-mail message my lab sends out to all of
their customers. There isn't anything proprietary here, so I don't see
any reason not to post it. But given the problems they're seeing, it
appears a lot of people are rushing out to go digital because its the
"cool" thing to do, and don't have a clue about what it entails. This
is long, so skip it if you get bored easily. But if you're like me, on
the fence about what direction to go, this is food for thought.


The 21st century has turned us into a world of instant gratification.
We want our Taco Bell orders immediately, to get to the grocery in ten
minutes, the fastest computers, the best digital cameras we can
afford, the best software and we want it all now. Technology is
interesting. The more that is available the more we have to learn.
That goes for you, the photographer and us, the lab. Where am I
heading with this? For instance, our busy phone lines, difficulties
with color from digital files and software problems.

Please remember when software is developed it is usually tested on the
most current stable operating systems. This does not mean it will
always work perfectly on all systems. We cannot possibly know what
your system has on it or how you operate your system. So we set a
standard and strive for that. For some systems there may be errors.
Sometimes it is something simple. Sometimes it isn't. We cannot fix a
problem unless we can duplicate it. That is why we don't always have
an immediate answer for any particular error message. So yes, it takes
time to figure these out. I am referring to some of the issues with
Web Based Digital Print and Proof ordering. Remember, we do have these
programs available on CD or they can be downloaded in order that the
orders can be sent in on CD

We are primarily a portrait and wedding lab. Our business has always
been to get the best possible prints from your negatives whether they
are exposed correctly or not. You have come to depend on us for this.
Then came digital files and digital cameras. Although we have been
printing digitally for about 12 years now, it was from scanned
negatives. Digital camera files are less forgiving. We cannot correct
them like we can a negative. We will try to help you learn correct
settings for your camera and lighting. If you receive a print and the
color is not correct, we (Customer Service or one of the coordinators)
cannot always give you an answer like we can with negatives. We have
to see the files to know what may have gone wrong. We know several of
you have tried or used businesses like Sam's Club to get proofs. We
also know that they may be cheap, but they are not a professional lab.
They do not understand color like we do, photography like we do,
paper, chemicals or anything else that we constantly control. How
often are they changing chemicals and calibrating to their monitor?
Unless you have the same hardware they do and calibrate the same as
they do, there still is no guarantee. That is why we color correct at
no charge. Did you ever correct your own negatives? Why should you
start now? Remember we have several years of experience and have
always been there to help.

Last, I would like to address our phones. They are extremely busy.
Why? We have added computer systems and software programs along with
digital camera files. We depend on you to have some working knowledge
of your computer system. We receive phone calls and emails on a daily
basis asking how to burn a CD, how to search for a file, how to get
images off the micro drive and the list goes on. Please try to help us
serve you better. Yes, we do have several technical people on the
phones, but realize that these types of phone calls can take an hour
or more to walk someone through their problem. We are not saying we do
not want to help you. Just please realize the amount of time these
calls take.

In the past I have given different links to try to help you. If you
are not familiar with Windows or do not have basic working knowledge
of a computer, there are several avenues you can try. There are free
computer workshops weekly at the local high schools. Any question that
you may have, you can look up on the Internet. It is quite simple. Use
one of the search engines (a place that you can type in key words and
get links to help you). Some of the more popular search engines are
www.yahoo.com, www.google.com, www.excite.com or www.lycos.com. Just
login to one of them and try it.

We are not making excuses and do not want to offend anyone. We just
want you to understand we are in a learning process just as you are.
We try to accommodate everything you want, to make your job easier. As
technology advances we too try to stay on the cutting edge. Thank you
for your understanding and patience.





From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: One more reason not to go digital?
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 


When I last got a digital scan of mine printed at a pro lab, the lab was
very surprised by the file I gave them ... because it printed as-is, without
any adjustment or retouching.  They told me that they hardly ever get files
that are actually in a condition to be printed directly ... apparently most
photographers who scan themselves are quite clueless on how to prepare files
for printing.  They were even quite wary about accepting my file and
printing it "as-is" (which is what I had suggested), but when they actually
saw the file, they were quite relieved.  And the file did print on paper
just as it looked on the screen.

The same is true for files I give to one-hour labs to print on a Frontier.
They are a bit wary because they receive so many rotten digital files
(either from scans or--more often--from digital cameras), and then get
blamed when the print doesn't look perfect.  But I prepare my files
carefully, and I consistently get prints that look exactly like what I had
on the screen.  Even the lab comments on how beautifully they come out.  But
it's all in the preparation.  A good digital file produces a great print; a
bad digital file produces a bad print.  In the digital world, what comes out
is an exact function of what goes in.

A consequence of this, incidentally, is that I'm now much more encouraged to
get prints from labs.  I can scan the film myself, carefully adjust it so
that it looks _exactly_ the way I want it to, and then take the digital file
to a lab to get it printed.  If they print the file exactly as I provided
it, without any retouching (and I normally specify that it should be printed
"as-is") the results are FAR superior to anything I ever obtained with
optical prints direct from negatives ... because all the uncertainty of
operator intervention has been eliminated.  The digital minilabs print
exactly what's on the file, and as long as they are maintained with a
modicum of care, you get EXACTLY what you put on the file.  It's great!  I'm
getting some of the best 8x12 and larger prints I've ever had now, from
digital scans, and they only cost $4, instead of $50 or $60, since I can get
them even from one-hour labs.

...(quotes above post..)





From: "Tom" seaskate@removethis.attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: One more reason not to go digital?
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002

Hello Kevin,

Ya gotta go here:  http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

These guys offer a free profile of your local Frontier 370 or 390 and also
Noritsu machines.

I use their profile for the test target I sent in (my database entry is for
Orange Park Florida) and it works perfectly.

This is free and is the best deal going for people that use these machines.

I am a happy camper.

Tom




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: One more reason not to go digital?
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002

"Tom" seaskate@removethis.attbi.com wrote:
> Ya gotta go here:  http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

Really. Thanks. That site _really_ helps. Thanks!

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "Skip Middleton" shadowcatcher@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bottom Line Digital vs Film
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002


I have, and the difference was barely discernable, but there none the less,
Canon D-60 vs. Canon A2, both with 28-135 IS mounted, not just the same
model lens, but the same lens.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Rene Goyena" goyena@attbi.com wrote 
> Have you preformed such a test? If not, are you qualified to make this
> comparison? How?




From: salts2001@aol.com (Salts2001)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 03 Nov 2002 
Subject: Re: Bottom Line Digital vs Film

> I looked at many of his prints (300 dpi from a 3Mpix camera) and while
>the colors and detail were very, very good, the difference was in how
>subtle color shifts registered.  Skin tone/texture is one areas I'm not
>impressed with.

Did an experiment at my office a few weeks ago.  We were purchasing new photo
equipment for various art work and were stuck in the argument between film and
digital...so we decided to let the masses decide which way to go.

Took two pics of the same subject, one with a Digital SLR and one with a 35mm
SLR. (Both of major professional brand, but names left off to avoid disputes)
No changes in lighting or angle.  Took the 8x10 prints and passed them around
to staff for input.  This was a wide mix of staff...secretaries, managers,
janitor...not just the art and PR people.  The print from the 35mm was far and
above the winner.  Both looked good, but the coloration and crispness was
weaker in the digital.  As Alan noted, you can see the difference in the color
shifts.  Sometimes in backgrounds it gives an almost artificial or cartoony
feel.  We decided to stick with film for a bit longer.




from minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 
From: "Kris Viverette" kgv@flashmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: NO MORE 35MM SLR's... ESPECIALLY MINOLTA

I always enjoy seeing these threads about digital vs. film, but am usually
disapointed to see them come down to a resolution issue. Am I the only one
who has problems with colors and lighting with digital cameras?

I'm sure that most of you use specific film for getting that delicate color
balance just right on your SLR (I've seen the discussions here on the list),
so why is it that we accept digital camera's poor color and lighting
performance? Yes, I'll grant you that in sunny or studio conditions this is
not really an issue, but once you get into poorly lit areas, indoor
pictures, flash pictures the lighting is often wrong, and even if the
lighting settings are tweaked colors can still come out wrong.

When will manufacturers start trying to develop a digital camera that can
properly photograph skin under all conditions? Until that day I keep my
pocket sized digital point-and-shoot for its take-a-picture-anywhere
convenience, but I'll stick to my SLR for everything else.

Kris




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 
From: "D. Patterson" nye@fidalgo.net
Subject: Re: Re: Re: NO MORE 35MM SLR's... ESPECIALLY MINOLTA

...(quotes above post)

Kris,

My Sony MVC-CD1000 is giving me much more accurate results in color than
film has ever provided, regardless of the conditions. A collaborator who
specializes in conservation and restoration work has noted that the
histogram from my Sony is extraordinarily well balanced in its color
renditions, whereas Nikon and Fuji cameras have produced histograms
which required extensive adjustments in Adobe PhotoShop to correct for
color aberrations. It appears from this experience that there is a
considerable difference between digital cameras in their ability to
correctly record and interpret the colors. You may get better results by
experimenting until you find a digital camera which produces good color
resutls. An executive at Minolta gave me his observation that Sony's
years of experience with commercial broadcast quality video camera
systems is likely to be responsible for the superior performance of some
Sony digital camera products with the interpretation and recording of
color.

Dallas Patterson
nye@fidalgo.net





Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 
From: Daniel Lee Daniel@DKLImages.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503 CW Trouble

I'm seeing a whole heck of a lot of hasseys on EBAY...is everyone going
digital or what?
...





Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 
From: mak@teleport.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503 CW Trouble

Here in the NW we seem to be losing a studio a week to the economy dealers all
over the US bemoan the total collapse of MF sales. Apparently the flood of
gear coupled with the high tech toy dollars from 35mm users wishing to step up
are going to D100 D60 etc rather than MF gear makes for happy days for
shooters.

oceans of dated 220 and 70mm are coming on the market now at stunning prices
as all the catalog houses went digital a year or two ago and stopped buying
film...





Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Digital back pricing

Austin Franklin wrote:

> I am specifically talking MF Hasselblad, not 35mm.  There aren't any
> full-frame MF sensors at this point in time,

Awfully close though: the active sensor surface in the 22 MP Sinarback 54
measures 40 x 51 mm. Not a lot smaller than 42 x 56 mm we know as MF 6x4.5.





Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Digital back pricing

...(quotes above)


Q.G.,

My specs say the physical sensor area is 49,0 mm x 36,7 mm, which is only
%76 of 56 x 42.  Is that not correct?  If so, I'd say that's almost close
enough to full frame 645 to call it, well, "almost" full frame ;-)

I should have made my self clearer, I was talking specifically about 6x6.
I'll have to get used to the fact that in some months to come, you will
actually be able to get a 645 Hasselblad.

I doubt the price of the Sinarback 45 is anywhere near that of a film
magazine though, which was the actual point, not really the details of the
sensor.

Austin





Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Digital back pricing

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hum.  You might want to contact Sinar and correct their errant spec.  The
> info I got is directly from their web site, and is the spec they list for
> the Sinarback 54:
>
> "Sinarback 54 S: 1-shot
> . Sensor dimensions: Sinarback 54: 49,0 mm x 36,7 mm"

Time to contact Sinar, yes.
The (Sinar provided) specs i have clearly mention an active area of 40 x 51
mm on a 45 x 60 mm chip. Worse yet, i had a look at their site too, and
found they also say it is 38.8 mm x 50.0 mm.




From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
Subject: RE: Leica is out of touch with the real photographic world

 Darrell Jennings wrote:
>I guess it depends on your definition of useless

By useless, I meant that Leica lenses outperform sensor capabilities and
will produce artifacts that cannot be corrected in Photoslop.

The same is true for good Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, etc...

So, with the proper dumbing down of Leica etc lenses via low pass filters
on the sensor, these lenses become useful. But they are no better than each
other and no better than the high end fixed (non removable) zoom lensed
cameras.

As I said, the CCD/CMOS sensor and interpolation algorithms are the great
equalizer.

That's what you see in a digital image. The electronic hardware and the
software's capabilities.

I'm done here. You guys can argue on. Comparing digital cameras and images
with film cameras and images is like comparing fruit cake with Creme Brulee.

Jim





From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: RE: [Contax] Contax and Digital
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002

Certainly the early digital cameras (with relatively low resolution) also
had poor lenses and were frequently prone to problems of chromatic
aberration. Aside from a few manufacturers (like Sony who use Zeiss lenses
on some of their digitals) the quality of the lenses are still not up to
what we would expect for a 35mm camera. However, as the quality of optics
has improved the drive to higher resolution sensors the electrical
interference between pixels creates a problems called 'bloom' or 'fringing'
which is seen in high contrast areas. It is likely that the digital SLR's
suffer more from 'bloom' than 'chromatic aberration'.

On the other hand, the other problem that has plagued digital cameras is
digital 'noise'. This is something that digital photographers consider to be
unacceptable. It is unlike 'grain' in film which has a much more random
pattern than the unattractive, blocky pixels of the digital cameras. The
'noise' comes from the different electrical specs of the individual pixels.
When you are in low light situations, the ambient charge of the different
pixels creates speckles which are very apparent. This is exaggerated by the
digital camera's tendency to increase CCD sensitivity (to emulate film ISO)
by increasing the 'gain' of the sensor. This unfortunately, increases the
'noise' problem but because the differences in pixels sensitivity are
regular it is possible to digitally reverse the effects through what is
known as a 'dark frame'. Using the 'dark frame' (as the Sony DSC-F717 uses)
essentially 'subtracts' the 'noise' from high sensitivity (ISO 400+) shots.

Unfortunately, the N Digital appears not to be using these noise reduction
techniques and it has been severely criticized for  being unusable above the
equivalent of ISO 100 because of CCD noise. So it may not have the problem
of chromatic aberration but it has its own share of other issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nabil Esphahani [mailto:nesphahani@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: [Contax] Contax and Digital


A few early reviews of the Canon 1Ds show some visible (even on prints)
Chromatic Aberrations with wide angles (could be just bad camera or lens
samples). I was thinking maybe Contax was right regarding the need for
bigger lens mount for a full frame censor DSLR. Those of you that have
used the N Digital did you see any CA with wide angles like the
17-35/2.8 at the 17 mm end?

If Contax does not suffer from this problem maybe they still have a
chance at making it (bigger) in the DSLR market if they come up with a
new DSLR by the end of  the first quarter of 2003 that addresses the
other shortcomings of the N digital. They can then focus their marketing
on the advantages gained with their lens mount. It would be hard for
other makers to come up with a new mount without upsetting their biggest
advantage, the large embedded base of folks owning their current lenses.

Note: The review said that CA with 1Ds was the best (least CA) with the
new 16-35 Canon lens, so maybe Canon can actually release new wide
angles that resolve this problem without actually changing the mount!


Nabil






From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: digital era:
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002


John Stafford wrote:
>
>  Robert Monaghan at rmonagha@smu.edu wrote 
>
> > [...]
> > Carver Mead's comments [he designed the CMOS 16MP chip] that density is
> > unlikely increase (based on physics limitations) suggests that we are
> > more likely to see bigger sensors in the future for higher densities,
> > rather than smaller ones as the trends might make you think,
>
> Good point, and I'll dig a bit deeper on that.

Hint: the pixel cannot have smaller dimensions that the wavelength of
the light it is meant to capture. In practice several wavelengths, to
have useful sensitivity (i.e. keep the noise floor down).

-- Lassi




From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 
From: Mark Bohrer lurchl@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: film vs digital FYI


I'm glad there's some support for film (and indirectly for Leicas).
However, the digital shooters are doing *something* right. Yesterday, I
received the email below.

In the part below that was HTML graphic, pro wildlife shooter Moose
Peterson compares the expense, time waiting for development, and chemical
pollution of film to digital. His wildlife images made with D1-family
cameras appear on his website www.moose395.net (and elsewhere). And no, I
wasn't paid to present this information...

Before you hit the 'send' key in righteous indignation, yes, I acknowledge
that film doesn't have the permanency, computer format problems, and
filtering/algorithm disadvantages digital has, as we've discussed on the
LEG recently. After all, I use Leica M equipment (alongside Nikon film and
digital SLRs).

It pays to be aware of all the available tools; a new one might suit your
needs.
...




From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 
From: "Victor Wek" photvictor@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Foveon

On last Photokina, Foveon rep. told me, they do not look into SLR 35mm
market right now. They try to find someone and go to P&S market instead.

Pictures from X3 look better then from Cannon 1Ds IMHO.

Victor




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 
From: "uchat.rm" uchat@rocketmail.com
Subject: Re: digital SLR mounting different lens mounts re: digital ramblings

Olympus is working on it. It's called four/third system or something.
Currently Kodak and Fuji have join the project. It has standard lens
mount so you can buy body from one company and lenses from others and
they will work together.

Because it sensor area is smaller than 35mm, you can have smaller body
and lenses.  How about 28-200 f2.8 :-)

--- In Minolta@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:
>
> A more interesting question is whether somebody will come out with a generic
> digital camera body with interchangeable lens mounts ;-) After all, our
> big investment is in the glass - lenses - and there is no reason why some
> of the more popular mounts couldn't be used with a standardized camera body.
> We have to presume a full format chip nowadays (24x36mm). I think the market
> would be there, amongst millions of users of each major format, to do this?
> Possibly sigma, if their SLR goes digital, would have the incentive to do
> this for not only their own lens mount, but the other lens mounts they
> support, with a digital camera version (perhaps using a foveon sensor)?




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 
From: "Dave Saalsaa" SaalsD@cni-usa.com
Subject: Re: Re: digital vs. film (I am asking THE question)

Back on topic,   Smitty how did the shoot go with the people and the horses
and car?  I just read an article about professional photographers jumping on
the digital bandwagon.  It claims 48% of pro photographers are now using
digital cameras.  I am seriously looking at the  7hi.  I really don't care
at this point if the camera has interchangable lenses as long at the lens
provided has a good focal range like the 7hi.  The sensors used now cannot
make use of any lens resolution over 40 lpi anyway.  It's all in the
firmware converting that image into something we can use.  Digital, the
great equalizer of lens quality.

Dave Saalsaa





From: Douglas A. fordprefect80@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 645 NII opinions wanted
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002

 bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) wrote:
>Maybe they have a way to "go digital" with replacements for the film inserts in
>the future, which would allow you to use the same lenses, but until/unless they
>offer this solution I'd advise buying Mamiya or Blad or something else with
>interchangeable backs and a clear-cut digital o

Bob, Pentax demonstrated a digital insert at Photokina this year. You
can read about it on the Luminous-Landscape Web site.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: digital era:
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002


"Billy" Somewhere.else@not.here.com wrote:

> > Hint: the pixel cannot have smaller dimensions that the wavelength of
> > the light it is meant to capture. In practice several wavelengths, to
> > have useful sensitivity (i.e. keep the noise floor down).
>
> However, another technology is to use the same sensor to
> capture the full spectrum rather than the current RGBG
> interpolation scheme.  This would result in approx 4x
> resolution in the same die size.

The "4x" estimate of improved resolution is rather overoptimistic, since
RGBG (Bayer) sensors resolve about 65 to 75% of the theoretical limit
(Nyquist frequency) for monochrome sensors. (Except if you put a red filter
on your camera.)

Kodak used to sell (but discontinued) a monochrome digital camera, and Sigma
now has a Foveon sensor camera out.

In practice, this improves the resolution of Bayer sensors slightly, to 75%
to 85% of Nyquist. The result is that the 3.4MP Sigma camera captures about
the same detail as the 5MP Sony F707, but is still shy of the D60. However,
there still seem to be a few glitches, like problems with noise and color
rendition, in the Foveon sensor.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 
From: "Kent Gittings" kent@ism.com
Subject: RE: DSLR rumor

Well if the Canon's are any indication once the pixel count started getting
to 6 MP or over only the pro lenses have proven to be able to produce really
sharp digital photos. Consumer lenses that worked on the D30 had to be
chucked in favor of the better F2.8 pro lenses to take advantage of the
increased resolution. Of course that is with smaller than full frame CCDs so
maybe it wouldn't be an issue.
Then again this announcement could be by Pentax also who is known to be
working on a DSLR camera in the $1600 price range. But with a pixel count of
10 Mp I doubt anybody could make it and make money on it at anything lower
than about $3000.

Kent Gittings





From: "Marc S. Fogel" msf@pmclaw.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 
Subject: [Contax] [PMC] DSLR Rumor

I stumbled across this at Luminous Landscapes:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml

November 30, 2002

normally don't publish rumours, though I do hear a lot of them, but one
that comes from a well informed source is worth pondering. Apparently at
the PMA show in early March one of the major camera manufacturers will
be announcing a new DSLR that uses a new 10 Megapixel, full-frame Foveon
chip. Who it is, price, other features and availability are unknown, but
all I can say is - let the games begin




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 
From: "D. Patterson" nye@fidalgo.net
Subject: Re: Re: DSLR rumor

Shady Janzeir wrote:
>
> Guys,
> Let's get one thing straight. In layman's The Sigma SD-9's Foveon sensor is
> three sensors sandwiched together, with each sensing one of the three
> primary colors (red, grean and blue). Now, each one of the three layered has
> a 3.3 megapixel count. so the cumulative pixel count amounts to 10 mp. Now,
> when the rumor says there will be a 10mp Foveon-equiped SLR, will the sensor
> be the same as the above, or will it be three layers of 10mp each (i.e.
> cumulative 30mp)??
> Interesting thought, don't you think??
>
> Shady


I'm sorry Shady, but that is not the way in which the pixels are counted
on the Foveon sensor. The Foveon X3 Pro 10M CMOS Image Sensor has a size
of 20.7 x 13.8 mm, and the total pixel locations are 2304 x 1536 or
3,538,944. However, not all of these pixel locations are effective
photodetectors in the camera design. The effective pixel locations are
2268 x 1512 pixels or 3,429,216 total effective pixel locations. A
principal difference between the Foveon and Bayer pattern sensors is the
number of photodetectors per pixel location. The equivalent Bayer
pattern sensor has just one photodetector at each pixel location, and
the Foveon sensor has three photodetectors at each pixel location.
Consequently, the Foveon sensor uses a total of 10,287,648 effective
photodetectors in 3,429,216 effective pixel locations. By comparison, a
Bayer pattern sensor would be limited to using a total of 3,429,216
effective photodetectors in 3,429,216 effective pixel locations. There
can only be one photodetector to each pixel location. Worse yet, the
Bayer pattern sensor cannot put all of those pixel locations to good
use, because some of the pixel locations and photodetectors must make
redundant use of the green filter. The Bayer pattern sensor must use a
Green-Red-Green-Blue (GRGB) pattern in the sensor grid. Theoretically,
there must be effectively 857,304 red photodetectors, 1,714,608 green
photodetectors, and 857,304 red photodetectors in the comparable Bayer
pattern sensor. Conversely, the Canon EOS-1Ds uses an 11.1 million pixel
CMOS bayer pattern monochromatic sensor. This sensor uses 11.1 million
photodetectors in 11.1 million pixel locations. A hypothetical Foveon
equivalent sensor would use 33.3 million photodetectors in 11.1 million
pixel locations. So, the question is whether you want to measure pixel
resolution or photodetectors. If you are comparing the effective
utilization of photodetectors versus pixel locations, the Foveon 3.5
megapixel sensor may be somewhat comparable to a Bayer pattern 4.6
megapixel sensor. However, the Foveon's extra photodetectors enhance its
light gathering capabilities enough to bring its perceived performance
closer to a 6 megapixel sensor. If you are comparing the photodetectors,
the Foveon 3.4 megapixel sensor is more comparable to a Bayer pattern 10
megapixel sensor. In the end, the Foveon X3 Pro 10M CMOS Image Sensor is
still a sensor with 10.3 million photodetectors in 3.4 megapixel
locations.

Dallas Patterson
nye@fidalgo.net




From: John Stafford jstafford@winona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002


Doug Dolde wrote:
> The Betterlight scan backs have an 11 stop dynamic range.  Just about as
> good as the human eye.

Certainly (if it's true) but scanning backs have limited applications.

Here's a link to an interesting application which uses a recent
algorithm. The scene shown has no blocked shadows, no blocked highlight
detail and can accomplished with conventional film or a digital camera.
Interesting regardless of the artifacts, but limited to static subjects.

(See the right frame of http://arts.winona.edu/i/mc/index.html)Click on
the picture, explore the next page, roll-overs all that stuff.

So much for scanning-back solutions.




From: "Neil Gould" neil@terratu.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002


Hi,

W Bauske wsb@paralleldata.com wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
> > An 8 bit image represents the overall contrast range in
> > 256 shades.
> >
> > A 12 bit image represents the overall contrast range in
> > 4096 shades.
> >
> > You don't gain more range with more bit depth, just
> > increased definition within the range.
> >
>
> You should be able to do either theoretically, depending
> on your definition of a stop vs quantities recorded by a pixel.
> For example, my definition is when the count doubles, it
> means that the amount of light has doubled.
> Therefore, each bit adds a stop to the range recorded.
Does it matter that this isn't at all what's happening? The _overall_
range, e.g. from black to white, is unchanged.

With film or digital, adjusting the amount of light that passes through the
lens to the media by changing stops is adjusting the lattitude of the scene
to fall within the contrast range of the media. How a medium _records_ the
lattitude of the scene is a fixed attribute of the medium. Therefore,
changing the bit depth of an image is more analogous to changing from film
of one contrast range to another.

> Your definition is to hold the number of stops constant and increase
> the granularity within a stop. Either can be done I suppose. Now
> I wonder which behavior the sensors actually have. I thought it
> would be my definition but since I don't build sensors I don't
> know for sure.
The issue is a bit more involved if you take over / underexposure into
consideration. However, the contrast lattitude of a sensor is a fixed
attribute of the sensor, much as it is for film.

> On the other hand, if it is as you're thinking, Doug should not have
> a shadow detail problem because all stops have equal representation.

The problem is that there is insufficient granularity to represent fine
details. A 48 bit image is visibly superior to a 24 bit image in this
regard.

> An example of how I think you mean stops would be to fix the stop count
> to 8 stops. For 8 bits, you get 256/8 = 32 samples within a stop, all
> stops. For 12 bits, you get 4096/8 = 512 samples within a stop.

No, that's not what I've written at all. But, to your point, above, 8 bits
yields 256 _steps_ of definition. Think of it as a posterized image with
256 steps of posteriation (although this analogy only works for monochrome
images). 12 bits yields 4096 _steps_ of definition. Neither of these are
particularly high levels of definition, and far below that of film.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
Terra Tu AV   http://www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media




From: "Neil Gould" neil@terratu.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002


Hi,

W Bauske wsb@paralleldata.com wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
> >
> > I believe that to be the crux of the problem in trying to compare bit depth
> > to stops. Unless there is some good explanation to the contrary, it just
> > sounds like a bad habit to think along those lines.
>
> OK, then how do you describe the doubling of the number of light
> photons that hit the film/sensor?

That depends on whether or not you are changing the exposure timing.

> When I use 12 bits, I'm saying I can count 16 times more photons
> than I can with 8 bits. It sure does appear to increase the latitude
> of the media assuming a pixel is just a photon counter.

It seems that you are equating "lattitude" with "definition". The lattitude
is the overall contrast range, e.g. from black to white. Whether you use
use 8 bits or 12 bits, the contrast range is the same. The sensor doesn't
expand or contract its contrast range, only the amount of definition within
the range.

> I use the term stop to mean double/half the photon count to the
> sensor/film which is influenced of course by aperture and shutter
> speed.

The problem is that the photon count is not related to the contrast range
in the way you are implying. The darkest and brightest portions of the
image are still recorded, but the amound of gradation is changed.

Regards,
Neil Gould
Terra Tu AV   http://www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media




From: "Neil Gould" neil@terratu.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002


Hi Wes,

W Bauske wsb@paralleldata.com wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
> > > OK, then how do you describe the doubling of the number
> > > of light photons that hit the film/sensor?
> > >
> > That depends on whether or not you are changing the exposure
> > timing.
>
> Please explain the difference.


You probably know much of this already, so please endure the redundancy!
8-)

The exposure stays the same (until reciprocity failure with film) if you
inversely adjust the aperture (stops) and shutter speed. Changing the ISO
rating is another way to alter exposure timing, and has the same inverse
relationship with aperture or shutter speed.

With digital, you are recording to a medium (the sensor cells) that has a
fixed contrast range. This is directly analogous to film. Therefore, if you
double the number of light photons *without* decreasing the exposure timing
accordingly, you head toward overexposure, just as with film.

> In a way I agree with you. The sensor doesn't change.
> But, what the camera outputs DOES change, depending
> on whether you use raw, tiff, jpeg, output formats. You're
> taking 12 bits and selecting a range of them to use 8 bits
> for tiff and jpeg. Not using raw mode guarantees you're
> not using the full capability of your sensor. That also means
> you have to process the image 16 bit since I'm not aware
> of graphics programs that do 12 bit.
>
You've munged together several issues, here!

To begin with, one is not "selecting a range of bits" out of a 12-bit image
when using 8-bit mode. What is happening is that the value for maximum
exposer are represented by different values. In the case of 8-bit images
values fall in the range 0 to 255. With 12-bit images, those values range
from 0 to 4095. The zeroes are equivalent, and the portion of the scene
which is represented by the value 255 in an 8-bit image is represented by
4095 in a 12-bit image. So, what you have with the lower bit images are
fewer steps defining the same range, not just a portion of that range. Yes,
the images do look quite different, but that has little to do with the
photons hitting the sensor array.

As for processing the image at different bit depths, that is completely up
to the writer of the software. Things were not always as they are now. When
I first got into computer graphics in the mid '70s, the typical color image
was only 4 bits! I've seen software grow as hardware capabilities grew.
And, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see people talking about
128-bit images in the next few years as we talk about 48 bit images now,
and looking at today's 8-bit images as I look at those 4-bit images now.

> Again, I see why you say that. But, in a digital as well
> as film sensor, you can run out of representation. In
> other words, no more bits on the high end. (Blown highlights)
>
This is true, but there are really two things happening. First, the sensor
can only record values within a given range. They have yet to build a
single sensor to receive from low-end audio frequencies to x-rays.
Secondly, the number of bits that represent a particular range, such as
highlights or shadows, is really not all that large. Thus, a lot of detail
is just lost. I don't know about you, but that's what *I* see when I look
at a 12 bit digital image.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
Terra Tu AV   http://www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media




From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 


"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote
> well, yes, the argument is flawed in part because it equates a pixel to a
> line pair, effectively doubling digital's apparent resolution; it takes 2
> pixels to make a line pair (black dots, white dots). And then there's
> Nyquist limits, another big hit against most digital systems he ignores ;-)
>
> the real killer for digital to me is that the use of an anti-aliasing
> filter in the vast majority of current digital cameras provides a
> frequency cutoff around 40 lpmm or so. This dumbs down the lens,
> eliminating the high contrast and high resolution data that would confuse
> the sensors and potentially cause aliasing.

Correct, but some of the better camera's have the option to remove the
AA-filter, and the new Kodak doesn't have one to begin with. Some real
life subjects have insufficient high contrast high spatial frequency
content to cause visible aliasing, test charts are not among those
subjects (but valuable for testing nonetheless).
Also with the advent of "higher resolution" CCDs or CMOS devices, there is
less chance of image detail giving rise to aliasing, partly because the
lens starts to become a high frequency filter (e.g. due to diffraction,
residual aberrations and lack of focus).

> The result is that the high resolution and high contrast fine image data
> is filtered out before it can get to the sensors. So if you want such high
> contrast imagery, you have to shoot film.
>
> If Carver Mead is right, and sensors don't get much denser, film will
> continue to have an advantage in applications calling for high resolution
> high contrast images.

Carver Mead's problem is with CMOS. Smaller pixels/denser sensors are more
noisy, and CMOS uses several transistors per pixel. It's not so much the
density, but rather the size (# of pixels) and the resulting lower
magnification factor that's going to be important. Smaller pixels will be
more noisy so there is limited gain to be expected there. More pixels are
going to remain expensive because of lower yield (trying to cut
rectangular surfaces from a circular wafer gets more wasteful when size
increases and smaller number of chips will carry the high fixed setup cost
per wafer).

> And as noted, you can use larger formats of film cheaply, but the market
> for an 8x10" digital sensor is likely to be very limited, and very, very
> pricey ;-)

True. However, film type availability might become an increasingly bigger
issue if you see the rationalization programs for film types that are
going on. I don't expect 8x10" sensors to become an alternative soon (if
ever), but smaller sizes will start offering workflow advantages that will
tip the scale for commercial use sooner.

If you consider that even in digiphobe circles it is (reluctantly)
recognized that the current crop of 11-14 Mpixel 35mm sensors equal or
surpass Provia/Velvia quality, then it stands to reason that a, say, 30-40
Mpixel mid-format sensor will surpass current MF film quality (and it'll
be perfectly flat even without a vacuum back). And quality is not only
resolution, but lack of grain or noise as well. Coupled with the benefits
of instant feedback about exposure, color balancing, etc., there is
something interesting on the MF horizon, although price will remain to be
an issue.

Bart




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002


"John Stafford" jstafford@winona.edu wrote:
> Douglas A. wrote:
> >
> >>If you consider that even in digiphobe circles it is (reluctantly)
> >>recognized that the current crop of 11-14 Mpixel 35mm sensors equal or
> >>surpass Provia/Velvia quality, t
> >
> > A common fallacy. They don't.

It sure looks like they do in informal tests such as:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/Canon_1Ds_Diary.html

Or in downloading and printing sample images.

> Indeed! The specific engineering problems of conventional digital sensor
> technology leads those particular mavens to consider 'resolution' in
> terms of 'aerial relsolution' instead of Real World metrics. Aerial
> resolution doesn't mean a damned thing to people with both feet on the
> ground.

The better reviews measure the actual resolution in lines per picture
height.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60/page22.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro/page19.asp

You can divide 1400 or 1700 by the actual sensor height (actual performance)
or by 24 (to compare to 35mm) to get an equivalent in lines/mm. (Don't
forget to divide by 2 again to get lp/mm.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002

...
> I wonder if they have devises an reliable method of interpolation
> measurement, since 2/3 of all data in each of these images is
> reconstructed via S.W.A.G.

That wasn't a quote of a remark I made, but I do agree with the
observation of better reviews being supplemented by solid procedures and
that this target uses lines per image height for visual comparison.

However, I'm afraid you are wrong in some of your assumptions. Although
reluctant to delve too deep into this subject (this is not a typical
digital group), your persistence may confuse the issue for newbies on the
subject, and calls for some corrections.
1. A black and white target, also when recorded with a Bayer CFA (Color
Filter Array) has full luminance resolution. Chroma resolution in Red and
Blue is roughly half (but depends on the orientation) of the Green
resolution. It is also a rough approximation of human vision's color
sensitivity and resolving power.

2. Your gripe against interpolation is mostly unfounded, and not the cause
of the colored artifacts. Interpolation is just not able to fully correct
it, but it is not the cause! Interpolation can only be wrong when you know
what the difference is between the real data and its numerical
approximation. Human vision is far too inaccurate to spot the differences
(that's also why e.g. lossy JPEG compression works). Depending on the
subject, some 90% of the interpolation creates exactly the same values as
the direct capture would have done. Again, interpolation is not the real
cause of what you interpret as being the culprit.

3. The cause is aliasing. Because of the discrete sampling process and the
Bayer CFA, Red and Blue will start aliasing at different spatial
frequencies than Green. This causes falsely colored aliasing artifacts,
whereas e.g. a scanner or even the Foveon sensor aliases with the same
amount for all three primary colors. Human vision can tolerate normal
aliasing better than false colored aliasing because it looks like
(pseudo-)detail. Both approaches invent non-existing detail, but the
errors are easier to spot with the Bayer CFA. That influence can be
reduced by increasing the number of pixels (sampling frequency) and/or by
optical prefiltering.
Subsequent interpolation can only partly correct those defects.

I hope this contribution is considered more useful than a plain rejection
based on misconception. Debates based on a good understanding of the real
issues is usually more fruitful IMHO, so don't take it personal.

Bart

P.S. The test target by the way, is not used to exploit its full
potential. It could be used to create a type of MTF curve for weighted
Luminance and for individual Red, Green and Blue channels, following the
intent of the ISO 12233 standard for resolution measurements for
electronic still pictorial cameras..




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002


"Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl wrote:
{Other good stuff snipped}

> 3. The cause is aliasing. Because of the discrete sampling process and the
> Bayer CFA, Red and Blue will start aliasing at different spatial
> frequencies than Green. This causes falsely colored aliasing artifacts,
> whereas e.g. a scanner or even the Foveon sensor aliases with the same
> amount for all three primary colors. Human vision can tolerate normal
> aliasing better than false colored aliasing because it looks like
> (pseudo-)detail. Both approaches invent non-existing detail, but the
> errors are easier to spot with the Bayer CFA. That influence can be
> reduced by increasing the number of pixels (sampling frequency) and/or by
> optical prefiltering.

Just to amplify this a bit; the Foveon sensor in the SD-9 does not have an
anti-aliasing filter, and it aliases something fierce. Although the
resolution charts show resolution out to near the Nyquist frequency, there
are serious Moire patterns at frequencies well below Nyquist. Given those
artifiacts, I'm not convinced that it is reasonable to claim that it
resolves any more than the Bayer pattern sensors of the same pixel counts
do. As a practical matter, the detail that it does find is appreciated, and
the artifacts it creates are nowhere near as obnoxious as color Moire in
Bayer sensors with inadequate anti-aliasing, so the images are quite
impressive. But if someone objects to the "artifacts" in Bayer images, they
won't be able to (honestly, anyway) accept SD-9 images either.

To get back to my original claim that "Bayer is better than scanned",
though, it seems to me that even with the strong anti-aliasing filter used
in the D60, 2000x3000 D60 pixels are a lot better than 2000x3000 Nikon
8000ED pixels. I'm scanning some 645 Reala right now, and although the total
images have a lot more information than the D60 (and probably the 1Ds) cough
up, viewed at 100% on the screen, it's really really ugly. (GEM could
probably clean it up quite a bit, but Picture Window Pro has a bug that
causes it to crash with NikonScan if you use GEM. Ouch.)
 
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002

"Douglas A." fordprefect80@hotmail.com wrote:
>  "David J. Littleboy"
>
> >My complaint, axe to grind, is that I get all bent out of shape when someone
> >says "I get 324 megabyte files from 645 as opposed to 18 MB from the D60"
> >since that is such a total bogus comparison.
>
> David, you're totally wrong.

Scan a 0.5 x 0.75 inch section of film on your 8000ED. Print it at 11x14.
Print a full-frame D60 image at 11x14. Show them both to 10 people. Tell me
how many prefered the film.

They both have the same number of pixels.

There's more wrong with scanned film pixels than there is with D60 pixels.
Scanned film pixels are _worse_ than D60 pixels.

Scan a 2.2 x 3.3 inch section of film on your 8000ED. Print it at 11x14.
Print a full-frame D60 image at 11x14. Show them both to 10 people. Tell me
how many prefered the film.

Why do you get different results?

> >D60 pixels are worth more than scanned pixels. It's just that there are a
> >lot more scanned pixels.
>
> No, they're interpolated pixels. Fake data.

You've been suckered by the Foveon hype. It doesn't matter how you get to a
digital image. What matters is how much information it holds. All digital
images have less information than the theoretical maximum, so it simply
doesn't matter _why_ (anti-aliasing filters vs. grain noise), what matters
is how much less.

> Thats what you should get
> bent out of shape about. If this bugs you so much, then why don't you
> just dump your scanner and buy a freaking D60 for goodness sake?!?!

Because total information content is (information per pixel) x (number of
pixels). The scanner has a somewhat smaller (information per pixel) and a
much larger (number of pixels).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: Douglas A. fordprefect80@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002

Jerry Gardner w6uv@hotmail.com wrote:

>Douglas A. wrote:
>Take a look at this page and then come back and tell us if you still feel
>this way.

Yes Jerry, actually I do. And I'm so freaking tired of people quoting
this article as if it were written by the authors of the Dead Sea
Scrolls.  If you further delve into, and in fact e-mail him, you will
find that he has admitted digital artifacts in the images that have
caused him to reassess his original opinion. further, I own a D1X, and
an S2, and the only thing a 1Ds is going to give you is a larger file.
It still suffers from Bayer pattern interpolation, or in laymans
terms, the image is  reconstructed with  S.W.A.G. technology.
"Scientific Wild Assed Guess".

You can't create detail artificially that isn't originally recorded.

Why are people so rabidly obstinate about this simple fact of physics?






From: W Bauske wsb@paralleldata.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF sensors are the future?
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002


Robert Monaghan wrote:
>
> quoting Bryan: The limit of useful sensor resolution will be determined by
> the limits of future lenses. We don't have much factual guidance in
> guessing where that will be.
> end-quote:
>
> I think it will be the other way around. Carver Mead and others have
> pointed out that CMOS sensors are close to the physical limits, so smaller
> sensors are problematic (noisy, poor light capture cross-sections etc.).
>

Engineers do things all the time that people said weren't possible
until it happens. Foveon would be an example.

>
> While you can leave out the anti-aliasing filters on some chips, other
> filters in there (like the IR filter) may act in the same low pass
> function ;-)

An infrared filter is a high pass/low cut filter relative to visible
light. Ultraviolet would need a low pass/high cut filter. See:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/light2.htm

After reading that and the "how film works" section, I see how
Foveon works now. Red is lowest energy so it's the top layer.
Green is medium energy, so the middle layer, and blue is high
energy so it's the bottom layer of a Foveon sensor.

> In short, there is reason to believe that film and current MF lenses will
> continue to enjoy a "quality" niche advantage, esp. for high contrast
> imagery and fine detail (resolution). On the other hand, I wonder if a
> pseudo-randomized sensor pattern might enable future sensors to
> approximate one of the benefits of random film grain structure, i.e., an
> inherent anti-aliasing function? IF so, then the aerial resolution of
> current lenses, and the advantages of a truly planar flat digital sensor,
> might challenge MF film use even in the high quality high contrast data
> range?
>

Read where they have tried pseudo random sensors but there are
issues with other color proximity. In other words a red pixel
gets a different value depending on how many blues and greens
are adjacent. Change the ratio, get a different answer.
Nasty behavior.

Wes





From: sacapts2001@aol.com (SAcapts2001)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 03 Dec 2002 
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments of Weddings


>Film?
>
>These Commandments must be old as well.

One of the quickest growing types of civil suites in Illinois is from digital
photography in Weddings and one time events.  This is a mixed bag ranging from
unhappy with quality to malfunctioning storage devices. Wonderful tool, I love
mine, but it just isn't film...yet!.





From: "MJR" mjrodney@comcast.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Dust & the digital SLR - A Canon recommendation
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002


Earlier this morning, I attended a photographic event where Canon
Technicians were available to clean and confirm the proper operation of
attendee owned Canon cameras and lenses.

A Canon technician quickly made the announcement to a rapidly growing line
of photographers that they would be unable to remove a lens or a body cap
from any D30 or D60 SLR for an interior cleaning.

The technician explained that the CCD element is a natural dust magnet and
remains electrically "charged" in the same sense as the face of a television
screen (CRT); particularly so when the camera is on, and for an unspecified
time after the camera is turned off. This natural charge is a dust magnet.

Canon did not want to take any responsibility for dust falling onto the CCD
by way of their opening the camera and/or by stirring things up with a can
of compressed air and a cotton tipped swab.

This was followed by a "recommendation" to the D30 and D60 owners, advising
them not to leave the body open for any longer than it takes you to change
the lens. In a dust blown environment, where dust is likely to be swirling
about, it was recommended that you do not remove a lens or body cap at all,
unless you are willing to have the camera professionally serviced on a
regular basis.

Cleaning of the CCD element must only take place in a controlled, dust
conditioned environment, with the proper equipment and with the proper
solutions, that are designed for the purpose. In other words, he
recommended, don't try cleaning the inside of the camera body at at home. At
the very least, you may cause dust to fall on the sensor. At the worst, you
could damage the mirror (if you can get it up with the lens off) and damage
the CCD, a problem the warranty will not cover. His vocal emphasis was
intended to convince us all of the fragility of that CCD sensor.

On the plus side, the Canon rep offered one week turn around on D30's and
D60's sent in for proper cleaning. I didn't ask how much a clean and
calibration was to cost.

One might think the Technician was only trying to promote Canon's
professional cleaning services; but at 2K plus a pop for these cameras, I'm
inclined to believe him.

Every 3 months or 3000 miles........just like the car.




From: "DM" antispam-dmortell@eircom.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are you contemplating going digital?
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002


When Kodak release this camera.........

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/dcsPr
o14nIndex.jhtml?id=0.3.6.30.5.8.3&lc=en

.....in the new year, it's going to blow a large hole in the market! At the
moment the price is expected to be Euro5,000. That is exactly twice the
price of the Fuji S2 for about 5 times the camera! I am told that there are
back orders for 3,000 Fuji S2s in the UK at the moment. But, the dealers
can't get their hands on them. The feeling now is that most of these will be
cancelled in favour of the Pro 14n.

The market is now being driven by the SLR users, principally the press guys.
The Pro 14n will herald a new era with a camera that almost matches some of
the medium format backs for file size, but at a fraction of the price AND
with all the bell and whistles that a medium format does not have, as well
as the convenience of size.

Surely the development of the digital market has to follow the computer

Surely the development of the digital market has to follow the computer
market in terms of improvment in size/quality? In which case I think that,
ultimately, medium format could be squeezed out, with everyone using SLRs
again for everything but studio work where they will use digital 4"x5" for
the focussing movements it offers.

Whatever happens, anyone who has forked out a small fortune in the last year
or two for a medium format digital back will be feeling pretty peeved in the
next twelve months when the likes of the Kodak Pro 14n force the price of
them rapidly downwards.

Interesting times.

DM
...




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are you contemplating going digital?
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002


"Douglas A." fordprefect80@hotmail.com wrote:
>  "DM"
>
> >The market is now being driven by the SLR users, principally the press guys.
> >The Pro 14n will herald a new era with a camera that almost matches some of
> >the medium format backs for file size, but at a fraction of the price AND
>
> You're smoking crack pal. Medium format film scanned on a high
> resolution scanner yields a file size of 500 megs. Digital is about
> convenience, not superior quality.

You've missed the point: he's talking about MF _digital backs_ vs. digital
SLRs, and the MF backs are not providing enough improvement to justify the
cost. They need to get closer to full frame, to have higher pixel counts,
and lower prices. Real quick. Or they're going to die, and die real soon.

It looks to me that 4000 dpi scanned 645 gives only about twice the actual
detail (with several times the noise) of what the 1Ds does and the Kodak
will probably produce. There will be very few situations where the cost of
scanning 645 or 6x6 will be worth it. (In applications where delivery in
digital form is required.) 6x7 and 6x9 will retain large enough advantages,
but even there, they're going to be a smaller and smaller niche, since they
can't compete with LF for poster work.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are you contemplating going digital?
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002


Ah, "find another lab." That explains why you think that a 20x30 print from
a 645 negative is no stretch. I've found that people who think prints like
20x30 from smaller negatives like 645 are fine almost invariably don't do
their own darkroom work. When you do your own work the deterioration in
image quality as you get above the optimum print size for a given negative
size is so obvious that the larger sizes become  unacceptable. When you
never see the quality you've lost in taking a 645 negative to 20x30, maybe
it looks fine to you but it would be a disaster to me. I wouldn't make a
20x30 print even from my 6x7 negatives and it would be a stretch from my 4x5
negatives.
...




Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: deryck  lant deryck@deryck.com
Subject: Re: Bottom Line Digital vs Film

from rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) contains these words:

> Digital cameras use an anti-aliasing low pass filter as part of their
> design, between the lens and sensor. This low pass filter acts like a
> softening or fog filter, reducing the maximum resolution from the lens to
> a value the sensor can handle without aliasing. That value, for most
> current digital cameras, is in the 40 lpmm to 50 lpmm range.

The Kodak DCS-14n is said not to need an anti-aliasing filter due to the high
resolution.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092303kodakdcs14n_qanda.asp

The camera test report will be fascinating!

Deryck




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 
From: "Magnus Wedberg" mw@9000.org
Subject: Re: Re: DSLR rumor

[snippage]
> The Sigma SD-9 has about
> 10 million physical photodetectors feeding information to about 3.4
> million logical data pixels. The photodetectors on a Foveon chip do
> not produce 10 million pixels at all. With the Bayer pattern sensors,
> it is almost always claimed that the number of pixels is equal to the
> number of photodetectors. Unfortunately, such claims are true only to
> the extent that the number of pixels which are composited are
> arbitrarily made equal to the number of physical photodetectors. In
> other words, it is an illusion and misconception. It doesn't have to
> be that way.

It doesn't have to, but it is very practical. You see, interpolation
can be greatly helped if the algorithm can take one data point for
granted. That is the case in current digital cameras. For every
pixel, they have one color value for a "photodetector" (using your
terminology). The rest (full luminance and color) is interpolated
using adjacent photodetectors. This produces much more accurate
results compared to a theoretical case where a 3 megapixel sensor
would interpolate 9 megapixels worth of information. That's fully
impossible, in theory as well as practice.

This is what some of us dislike a bit about the FoveOn tech. Yeah,
it's great, and a 10 megapixel FoveOn X3 sensor would be like the
holy grail of digital photography. But, that 10 megapixel X3 sensor
has 30 million photodetectors. If we take theses 30 million detectors
and spread them out, we get a 30 megapixel Bayer pattern digital
camera. Will this sensor sense more detail than the X3 sensor? You
bet! Not more accurate color information for sure, and softer results
due to the interpolation going on, but it will be able to sense more
detail.

> The Bayer pattern sensors could easily composite greater
> or fewer pixels than the number of physical photodetectors used to
> create the pixels as a non-physical data element, and in reality that
> is precisely what they do. Analog information coming from multiple
> physical photodetectors are interpolated to create a single pixel data
> element. It just so happens the designers chose to create the same
> number of total data pixels coming from the multiple photodetectors as
> there were total photodetectors.

This is not something that "just happens". It's to give the best
balance between size and quality and to take full advantage of the
interpolation algorithms.


> It doesn't have to be that way, and
> it is not made that way with the Foveon X-3 sensors. Foveon dedicates
> three physical photodetectors to each logical data pixel,...except on
> those occasions when the VPS feature is in use. Foveon's VPS feature
> allows the creation of variable pixel sizes by varying the number of
> photodetectors and photodetector sites that are used to make a
> composite data pixel. Like the Bayer pattern sensors, the VPS
> inclusion of neighboring photodetector sites to interpolate a
> composite logical data pixel results in the need for special
> algorithems to fix moire and other problems.

This is marketing BS. The 3 megapixel X3 sensor has 3 million data
points. It can't sense more than 3 megapixels worth of information,
because it can't gather them in any way. Anything more is normal
upsizing, and you can do that in Photoshop. No difference at all.

--
Magnus Wedberg




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 
From: "Michal Rogowski" mirog@poczta.onet.pl
Subject: Re: Re: DSLR rumor

I follow this thread with great interest. Since these two technologies differ
so much it is hard to tell which one is better now, when we have only ONE
example of Foveon application on the market.

But I think you should see the close comparison of  3,4Mp Foveon (Sigma SD9)
with 6,3Mp Bayer (Canon D60). Conclusions are interesting. Here is what I've
red (concerning only resolution):

"The sensor's ability to capture single pixel resolution is astonishing,
magnified X3 images look like most unlike any other digital camera image you're
likely to see. They're sharp at 100%, far sharper than any Bayer pattern sensor
would be capable of and certainly achieving levels of resolution far beyond the
3.4 million pixel label. They actually remind me of a higher resolution image
downsampled, and of course that single pixel resolution / color response is
exactly what you could achieve from a high megapixel Bayer pattern sensor
downsized 50%.Looking at the resolution charts it's also interesting to note
that the X3 continues to capture 'some detail' beyond its absolute resolution
limit, this means that for example rather than returning a soft blurred surface
it's still capable of reproducing texture and detail at very high resolution."

For me, with the whole respect to your opinion, it simply means that
interpolation is a kind of swindle, a way to show something not seen by the
sensor but PROBABLY present. The word PROBABLY is the key here - with the very
fine details we are so close to pixel-to-pixel border that interpolation methot
can't give an accurate verdict.

And this is the reason why in THIS TEST the X3 sensor looks better than Bayer
(we talk on resolution, remember).

 We should take on account as well that interpolation means mathematics and
computation tasks of different levels. And it takes time when we have over 6Mp
in one sensor. Higher speed of processor means more power consumption and so
on... A market implementation (harware and software) like in D60 is an effect
of compromises between many factors.

My 2c.

Michal
...




from minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 
From: "D. Patterson" nye@fidalgo.net
Subject: Re: Re: DSLR rumor

I might add that the smaller die size of the Foveon sensors may
eventually result in dramatically higher component yields and lower
costs per sensor as the later and improved generations come along in the
next few years. The first generation or two of the Foveon sensors may
not be runaway competitors in all rating categories versus the Bayer
pattern CCD and CMOS sensors, but they appear to have room to promise
much more in performance improvements versus the Bayer pattern sensors.
Size for size Foveon sensors are superior performers in many respects.
In the future, cost for cost, the Foveon sensors may come to dominate
their more costly Bayer pattern competitors.

Dallas
...




From  BJP PROFESSIONAL NEWS - 11 December 2002
http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/comment.shtml quoting Jon Tarrant:

"At last it is possible to breathe a sigh of relief: rather over a year ago 
(BJP, 10 October 2001) I presented a set of digital camera test results that appeared 
to indicate maximum resolutions in excess of those predicted by the Nyquist Criterion – 
which states that for the unambiguous determination of a signal’s information content
 it is necessary to sample the signal at twice its own frequency. In digital camera resolution 
testing, where the writer’s tactic has been to use line-pair patterns of various widths (frequencies), 
the maximum resolvable signal is one where the black and white lines fall directly over adjacent 
pixels; one white, one black, one white, one black, etc. The problem is that if the sensor and 
test chart are shifted in alignment by half a pixel (typically around 0.005mm), then the white 
and black lines will fall half over each adjacent pixel, and the resulting half white/black signal 
will average out to a continuous mass of grey. Thus the line pattern will be lost. By doubling 
the sampling frequency (which in digital camera testing means halving the line-pair pattern density),
 it is easy to show that no matter how the sensor and test chart are aligned there will always be 
both pure white and pure black regions – with or without areas of some shade of grey in between."
see http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/comment.shtml for more related materials...






Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 
From: Mike Guilbault mikeguil@rogers.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1793

An excellent reference for almost anything in digital photography is at:

http://nooper.com/lists/lyris.pl?enter=d1scussion

It's a discussion group specifically for the D1 series of Nikon cameras, but
they discuss a wide range of subjects and there was a discussion on the cmos
vs ccd issue.  A very professional discussion group and one of the best
resources I've found anywhere on the web dealing with digital photography.

Mike Guilbault, CPA

> hi
> where can i get to know about the difference between cmos and ccd sensors. i
> think there was a discussion on the topic in this list. but the archives are
> listed by dates and not by topic so its impossible to find.
> tarun





Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 
From: Dan C leicaman@sympatico.ca
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miano [mailto:bob@miano.tv]
>Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 
>To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
>Subject: RE: cmos vs. ccd
>
>
>There's a pretty good explanation on Kodak's Professional site included with
>the information about the new DCS Pro 14n:
>
>http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jhtm
>l?id=0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3&lc=en
>
>Another good resource for all things digital is Digital Photography Review:
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0212/02121101dcs14nslip.asp
>
>
>Bob
>
>bob@miano.tv
>www.miano.tv
>www.technisonic.com




From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 
From: "Ginex, Mike" mginex@panynj.gov
Subject: [Leica] Digital Has  Limits?

Kind of dismayed after reading the specs for a N*k*n D1X.......It's lowest
allowable operating temp is 32F.  I've used my Standard Leicaflex at 5 above
without a hitch.  Hmmmm.   




From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri,  3 Jan 2003
From: "David Rodgers" daverodgers@lightcurves.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital Longevity

Neil

It seems that photographers are doing what you would expect them to do with
digital and shooting hundreds of frames for each shoot where they would have
shot dozens before.

Low cost per frame was digital's big draw for me. I factored everything and
found that I wasn't really saving that much. Had some problems and spent more
on repairs in one month than I had the previous 10 years  using Leicas.

I also learned that my style of photography -- portraits, landscapes, postcard
and decart images, some documentary and editorial support, etc. -- doesn't
benefit from high volume. In fact, I came away with fewer quality images even
when shooting 10 times as many frames. Shooting digital wasn't as much fun, 
either.

About a year ago I was all ready to sell my Leicas. I'm sooooo glad that I
didn't. I'm back to film. Digital cameras weren't a good fit for me. I
sometimes wonder I'm alone in that experience.

- --
DaveR
www.lightcurves.com 




From: David Kilpatrick iconmags2@btconnect.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital VS Film comment
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003


Robert Monaghan wrote:

> in short, there is a reason why some of us challenge the overly
> enthusiastic types who claim film is dead and digital replaces 35mm and
> even Med Fmt.  It doesn't in the quality dept., despite many proponents
> flawed tests and claims to the contrary. Take Kodak's word for it ;-)


There are still some problems associated with digital photography for
high-end uses, but on the whole, not many - an adjustment to ideas about 
exactly how to use studio lighting may be called for, and more attention 
to exposure outdoors, including tests on your digital camera to see just 
how inaccurate that 'ISO' rating actually is. There are specific issues, 
too, in the textile industry (my local market) which make digital
photography difficult or impossible for some subjects.

You are ignoring many factors when you suggest tests are flawed - I
agree that nearly all the magazine tests I've seen are seriously flawed, 
but the result is to make digital shots look WORSE not better.

One of my benchmarks is time, which does have a cost. I used to run an
advertising studio where we might shoot a single picture in the day, but
the actual photography was all done in the morning. We then drove 40
minutes to a lab, waiting for an hour while having lunch, picked up the
film, drove back, and met the client at the end of the day with the
trannies. We always had to shoot backup rolls, as well as bracket shots, 
and a typical job would involve finishing a roll (10 on 120) or using
three sheets 5 x 4, then doing the same mono, and the same neg - we
always shot all three filmstocks. The backup shots would start the next
roll/s. If there was a processing disaster - we had more than one,
including all our films dumped on the floor while wet by a faulty dip
and dunk (5 rolls in one go) - we could then use the backups, with a lot

of emergency driving and late night work.

Yes, one frame of film costs x pence. But for a catalogue still life you
have spent 3 hours preparing, you don't shoot one frame. You shoot maybe 
five sheets 5 x 4 E6, three sheets colour neg, three sheets mono. You
pay process +100 per cent, or you get clip tests for roll or 35, etc.
And if you DO want a printed proof, you pay =A325 ($35) for a basic quick
hand print (we ran our own darkroom and used deep tank colour, which
meant we could always make a proof within 3 minutes if we had a neg).

With digital, using a reasonable high-end back which might cost $20,000, 
productivity is doubled. Only one perfect frame needs to be taken, it's
your slide, neg and mono in one. Once the client approves - which is by
ISDN now - the set can be dismantled and you are on to the next shot.
You don't have to drive anywhere, or wait, or send staff or couriers, or

use back-up shots, or bracket... and a proof print is still 3 minutes
away via a dye sub or inkjet, with no need for the darkroom. We could
not run a darkroom today anyway - British waste disposal regs mean that
it would either have to be a very expensive operation, or illegally
operated. The fines are very high and I would never consider setting up
with wet processing now. Even developer, let alone fixer, is now a
classified waste in the UK and we would have to pay more than the cost
of all the materials for collection by an authorised agent.

This is why all the major catalogue and advertising studios in the UK
now work entirely with digital photography. I hardly welcome this - it
has turned my own magazine business from a near $1m a year profitable
business into a =A3350k a year loss-making exercise. All the old
advertising for film, processing, mounting, framing, studio props and
services, labs etc - it's just disappeared. Instead of 50 companies
taking 25 pages of space per issue we have 10 companies taking 13 pages
at half price... and we're lucky to have them. 

The fact is that this digital photography is awesomely good. It beats
anything they used to do with film, short of Mike Barrington-Martin's
wonderful 10 x 8 glamour portraits (his market for those died... they no
longer looked wonderful, as digital shots could match the flawless skin
tones and biting eyelash definition and total absence of grain).

Most pros have doubled their output, halved their workload, cut their
materials bill from 35 per cent of gross to under 10 per cent, and
financed their capital investment taking advantage of 100 per cent first
year writing down allowances permitted in the UK for new technology.

In the meantime, I'm happy to offend the digital industry by proving
that no matter what you do, you can't make a scan from a mono neg
printed on inkjet look ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE a real mono print. Those
who claim you can are just wrong, or have sight defects, or don't look
hard at the distribution of tones. And the same in colour (though I
prefer the gamut of a CMYK inkjet to that of a CMY colour C41 print -
the extra density needed in the CMY dyes of the print prevents truly
pure colours ever showing on a colour photo print).

For a whole load of reasons, digital will replace film as surely as
video replaced 8mm, and digital recording replaced tape in the sound
studio, and CDs replaced vinyl, and the word processor the typewriter.

David




From: "Russell Williams" williams@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolving power (Film vs. digital)?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 


"Joseph Meehan" sligojoeSPAM2@hotmail.com wrote...
> "Gregory L. Hansen" glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu wrote

> > But what about digital versus medium format, and the wedding photographers
> > that use them?  My friend has a boss that shoots weddings with digital,
> > and I think he said he said five megapixels is as good as you need for
> > wedding photos.  My friend fervently believes him.
>
>     That my be true.  Maybe it is all HE needs.  You might be able to sell
> weddings shot with disposable camers as well.  Acturally I would rather have
> a fully qualified, very good photographer doing a wedding with a disposable
> camera, than someone who had never done one before and with little abiltiy
> or talent with the best equipment made.

5MP will certainly not equal 35mm film's resolving power in typical
workflows, let alone medium format. The reason somebody might find 5MP a reasonable
alternative is a combination of two things:

1. They may not be doing enlargements of sufficient size to show the 5MP
digicam's resolution deficit relative to MF film.

2. Resolution is relatively less important than noise / grain in most wedding
photography -- the lower noise / grain is the biggest advantage of shooting with
MF. MF gives you that creamy smooth look. Digital's noise, even at low
resolutions, is much less than 35mm grain, so for portraiture applications,
digital images can give results that look better than film, even when
the resolution is far inferior.

Russell Williams





From: "Simon Stanmore" nomail@thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Film Quality Now A Non-Issue? - L
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003


Unless I've missed some big news here you are mistaken on the brands.
Canon's the one with a 11MP body - their 1DS. Kodak will soon be releasing
the somewhat overdue 14N with 13.9MP - that has a Nikon F-mount. And the
camera that Canon is currently 'offloading' is the D60 - a 6.3MP model.
The last I heard from Minolta on DSLR's was a wait-and-see policy.
Pentax will have a new DSLR on show at the PMA.

Nikon has not announced any true double-figure MP camera yet - a few weeks
from now (at the PMA) they may well do of course.

Canon is going to announce at least one - possible two - new DSLR's as well,
and I suspect they'll be priced very keenly indeed (for a DSLR that is).

>From a number of reports I've read over the past several months I can only
conclude that Canon's Japanese directorship see the DSLR market as a huge
oppurtunity to capture market share - their new models will be priced to do
just that I'm sure.

After the PMA and the subsequent reliable review sources have spoken I'm
buying into digital - I may well switch brands for this. Digital is the
(very immenent) future as far as 35mm-type work is concerned, and I'll be
going with the marque that I consider to be implementing the technology in a
fashion that I consider the most effective and long-term ... We are
photographing through a very interesting time ...

Simon

> Apparently Minolta is aggressively coming out to play... And, Canon is
> obviously offloading it's current inventory of 5meg cameras before
releasing
> their new flagship... Nikon has an 11 meg camera out now, and I have not
> heard what their rumored plans are for Photokina..
>
> Denny





Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 
From: Sharookh Mehta first@vsnl.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Portrait Work

My only concern as far as the D100 is concerned is that it cannot handle
highlights well. I believe this is a characteristic of all digital ccds.
Otherwise the contrast issues are easily addressed once you open the files in
Photoshop (in my case). The ccd has a lot of information waiting to be
extracted as and when you feel necessary.

The matrix metering I find is much the same although for my type of photography
(shooting wildlife in dense vegetation) I invariably switch to center weighted
which is classic....

Sharookh
...





From: "jriegle" jriegle@att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film Vs Digital - Your opinion please.
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003


Yes:
http://home.att.net/~jriegle/resolution.htm
John

Simon Stanmore nomail@thanks.com wrote
> Are your tests anywhere on the Web John?
>
> Simon
>
> > There are a lot a variables to be considered. If you do a lot of shooting
> > digital can be less expensive in the long run. You can at least preview
...





Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film Vs Digital - Your opinion please.


With film, I can get eight or more different colour range results with ISO 100
film. A similar situation exists at other films speeds. With a digital SLR, the
ISO 100 setting colour capture results are fixed, unless I go to a different
chip design. While it is true I could play with the white point setting, or
adjust the image later in PhotoShop, it is not the same creative freedom I
enjoy with film.

I am a PhotoShop expert, and I do quite a bit of colour correction and
pre-press work. I have used several digital SLRs, and some digital backs for
medium format. I also continue to use several different film cameras, and types
of films. I would much rather spend time behind a camera, than in front of a
computer.

The main idea is choosing the tools that allow you to express your vision. If
someone is more comfortable with direct digital, than that is likely a better
choice. If another person would rather shoot everything with a Holga, or
pinhole camera, than that is another choice. Anything goes, and there is rarely
only one tool proper for all situations.

I think that eventually there will be disposable digital cameras. These will
allow consumers to get the same images that they get from disposable film
cameras now. When that happens, there may be a slow down of film development.
The biggest current development is mobile phone imaging (wireless imaging),
which I think will reduce sales of low end digital point and shoot cameras.

There is a huge portion of the world without computers. There are still markets
with under explored potential for film sales. Some people do not like computers
. . . just like some people still have a VCR (now DVD) player with a blinking
"12:00" . . . The point is that film will not just vanish, since there is still
potential for profits. As long as some companies can make money from film, it
will continue to be produced and sold somewhere in the world.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Steven C (Doktersteve)" wrote:

> As some of you may have read in another thread, i am currently switching
> from digital to SLR. I have my reasons. SLR system is better for lenses, and
> is not as outrageously expensive as digital SLR.
> Film is better for enlargements, etc unless you are shooting with an 11
> megapixel digital camera with some crazy super CCD, and even then there are
> arguments which can be made for SLR.
>
> I wonder what you think. Many people (usually proponents of digital) say
> that digital will replace film, but i do not see this happening in the next
> while, the next long while.
>
> I am curious to hear some well thoughtout arguments for either side. I
> havent had the experience to talk to anyone that has a well educated point
> of view for either.
>
> Thanks.
> Steven.




Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film Vs Digital - Your opinion please.


I am willing to bet there is an entire segment of the consumer market, without
computers, or with little desire to play with images on them, that would love a
truly simple digital camera. Currently, the greatest volume, and highest
profits, are from sales of disposable film cameras. Numbers from Kodak, Fuji,
and AGFA indicate that nearly 18 % of homes use a one time use camera as their
primary camera.

Okay, current technical issues keep memory prices slightly too high, and CCD
and CMOS sensor prices too high. There is still higher profits in film one time
use cameras. However, I think we are very close to seeing a one time use
digital camera. I have already seen super cheap digital cameras that have no
built in LCD, and no removable memory. I have also seen a couple of mobile
phones with cameras.

So here is the bet. Within five years from this post, there will be a one time
use digital camera. If this does not happen, I will buy you whatever the
current best one time use film camera is at that time, and mail it to you.
However, if I am correct, you buy me the current one time use digital, and send
one to me.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


jriegle wrote:

> There will never be a market for disposible digital cameras in the same
> sense as there are disposible film cameras. If they could make them so cheap
> to where they could be disposable then they could make them have a removable
> memory card that could be taken in for prints and the owner keep the camera!
> Perhaps there could be an exchangable memory card program, but not the
> camera!
>
> Any digital camera would allow some way for the owner to down load to
> his/her computer also.
>
> John
...





From: NickC n-chen@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film Vs Digital - Your opinion please.
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003


Rico Tudor wrote:
> Digital imaging is evolving rapidly, dimming film's long-term outlook.
> Digital's unquestioned advantages include immediate review of captured
> images, and a rapid path to final output (paper or Web).  Film advantages
> (for now) include lower capital cost, few electrical energy management
> headaches, and superior (analog) imaging.

I'd like to inject a thought here. This constant referral by posters to
seeing the captured image on the camera's monitor as being an advantage (as
opposed to bracketing with film) can be very misleading. The brightness
control of a digital camera's monitor is an independent setting made by the
user and may indicate an image was properly exposed when in fact it may not
have been. The advantage I see in having the monitor is for reviewing
composition and not an indicator that the captured image was properly
exposed. I still auto bracketing digital photo's when I think lighting
conditions warrant such caution.

Consider also, that viewing a camera's monitor in the sunlight of the day
can be extremely difficult and under certain conditions, almost impossible.
Sometimes there may be referrals by posters to an advantage of seeing a
histogram of an image; an advantage to whom, one who doesn't know nor is
interested in learning how to interpret a histogram? The interests of the
average picture taker is just in taking a picture not in having to
undertake the laborious tasks of learning the complexities of using a
digicam and out guessing what may be seen in a digicam monitor.

Nick

> I use a DSLR for casual shooting like parties and family events: decent
> quality, albums on the Web quickly, odd lighting evaluated on-the-spot,
> and the camera offers AF and AE and auto-everything for fast-changing
> action.

> I use manual-focus film SLRs for slower, more deliberate shoots.  I can
> afford to devote more time to film scanning and custom processing.
> Travel photography has the right pace for film, and you don't need to
> worry about batteries -- a light camera is nice, too.  The lightest
> DSLR with a small prime weighs 1kg.
>
> Regarding capital costs, if you want film images to merge with your
> digital workflow, you must budget a good film scanner ($800-1500).
> Suddenly, that DSLR doesn't look so expensive.
>
> Regarding film image quality, if you shoot color negatives at 100 ASA or
> lower, and print with an enlarger, you should exceed all DSLRs, except
> the Canon 1Ds.  If you shoot fine-grain B&W and print with an enlarger,
> only digital scanning backs are better.  If you shoot slides at 100 ASA
> or lower, and project them, you will kick digital's ass (no competitive
> projection technology).




From: jchapman11@cox.net (john chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Telescopes  w/ Nikon (and new Kodak) Digital SLRs
Date: 10 Feb 2003

As I read and understand the posts here, and the instructions of at
least the new Kodak 14 Mp digital, they will not meter any lens w/o a
cpu chip, thus essentially precluding use of telescopes (or mirror
lenses) for land based targets where TTL metering is desireable if not
essential.  I assume that people do not use in-camera meters for
astrophotography.

First of all, is my understanding of this correct?  And, if correct,
then I find it most puzzling since all the camera needs to do is
measure the amount of light -- an action totally independent of any
cpu provided information -- regardless of any lens setting.  The
camera does not need the F stop to do this.  Indeed, it would appear
that these cameras have taken an extra step in requiring an cpu
communicated F stop thus setting up an unnecessary barrier.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003


"Hemi4268" hemi4268@aol.com wrote 
> >Larry needs to be deprogrammed.
>
> You might think I need deprogramed but if you think of image quality my way, a
> whole cornucopia of possible combos comes to light.

You need to be deprogrammed. Your idea that "35mm is the same quality as MF"
is completely dizzy. With your head wedged in the lp/mm dark place, you're
completely failing to answer the question asked.

The digital camera types measure their resolution in _lines per picture
height_, and that makes a world more sense that lp/mm, since it's format
insensitve. With a 4000 dpi scanner, you get about 55 lp/mm. From 35mm,
that's 2640 lp/mm, and from 645 that's 4520 (6270 for 6x9).


So you can do 1.7 times larger prints from 645 than 35mm, or 2.3 times
larger prints from 6x9 than 35mm _for the same lp/mm on the final print_.

Which is the answer the original poster was interested in.

FWIW, your 8 lp/mm standard conflicts badly with you 10" viewing distance
and acceptance of standard DOF tables/lens markings. Those are three
_completely_ different quality standards. (Nobody doing MF finds the
standard DOF tables/lens markings even vaguely acceptable at just about any
viewing distance that you can still see that there's a print to be
observed.)

> If you just let negative size be for coverage and let the film resolution,
> focal length and distance control image quality, you can come up with any
> combination of camera, film and lens for any photographic problem.

Nah. Lines per picture height makes it much easier to know what your
getting. It allows you to factor in lens performance in as well, although
most lenses will do 55 lp/mm.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Postscript: I meant 2640 lph.




From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations


>Well, it was thirty-nine years ago, Larry. I'm sure there's a lot of great
>digital recon work being done now.

Actually no.  There really hasn't been any improvement in detector size in
image chips.  This means these chips really have a fixed resolution vs film
with variable resolutions.  It's more or less like having ONLY Tri-x available
at you local photo store.  Not much selection in that.

Resolution is fixed so the only other two variables are Focal Length and
Distance.

Since digital chips are much higher speed then recon films, lenses in the 2.8
or 3.5 f-stop range are no longer needed.  So that 30 inch f2.8 lens can now be
a 100 inch f-11.  Only problem is, you can only fit so big a lens in a
airframe.

Now coverage also becomes a big issue with the 100 inch lens.  looking for
things becomes much harder.  Unlike the OBC, you really have to know where the
targets are to photograph them.

Sounds like current events, doesn't it.

Larry




From: rcochran@lanset.com (Richard Cochran)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Moore's law - does it apply to digital SLRs?
Date: 21 Jan 2003 

Don Stauffer stauffer@usfamily.net wrote 
> Moore's law does not strictly apply to CCD chips per se. It is primarily
> for fabrication of digital logic circuits.
>
> A CCD is actually an analog IC, in spite of it being in a digital
> camera.  Digitization is done AFTER the CCD is read out.
>
> The critical portion of the CCD for our purposes are the image sensors
> themselves.  They must collect a certain minimum number of photons
> during the exposure, and hence are sensitive to area.  Too small and
> they get noisy.
>
> So, while improvements in semiconductor fabrication may help some of the
> ancillary circuits on the chip, don't look for the density of the
> photosensors to increase that much.

Correct.  Furthermore, there's the issue that it doesn't make
sense to pack sensors in so tightly that the lens isn't able to
guide the photons correctly to the right pixel!  At small to middle
apertures, many 35mm lenses are already approaching the diffraction
limit to resolution, caused by the aperture and the wavelength of
light.  Most 35mm lenses aren't diffraction limited wide open,
but it would still be expensive and difficult to improve the
correction very much beyond what they currently deliver.

IC fabricators use lenses to create the ICs, so they're limited by
the same laws of physics that photographers are.  But they can
"cheat", by using wavelengths shorter than visible light.  They
long ago had to quit using visible light and move into ultraviolet
and X-rays, and they keep moving to still shorter wavelengths.

Unfortunately, photographers are pretty much stuck with the
wavelengths present in visible light.  So the only way to
improve usable resolution beyond what fine-grained film is
already delivering is to move to a larger sized image sensor.
If you instead move to a smaller sized sensor, you'll decrease
usable resolution, regardless of pixel count.  If you could
make 2mmx3mm CCD with 10 megapixels worth of sensors, no lens
could produce a sharp 10 megapixel image on it, at least not
using visible light.

--Rich





From: "Woody W." woodywindy.hates.spam@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Moore's law - does it apply to digital SLRs?
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003


Robert,

You might not have noticed, but Fuji just introduced a new ccd that extends
dynamic range by having two discrete sensors per photosite, one large and
high-sensitivity, one small with low-sensitivity.

 - Woody -

"Robert Whitehouse" bob.whitehouse@btinternet.com wrote 
...
>
> Perhaps one area that  we might see is in automated contrast control - why
> do todays sensors suffer the same draw-back  as film i.e. that the sensor
> has the same sensitvity (speed) across  its whole area ? - why not have a
> "smart" sensor that can do automatic contrast compression where required (or
> at user request) ?




From: bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 22 Jan 2003 
Subject: Re: Moore's law - does it apply to digital SLRs?


>From: "Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net

>I have said this before, but repetition is good for the soul..
>
>The fine art portion of photography will remain silver based indefinitely,
>and fine art prints will become even more expensive and collectible, etc

Hmm ... I know of at least a dozen "fine art photographers" in my area
(southwest USA) who have switched gears the past few years.  Top name
photographers like Tom Till, David Muench, Jack Dykinga, Linde Waidhofer ...
even guys like Galen Rowell and Frans Lanting in California.  The local color
boys used to shoot medium format or large format (4x5" or even 8x10") film,
usually Velvia, and make Ilfochrome prints (formerly Cibachromes) using
contrast masks.  These prints were gorgeous and sold for hundreds of dollars,
even thousands for large prints in limited editions.

Almost every one of these guys has switched from Ilfochromes to a digital flow
the past 3-4 years, with their film scanned on a drum scanner, tonal and color
adjustments done in Photoshop, and prints done on Fuji Crystal Archive paper
with a LightJet laser printer.  The prints done this way offer several
advantages compared to Ilfochromes -- prints are cheaper by almost half,
sharper, you have more control over contrast and color at the Photoshop step
and it's more repeatable.  It's also much more enviromentally friendly, and you
don't have to send your original in every time you need a print, just send a
copy of the file (which is usually kept archived at the printer anyway).  Also
the estimated print life is about double that of the Ilfochromes, significant
for the fine art market.

Several labs report their Ilfochrome print business is off by as much as 75%
and some excellent labs have stopped doing Ilfochromes altogether.  Now you can
buy a $3,000 or $5,000 Epson 7600 or 9600 (24" or 44" wide carriages) that
outputs prints for all practical purposes as good as those from a $200,000
LightJet and that last even longer, with about 3x the estimated print life of
Ilfochromes.  Pretty incredible.

I attended a digital printing workshop last week at Calypso Labs in Santa
Clara, taught by the "Ansel Adams of digital printing" and by a pro
photographer who is an expert with dye transfer printing.  They showed prints
of the same image printed with a Type R process (not that great), the
Ilfochrome process (nice if you are skilled enough to do the delicate contrast
masking, too contrasty otherwise), printed as a dye transfer (beautiful prints
but it takes a full day to do one, IF you're an expert, and with a bit less
gamut than the best digital processes), printed on the LightJet and printed on
the Epson 9600.  When shown side-by-side the Epson and LightJet prints were
clearly the equal of the Ilfochromes, better if the contrast masking wasn't
done 'just so'.

Black-white photographers are moving to digital printing more slowly but look
at what guys like Dan Burkholder are doing and you'll notice a trend there too.

Personally I think the contrast masked Ilfochromes of Christopher Burkett are
probably the finest prints I've ever seen (he shoots 8x10" Velvia and does his
own darkroom work, shooting 2 months a year and printing 10 months!) and I'd
love to have one as a goal to strive for.  And I've often visited a fine art
photo gallery in Santa Fe the past few years and watched as the better
black-white artists' work has sky-rocketed ... when I was there in December
they had several Ansel Adams prints ranging from $20,000 to $75,000 and the
Henri Cartier-Bresson prints that sold for $3,000 two years ago were $5,500
this year.  So there will be a place for the finest quality works, for those
collectors who can afford them.

But the trend to digital for new fine art work seems to be pretty definitive,
especially for color.

Bill





Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: digital backs for MF?


These guys http://www.kapturegroup.com/ sell adapter plates to allow mounting
of many digital backs to Bronica MF cameras. Scroll down the page a bit, and
you will see an image of a digital back on an ETRSi.

Having the adapter can make renting or leasing easier. There are a few
companies making digital backs to fit Bronica, but you may need to do some
searching and enquiries. I think the adapter may be much simpler.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





From: "Deathwalker" ian-lincoln@blueyonder.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: throwaway 16 MP quote.. Re: Nothing lasts forever, not even you
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 



> Could you explain this statement to me, or point me to a webpage that
> explains it?  What are Nyquist limits?  What does the area of the
> sensor have to do with resolution vs. the amout (MP) of data captured?

I imagine that a single ccd sensor is far larger than an individual
silverhalide.  Colour couplers are even smaller still.  So to cram in as
many sensors as you would halides in a given area would be impossible.
Hence the overall sensor would have to be bigger.  The thing is the larger
the sensor area the shorter the effective focal length becomes.  For example
my fuji 2800 has a 6mm  to 36 mm.  This is equivalent to 35-250mm on a 35mm
slr system.  Therefore if the sensor was bigger than a 35mm film frame then
I would need 40-300mm actual lense to acheive 35-250 equivalent.  I believe
a medium format camera standard lense is 80mm whereas a standard on a 35mm
format is 50mm





Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Film vs Digital

Ken,

If the camera has a monochrome sensor, which is available, yes it can do
quite well.  The problem with that is it's a niche market...and you can't
turn a monochrome sensor into a multi-color sensor.  What Foveon should do
is make a "four sensor" sensor array, RGB plus a ND filter for B&W.  That
would work, that is if the Foveon sensor even works at all, and can get the
noise/density issues sorted out.

Don't be fooled (as so many are) by sharpness.  A two sensor digital camera
is sharper than film!  Current digital cameras are sharper than film...but
that, at least to me, means nothing.  Sharpness is only one issue of image
fidelity.  There is also accurate color reproduction, as well as actual
image detail (resolution) and the linearity of these properties.  Sharpness
is an illusion...

Regards,

Austin

> I am not sure that digital cameras will ever be as good as conventional film
> cameras using B&W film.  Yes there is a possibility that acceptable B&W
> photographs can be produced with multiple manipulated  images, but film can
> deliver it now on a single image.  Conventional  film cameras can capture an
> very high contrast scenes using techniques that Adams came up with 50 years
> ago.  Current digital sensors cannot do that.  It seems doubtful  if much
> developmental effort will be made to increase latitude of these sensors.
> Landscape photographers are about the only ones who need this
> wide latitude.

> There are so few of them it is not worth while spending developmental funds
> on them for such a small market.   Will digital cameras have the capability
> to produce sharper images than film?   That day is coming and is not in the
> distant future.
>
> My 2 cents
>
> Ken Martin
...




From: mike II owls@look.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: throwaway 16 MP quote.. Re: Nothing lasts forever, not even you
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002


HariKari wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Could you explain this statement to me, or point me to a webpage that
> explains it?  What are Nyquist limits?  What does the area of the
> sensor have to do with resolution vs. the amout (MP) of data captured?

Nyquist researched the problems concerning the maximum rate of
information transfer and how this information should be sent. Certain
waveforms carry signals better than others. His work in the
telephone/data field has been carried over to optics

http://cyberphoto3000.com/Res_Samp.html
http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/node7.html
http://hamon.swmed.edu/~jwaddle/software/jimage4d/appgdoc.html

mike II





Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Film vs Digital

David writes:
> First of all has any of you seen Michael Reichmann's
> review of the Canon EOS 1DS and the comparisons that
> he has done with digital vs film from a scanned 35mm
> and a scanned 6 X 4.5? He believes that the 1DS is
> better than 35mm film and in some cases better than
> film shot in 6 X 4.5 format as he shows and explains
> in his examples.

Michael is entitled to his opinion, but numerous anomalies in his examples
and explanations as well as an obvious bias in favor of digital lead me to
take his claims with a very substantial grain of salt.  There is no way that
any 35mm DSLR is the equal of 6x4.5 film today; even 35mm film is not the
equal of 6x4.5.

> I've seem a lot of examples to at Photo East convention
> last year in N.Y.C. and a few other photography conventions
> around the states and it makes me stop and think of a
> lot of questions on how much more money and time did
> it take to get that digital print over the film print?

That depends on whether or not you take the original (huge) investment into
account.

> With Kodak coming out with there camera at around
> 13-14MP and the Canon a little less, will your prints be
> better than 35mm professional film in colour contrast,
> colour accuracy, sharpness, low noise/grain, enlargement
> capability, etc,. ???

That depends on a great many variables.  Depending on what values you assign
to these variables, the conclusion swings dramatically back and forth
between film and digital.

Note that, for a full-frame image viewed at a "normal" viewing distance
(equal to the diagonal of the image frame), six to eight megapixels is all
you'll ever need (because that is the maximum you can see under such
conditions).  And both the newest digital SLRs about to come out and all
film formats provide more than enough resolution for these purposes, so the
choice must be based on other criteria in these specific cases.

If you will be enlarging such that the image will be examined from a
distance less than the standard viewing distance (a wall-sized enlargement
viewed from two feet away, for example), or if you will be cropping in a way
that produces the same effect, you'll need more pixels, in which case you'll
have to consider 35mm film or (more likely) medium format or beyond.

> At what point will these digital 35mm type cameras
> be as good as medium format film or because of the
> size of the sensor will they ever be able to?

In terms of resolution, they have an extremely long way to go.  And unless
the sensors can be made in a size comparable to that of an actual film
negative (6x6, or whatever), that is unlikely to change.  It will no doubt
eventually be possible to produce such sensors, but whether anyone will do
so and how much it will cost are open questions.

> ....Maybe the next generation at 22-28MP ?

Not even close.  I can get more than that from 35mm.  A 6x6 negative will
provide 100 megapixels or more on fine-grained film.

> What benefit in print quality will you get comparing
> the Kodak back for the Hasselblad compared with the
> smaller sensor on the 35mm type digital camera that
> there coming out with at aprox. 13.75 MP?

That depends on the size and viewing distance of the print.  For normal
prints at normal distances, they are both more than enough.  For substantial
enlargements, the more pixels the sensor provides, the better.

> If one was looking to spend $15-20K on lenses and
> 35mm body would it be better for them to get digital
> or film?

That depends on what sort of photography you have in mind.

But why are you asking about 35mm on a Hasselblad list?

> If one was looking to spend the same amount of
> money on a medium format for some landscape work
> and portrait work would it be a wiser choice and
> wait to the next generation of 35mm type and
> invest then or buy the medium format system and
> use film until medium format digital backs go down
> in price?

IMO, medium-format film would be a vastly better choice:  Much cheaper, and
much better quality, and when digital backs are finally good enough and
cheap enough, you can switch very easily.

The main advantage of digital is speed, and you don't need much speed in
landscape and portrait photography.

> ...or will they ever?

They will one day, although I'm not sure that they'll ever be as inexpensive
as film equipment.

> Does anyone know what the street price the new
> Sinar 22 MP back going for and what does it fit on?

> I'm sorry I'm totally lost on this whole digital
> thing, but what is one to do....run to 4 X 5 film
> and not worry about it for a few more years!?

For landscapes and portraits, use film.  Film works as well as it always
does there, and there is no particular rush to move to digital.  Above all,
avoid yielding to the hype and investing huge sums of money just because the
equipment geeks say you should.




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 
From: Ng Hun Yang nhyone@singnet.com.sg
Subject: Re: OT - Dust & digital was -- Re: Lens cleaning advice needed


Kent Gittings wrote:
> Many customers want digital shot because of several reasons:
> 1. They can see the shots at the time they are done for composition.

If the clients are present at the shoot, they will see that there
is no magic involved. Shoot, reshoot until they are satisfied.
Clients may do the directing. What's the photographer's role in it?
Just to click the button.

After a while, they will wise up and wonder why they shouldn't do
it themselves.

Digital is redefining photography, in more ways than one.

What does the rest of you think?





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

CMOS (Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) sensors have been very
difficult to design and manufacture. Their picture output quality has been
very low until just recently. It is still difficult to make really good
photo quality CMOS sensors. They are cheaper to make and therefore wanted
by the consumer digital camera market.

Professional sensors, such as Kodak;'s latest 12mp sensor, are CCD rather
than CMOS because the image quality is there and the manufacturing
difficulties have been solved years ago. To produce a large sensor, such as
12mp, takes a lot of skill and knowledge. The skill and knowledge are not
there yet for CMOS sensors. The CMOS advantage is lower cost and battery
life. CMOS devices are low voltage devices. But they still cannot compete
with the old fashioned CCD. Here's a summary:


CCD sensors, create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors,
traditionally, are more susceptible to noise. Because each pixel on a CMOS
sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of
a CMOS chip is lower. Many of the photons hitting the chip hit the
transistors instead of the photodiode. CMOS traditionally consumes little
power. Implementing a sensor in CMOS yields a low-power sensor. CCDs, on
the other hand, use a special process that consumes lots of power. CCDs
consume as much as 100 times more power than an equivalent CMOS sensor.
CMOS chips can be fabricated on just about any standard silicon production
line, so they tend to be extremely inexpensive compared to CCD sensors. CCD
sensors have been mass produced for a longer period of time, so they are
more mature. They tend to have higher quality and more pixels.

Want high quality, low noise buy CCD. Want longer battery life and a
cheaper camera, buy CMOS.

Jim

tarun wrote:

>hi
>does that mean cmos is better. i had heard that ccds are better. just wanna
>check the facts as the people who sell ccd backs make ccd sound better and
>the people who sell cmos make that sound better.
>dont know where to look for unbiased opinion.
>tarun






Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

Hi Jim,

I have a differing prospective on the current CMOS and CCD sensors.  The new
Canon CMOS camera (EOS 1-Ds) has higher ISO, 1250, than the new Kodak (14n)
CCD camera, 800...and in order to do that, I'd say it would have to have
less noise, and better sensitivity.

As far as CMOS noise, in digital circuits, CMOS has traditionally been much
lower noise...how that relates to imaging sensors, I have not
researched...but the Canon D30 and D60 sensors were CMOS, and they were very
low noise...they also had larger sensor element physical sizes, and that
attributes somewhat to lowering the noise.


As you know, there is far more to the image quality than just the
sensor...especially at the voltage levels we're talking about.  A bad
designer could take a better sensor and make it inferior in use, as could an
exceptional designer take a lesser sensor and possibly match the performance
of better sensors...so judging sensors is a tough thing to do, as it
requires so much more ancillary hardware to get an image, that you really
should judge the entire package.

I suggest you take a look at the Canon 1-Ds compared to the Kodak 14n.  The
specs really surprised me...now, how accurate/good the specs are compared to
image quality...that's left to be seen.

Another thing to keep in mind, that it is very possible that at the levels
we're talking about, some advantages that CCDs may have over CMOS or vice
versa, may be mitigated...and the fact that the CMOS sensors are so much
lower current may be the biggest issue.

Regards,

Austin





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

Jim,

Your assesments of CCD versus CMOS seems a bit old fashioned since the
three top models of digital SLRs of today all have CMOS sensors (Kodak
DCS14n, Canon D1s and Canon D1).  I think it will be fair to say that
CMOS has surpassed the CCD chip regarding quality, but suits only
producers with huge development resources to fit in a 'translator' of
signals to production of a usable picture file, while the CCD 'can do
the job' at a lower development cost, but needs a lot more electric
power. To much power, actually, for any practical use when really huge
files and lots of pixles are 'in the picture' (sic).

Tom of Oslo





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

What Kodak has to say on this subject:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.
jhtml?id=0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3&lc=en





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 
From: robertwelch@earthlink.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

Hello,

Six months ago this list was debating the merits of talking about digital
photography here. I spoke up and said that in the future this issue would
become very relevant to Hasselblad users. I guess that day has come, since I
notice this discussion on sensors.

I did notice a couple of people had some incorrect information about camera
models and which sensor types they have. The new Kodak and the Canon 1Ds both
have CMOS sensors, while the older Canon 1D has a CCD sensor. As I have read
somewhere, CCD have a faster image processing rate (at least can be designed
so), thus the speed with which the older Canon 1D can opperate is one issue
that hasen't been mentioned in this discussion. From what I see, CMOS and CCD
both have their attributes, and looking at the way Canon in particular has
chosen to design their cameras and which sensor they used might indicate some
of the differences between them. I'm not saying that Canon is better than
anyone else, just that they seem to have logically selected where they will
use which type of sensor, based on it's attributes. They spent a lot of time
developing the CMOS sensors before even making their first DSLR. When the D30
came out it blew doors with it's price/performance combination. Yet when they
came out with the more expensive and faster handling 1D model, they used a CCD
sensor, to everyone's initial surprise. Now they come out with another CMOS
sensor model, the reasons for this are probably best explained in the Kodak
article that Austin mentioned.

The bottom line is, which technology is better depends on what the intended
use and performance specs are.

Robert





Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

The basic difference in CMOS vs CCD is CMOS sensor arrays have built-in
converters on every sensor element.  That means CMOS sensor arrays have
faster read times than CCD sensor arrays of the same size.  Also, CMOS
typically has lower electrical noise.

Austin




Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 
From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@softhome.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] RE: cmos vs. ccd

Folks...

...

CMOS and CCD aren't necessarily opposites. A CCD (Charge Coupled Device) is
typically just a series of MOSFETs (Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect
Transistors) wired as an analog shift register. When light is shone on the
CCD, electric charge is "deposited" in the transistors and by biasing the
gate terminals of the CCD MOSFETs in the right sequence, this charge may be
shifted out serially and converted to a digital data word. Note that CCD is
a device and CMOS is a device fabrication principle.

There really isn't anything that prevents a CCD from being manufactured in
CMOS. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the older generation CCDs were
made using a process specifically tailored to CCDs. It was probably
possible to achieve a higher image quality with a CCD made using a custom
process compared to a CCD made using CMOS. It is also possible that the
transistor sizes in CMOS back then didn't allow any circuitry to be fitted
between pixels - remember that it's not that long ago that the CMOS
transistors crossed the 1.0 um boundary.

I bet the main motivational factors for moving to CMOS technology are:

1) The sense amplifiers and a/d converters can be integrated on the imaging
chip (which potentially yields lower noise)
2) Lower production cost
3) Lower complexity (and thus higher reliability)

I'd think that #1 was the main snag... But nowadays with 0.13 um
transistors being the norm [Intel, AMD], suddenly a new range of
opportunities opens up. Compare this measure against the 8.8 um pixel pitch
in Canon's 11 MP EOS1Ds. There's room for a lot of 0.13 um transistors in
an 8.8 x 8.8 um square... But obviously this leaves less room for the CCD
element (or photo diode), so less charge is collected, which means higher
susceptibility to noise. But that can be solved. It's only a matter of time
before the technology is sufficiently mature...


Thanks,

         Tom




Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital


Not at all surprising. I have read in the past that they drum scanned their
film. At this point in technology, they may actually be using a Nikon film
scanner. A film scanner with 35 mm film may just be the limit of their
desired quality level.

Their media kit lists a fairly high quality printing standard (200 lpi).
One could upsize an image to meet the file criteria, but it is better to
capture all that information when the image is photographed. Upsizing
allows software to give a "best guess" interpolation, and can actually
introduce artefacts in some situations.

National Geographic runs their own printing presses. They know quite a bit
about high quality printing, so they can set their own standards. Only a
small portion of the magazine industry matches the quality of their
printing.

The new full frame Kodak, Canon, or Contax may be almost enough at their
highest quality settings. Perhaps when the prices go down more, and there
are more of these in use, then we will see more images printed in magazines
from these cameras. The Bayer pattern sensor may be near the end of a
useful development cycle, and there may be some new technology that gets to
the next level (Foveon or someone else).

The lp/mm comparison is not the best comparison when the end result is an
image run off an offset press. Anything that goes through a RIP has
probably been colour corrected for proper CMYK output, and I find it
strange that no mention was made about colour issues.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From: "Marvin Margoshes" physchemnospam@telocity.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002


"Bill Janes" billjanes1@attbi.com wrote...
> I thought that this article would be of interest to readers of these
> forums. Since the Canon 1Ds has about twice the pixel count of the
> Nikon, I surmise that it would be suitable for a full page picture.
>
> Bill Janes
>
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html
>
> National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
>
> Erwin Puts, noted Leica lens tester and author, noted in PN014 of his
> APEMC newsletter (dated 18 Aug 2002) that National Geographic rates the
> Nikon D1X images for 1/2 page images, while film (slides) are still
> useful for a double page spread, a 4:1 difference at their quality
> standards. Mr. Puts notes that this corresponds with his own tests,
> confirming National Geographic's standards. While slides can often
> achieve resolutions of 100-120 lpmm (at least, with Leica lenses ;-),
> most digital cameras run in the 30 to 40 lpmm resolution range. This
> difference is inherent in digital cameras which require anti-aliasing
> filters (which are low pass filters) to reduce the high frequency data
> which contains fine contrast and high resolution data from the lens.

When Kodak brought out their new pro digicam wityjh 12 or 13 Mpixels, they
said its resolution matched 35 mm film.  The reason is scattered light
within the emulsion layer of the film.  The explanation makes sense, and I
think Kodak knows more on that subject than does a lens tester.





From: friend me.at.home@universe.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002


spatial resolution is one thing, color gamut another. Since most of
digital cameras work in sRGB, inherently they record ~50% of any color
film. Like it or not, digital is inferior to film (at least now).

Bill Janes billjanes1@attbi.com wrote:
>I thought that this article would be of interest to readers of these
>forums. Since the Canon 1Ds has about twice the pixel count of the
>Nikon, I surmise that it would be suitable for a full page picture.
>
>Bill Janes
...





Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
From: rbean@shell.core.com (Ron Bean)
Date: 29 Dec 2002

friend me.at.home@universe.org writes:
>spatial resolution is one thing, color gamut another. Since most of
>digital cameras work in sRGB, inherently they record ~50% of any color
>film. Like it or not, digital is inferior to film (at least now).

Two words: raw mode.

Now go look up the color gamut of a printing press. Like it or
not, National Geographic is never going to print anything in
their magazine that is even remotely comparable to a photographic
print. This does not seem to discourage them :-).




From: VT vtVincent@CLOTHESaccess4less.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002

Bill Janes billjanes1@attbi.com wrote:
>http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html
>
>National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital
>
>Erwin Puts, noted Leica lens tester and author, noted in PN014 of his
>APEMC newsletter (dated 18 Aug 2002) that National Geographic rates the
>Nikon D1X images for 1/2 page images, while film (slides) are still
>useful for a double page spread, a 4:1 difference at their quality
>standards.

Interesting....

The Nikon D1X is spec'd at 3008x1960 pixels

So at 4x the pixel count of the Nikon D1X the estimated pixel count
for 35mm film would be would be 6008 x 3920 = about ~24Mp

If National Geographic is using Nikon D1X at 3008 x1960 pixels up to
only 1/2 page for quality -

A standard magazine page is 11"x8.5" (US Letter size)
but I think National Geographic is a bit smaller?
I don't have one handy to measure - but is it 10"x8"?

So 1/2 page is 8"x5"?

This means that National Geographic is working to about 375-400ppi for
quality.

This ties in with the established Leica print quality standard of
8lp/mm on paper -
since 2pixels (rows) minimum are required to resolve a line-pair
so 8lp/mm = approx 400ppi.


This is higher than the oft bandied 300ppi (or 300dpi scanned photo)
standard for a lot of magazines (which coincidentally ties in with the
old film print quality standard of 6lp/mm on paper - Leica uses the
higher 8lp/mm)

I know that many on rec.photo.digital are more than happy with 200ppi
prints at 10"x8" or larger.

I also recall a while back that someone had used the original 2.7Mp
Nikon D1 SLR and had their photo published as a double page spread in
I think Sports Illustrated?

It's funny to think that not that long ago there were some who
sincerely and passionately thought that 3Mp had equalled and replaced
35mm film......

Now that 14Mp is available Kodak are claiming that matches 35mm film's
resolution - but what film - ISO800?

However it seems that National Geographic - which is well known for
its photographic quality/reproduction -
requires digicam 6Mp for 1/2 page,
12Mp for a full page
and 24Mp for a double page spread -
- when currently they find 35mm slow slide film is good enough for
that double page spread.....

--
Vincent





Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon D1X Digital


Your math may be a bit off, though your comparison is still valid. National
Geographic does use 200 lpi screening (information from their media kit),
which by the rule of thumb common in pre-press preparation, would dictate
400 ppi. However, these images go through a RIP, which converts them to 2400
ppi per colour (CMYK). While the software handles PostScript, the press and
RIP are basically analogue, or what some may simply call raster image, or
bitmap (not to be confused with the file type of the same name).

Rather than get too technical with this, I should point out that AGFA
produces an excellent series of books about printing and press technology.
They also have quite a bit about image preparation, file handling, and
colour management. Basic press technology is fairly well advanced, and does
seem to lend itself to easy math, though something like Stochastic screening
would obscure simple comparisons.

One could get away with a 300 dpi scan at full print size (plus bleed on
edges) and have a file resolution subtle for printing. Going to 400 dpi
would increase detail information, while going to a lower resolution would
soften the image (less detail).

The other often more important issue is colour quality. RGB relates directly
to CMY. With CMYK printing, the K (black) is added because their is usually
a lack of shadow detail. Getting a better RGB sensor is one way to improve
the relationship, and allow for better CMYK conversion, and some true black
output. Drum Scanners are great at this, and very well evolved. Some of the
newer film scanners are also capable of doing a good job. Slightly farther
down in quality are scanning backs for medium format gear, followed by some
digital SLRs.

Improving the colour capture abilities of digital SLR gear would be a more
useful improvement than increasing the resolution. Adding an ability to
capture a true black, or even generating a CMYK output from the camera,
would be even more useful for some publishing. I think too many of these are
quality biased for newspaper prin

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
...




From: bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 22 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Medium Format Digital Darkroom

Here's what I'm using, and getting great prints to 20x24" (haven't printed
larger).

Scanner: Nikon 8000, a 4000 dpi scanner that's about 95% as good as a drum
scan for resolving fine details but not quite as good as a drum at sucking out
fine shadow details on my 6x4.5 and 6x7 Velvia and Provia trannies.

Other good choices would be the Polaroid SS 120 (also 4,000 dpi) and the
Minolta Multi Pro (3,200 dpi for MF so you have about 56% fewer total pixels).

If you have the bucks and want to scan your 4x5 film as well then look at the
Imacon Flextight series too.

Software: get Photoshop and really learn how to use it, it's very rare for a
scan to be ready-to-go without tonal and color adjustments.

Printer: Go one of two routes, if you sell a LOT of big prints then look at the
Epson 7600 (prints 24" wide on roll or sheet paper for $3,000) or 9600 (same
inks and papers but 44" wide, for $5,000). Alternatively, get the Epson 2200,
which uses the same inks and has similar print head technology but is limited
to 13" wide papers and goes for $700 (when you can find it, it's still in short
supply 8 months after intro, it's THAT good). Then for larger prints you can
learn how to target your files in Photoshop to a specific printer profile and
send out for either LightJet 5000 laser prints (comparable to Ilfochromes) or
Epson 9600/7600 prints. 

The 9600/7600 are so popular that the LightJet business is dropping off so guys
are lowering their prices substantially for LJ prints, which is what drove me
to the 2200 instead of the 7600. I can get a 20x24" LightJet print from
Calypso (the lab used by Galen Rowell and Frans Lanting, among many others) for
$25 if I prepare and profile the file myself (see "learn Photoshop" above :).
Compared to prices 2 years ago this is amazing.

These are the best photo printers out there, with beautiful prints and very
long print life, roughly 3x the predicted print life of Ilfochromes.

You would get a lot out of the new book by Harald Johnson called "Mastering
Digital Printing" as he covers these topics well. If you decide on the
scan-Photoshop-inkjet flow I'd also highly recommend the book "Photoshop
Artistry" by Barry Haynes as he's doing the same flow and explains the
technical details well.

Bill




From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 
From: Randy Jensen randy@jamzcheer.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] digital versus film

A simple calculation I did (based on some leaps of faith, of course) is that
to match slow film (ISO 50 or so) you would need an equivalent megapixel
amount of about 28MP.  This is how I came to that number.

With a decent lens and film such as Fuji Velvia you can expect a lpm of
about 45.  Multiply this by the long side of a 35mm neg (36mm) and you get
1620 lines across.  This is theorhetically the maximum number of lines you
could discern from the far left to far right of the neg (or slide).

Nyquist theorem dictates that you need to double sampling resolution to
record detail.  But this only works for things that are in phase, such as
audio.  That's why CDs sample audio at 44.1kHz.  People can hear up to 20k
(at best) so to record detail that high you need to at least double that
(and there's debate that 44.1k isn't high enough, but that's WAY off topic).

Anyway, for resolution of an image, doubling is not nearly enough.  You need
to multiply it by 4 (can anyone say "Reciprocity Law"?  lol.  It's like
doulbing in both directions (2x2=4).  This link hints that it may be more
like a factor of 6, but I'll be conservative with 4:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html

If you multiply by 4 my 1620 lines of resolution with film, you get a CCD
sensor that must be 6480 pixels wide (4x1620), which would make it 4320
pixels on the short side (to keep the 24x36 aspect ratio).  Total pixels:
4320x6480=27,993,600 (about 28MP).  If it truly is closer to 6 (instead of a
factor of oversampling by 4), this number rises dramatically.

This ONLY refers to straight resolution.  There are other factors,
obviously, in favor of both sides.

My observations for the morning....

Randy




From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 
From: Johnny Deadman lists@johnbrownlow.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] digital versus film

...
> (and there's debate that 44.1k isn't high enough, but that's WAY off
> topic).

Where do you get this from? What do you mean by 'in phase'? A thing
can't be 'in phase' on its own, it has to be 'in phase' WITH something.
Do you mean a continuous oscillating signal?

> Anyway, for resolution of an image, doubling is not nearly enough.
> You need
> to multiply it by 4 (can anyone say "Reciprocity Law"?  lol.  It's like
> doulbing in both directions (2x2=4).  This link hints that it may be
> more
> like a factor of 6, but I'll be conservative with 4:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html

The Nyquist criterion is to do with anti-aliasing, where the sampling
of a repeating signal at too low a frequency produces an artefact of a
signal at a lower frequency. It's no good just squinting at lines and
saying 'hmph, doesn't look sharp to me'. In the examples you give the
image sampled at the Nyquist frequency clearly resolves the lines at
the correct frequency, which is all we care about. It may not be pretty
or perfect but the lines are resolved. It's always nice to have more
pixels, but since you are basing your calculation on resolution of lpm,
the Nyquist frequency, or preferably a bit above it, is just fine.

BTW the 'doubling in both directions' is a canard. You are already
'doubling in both directions', because when you double the pixel
density of a sensor you double it in both directions, thus increasing
the actual number of pixels by four.

Boy, I feel like Austin today. Next!
- --
Johnny Deadman
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com




From: David Kilpatrick iconmags2@btconnect.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: National Geographic Rates Film 400% better than latest Nikon
 D1X    Digital
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003


In a recent Master Digital photographer issue, Jason Smalley took
similar (near identical) shots side by side with Velvia in an EOS-1 and
on his Canon D60. He used a Nikon 4000 dpi scanner to create a DPS image
from the Velvia, and interpolated the D60 image up to provide a similar
(55mb) file. Both he left unsharpened and unprocessed.

We took a half page (A5) landscape slice of each image, and applied
normal USM (modest, since we are a 200lpi sheetfed publication with very
high levels of detail).

I promise you that after seeing the comparison, you would never use film
again. There's no way the Velvia can match the quality of the digital file.

Recently we have run DPSs from Fuji S2, and full page repros (correctly,
their maximum capacity) from D100, Dimage 7Hi, etc. We're doing the EOS
1Ds in Feb, and hope to have the new Kodak, which again will be given a
double page spread highly detailed still life or something similar to
tackle.

I've been working in repro now since 1975, when I pioneered the use of
assembled R-type photo sets to reduce costs in magazine production; I've
been personally responsible for the first DTP produced commercial
magazine in the world, the first ever commercially printed desktop
colour scans, the first magazine cover made from Kodak Photo CD, the
first magazine cover from a digital camera. The industry overtook me
long ago, of course, and converted itself to digital after years of
telling me I was wrong, and being shown repeatedly that I was right!
Back in the 1980s we won the very first major UK DTP award, got featured
by Apple in their literature etc. We started digital photography with
the Logitech thingy, Canon Ion, etc - we have gone all the way through,
now 15 years of digital production behind us (me and the wife, that is).

Whatever National Geographic may say, it is a pretty simple fact now
that digital USED CORRECTLY beats film. Here in the UK we have a photo
press where not one major national magazine actually has any idea how to
reproduce a digital photo, and the main users are a national newspaper
press which cares not one whit for colour or quality of results.

Film is dead. Trust me. I love the stuff, and I'm sure that twenty years
from now I'll be back making prints in the darkroom and paying a fortune
for the materials to do so. But what I think today (as a solo publisher,
having to deal with every aspect of magazine production single-handed)
is what the big guys think tomorrow (once every single department
finally gets into the new workflow).

It only takes one person in a repro department to slow the adoption of
digital direct photography by the lifetime of that person's employment;
it is SO EASY to make sure that digital pictures receive no attention at
all, while film images as assiduously corrected, retouched, and checked.
If you do the reverse - pay no attention at all to film scans, and
carefully manage digital camera files - it makes film look TERRIBLE. But
right now, most staff employees, contracted repro houses etc will be
doing the reverse, and treating all digital camera files as a 'final
image', while hardly ever considering doing to same with a film scan.
They may even be deliberately allowing colour-management errors, file
size errors, etc to worsen digital direct images - just to be able to
keep their jobs.

But when you are ONE person doing all the photography, scanning, layout,
etc the view is entirely different! I would no more consider loading
film into a camera today, for a magazine illustration, than I would
consider getting out a pencil and sketching. In fact I would probably be
MORE likely to get the pencil.

David

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/




Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital VS Film comment


Simple economics of film are that both Kodak and Fuji sell more film in one
time use cameras than any other type. These are also the greatest profits by
far, even with Kodak reporting nearly 47% of their income coming from
commercial (as opposed to consumer) products. The available financial reports
of Kodak and Fuji are available to the public, and make interesting reading.
The reports from AGFA are a bit tougher to figure out, but indicate that their
one time use cameras are also the biggest profit items.

Profits drive technology, not the other way around. I am not alone when I
predict that wireless imaging will be the big wave in digital photography. This
will make the current consumer digital cameras low volume niche products.
Phones with built in cameras already sell for under $10 in Japan, and likely
soon in the west for under $100. High priced digital SLRs will remain low
volume, though the profit margins will improve as chip manufacturing improves.

Perhaps cheap disposable digital cameras will be the wave of the future, but I
think phone users will still be the most numerous. Some manufacturers are
hoping that stand alone printers for digital will be good sellers.
Unfortunately, the best information so far indicates that less than 11% of
digital camera users ever print anything. Maybe if someone makes a viewer that
allows you to show a slide show directly on your television, that may work
better, but with so many people still at the "12:00" blinking on their VCR (or
DVD player), prospects are not good.

Quite a few one hour photo places are hoping for the digital station to print
consumer level shots quickly. The real trick will be to encourage people to
print at all. However, why would they want to do that, when they have already
seen their shots on a 1" square LCD?    ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new) - L
Date: 22 Jan 2003


contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote 
> Brian:
>
> Thanks for the heads up. Two questions:
>
> - Is the Series E the same design as the older AIS or the newer 50mm/1.8 AIS?
>
> - I noticed that you have said in effect that the reflection is a
> catadioptric-like effect caused by reflections between the rear? elements
> whereas on Nikon's explanation page it mentions the reflectance of the CCD
> and/or the low pass filter being the problem. Are you right or they or are you
> both right and both these factors contribute to the flare spotting?
>
> TIA


Hi Lewis:
I've seen certain types of flare when using a DSLR that indeed are due
to reflection from the CCD and/or the anti-aliasing filter.  However,
the central flare spot is not an example of this.  Flare caused by
reflection off the CCD (then reflected off of a lens surface back to
the CCD) will have the shape of the original light source, not the
shape of the aperture stop.  If Nikon is claiming that the central
flare spot of the 50/1.8 is caused by CCD reflectivity, then they are
wrong, and need to hire a competent consultant ASAP.

I have no first-hand information about the Series E 50/1.8.  They're
so cheap that I may pick one up sometime just for the purpose of
testing it.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new) - L
Date: 23 Jan 2003

...
Gordon:
I believe that central flare spot in the 50/1.8 is not caused by any
reflections at or near the image plane.  It can be completely
explained by reflections from each surface of the rear element, as I
have posted elsewhere.  A central ghost in the shape of the aperture
stop can only be achieved by actually imaging the aperture stop onto
the image plane.  Therefore, the ghost should appear whether you use
film or an electronic sensor.  Contrast of the hot spot is quite low,
however, so it may require slide film to give results similar to what
you find with a high quality CCD.

One reason that 3-chip cameras have less flare is that the required
beamsplitting prism is very thick.  This means that any powered
optical elements are a long way from the image plane, which almost
always helps to reduce flare problems.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new)
Date: 24 Jan 2003


rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether) wrote 
> brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
> wrote:
>
> >David:
> >How do you really determine whether two versions of a lens are truly
> >based on different optical designs or not?  Even a seeminly trivial
> >change in the optical prescription can drastically alter the
> >aberration correction.  Even changes that fall within the line-width
> >of a typical cross-sectional drawing can have dramatic impacts.
>
> Yes - but it is unlikely such changes would be made,
> unless the aberrarion-correction was positive - and
> it is unlikely that minor changes in curvatures and
> spacing (that would not have other ill effects) would
> have much effect on the described ghost at f22...

I did some ray tracing experiments and found that simply moving the
aperture stop a few millimeters can have a significant impact on the
central flare spot without altering the optical correction.  Changes
of this sort would be very hard to detect by simply examining the lens
from the outside.
>
> >So, there is still a question as to whether or not the Series E and
> >the AF versions of the 50/1.8 suffer from axial ghosting even when
> >there are no bright sources of light.
> >Brian
> >www.caldwellphotographic.com
>
> I go by reputation for their being only two (basic, at
> least) designs for the Nikkor 50mm f1.8. BTW, I just
> checked my old AIS compact-version of it (the rare-in-US
> metal-barrel version, which has multicoating), and found
> no indication of this central ghost...
>
You may be correct that the entire series of 50/1.8 lenses is based on
only two distinct optical prescriptions.  The presense or absence of
the flare spot may be a way to check this.  By the way, the easiest
way to look for it (even on low-contrast negative film) is to do
something like this:  http://caldwellphotographic.com/50nightflare.jpg

Note that the central flare spot doesn't begin to show until the
street lamp is about 8mm from the image center.  This series of images
also proves that the stop is being imaged onto the film/CCD plane
because the spot is in approximately the same place no matter where
the light source is, and because the 7-sided shape of the aperture
stop is clearly evident.

> David Ruether
>  rpn1@cornell.edu
>  http://www.ferrario.com/ruether





From: "Barry Pearson" news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: What's the Highest Resolution digital camera?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003


"Postman" Nobody@st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk wrote
> | >What's the Highest Resolution digital camera out there in the market? (or
> | >highest mega pixels)
>
> How do you define resolution?
> Not as daft a question as it might sound ...

A very good question, which has exercised the minds of standards committees.

See:

Guideline for Noting Digital Camera Specifications in Catalogs
JCIA GLA03
Revised July 17, 2001
Digital Camera Committee
Japan Camera Industry Association
http://www.photo-jcia.gr.jp/english/digital/pdf/JCIA_GLA03English.PDF

This appears to be similar to the standard (PIMA 7000) that was being developed
by PIMA (Photographic and Imaging Manufacturer's Association) before it became
I3A (International Imaging Industry Association). I can't find it on the I3A web
site, and the PIMA site appears to have gone.

It tries to home in on "effective pixels" as the key measure. To me, what I care
about is how many pixels I end up with in the digital image. Resampling that
changes the number of pixels from what is sampled doesn't count. But colour
interpolation (as used by most sensor technologies) is OK. There still appears
to be controversy about this, arising from the Foveon technology. But as far as
I am concerned, even though Foveon cleverly sample 3 colours at each point,
they
still only provide one pixel (with 3 colour channels) at each point, and that
is
what the photo-editor sees. (My scanner does the same, delivering about 20
megapixels from a 35mm slide without resampling!)

See also:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0203/02030602foveonx3notation.asp

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/





From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Olympus returns with a (d)SLR ! Base on the 4/3 system standard
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 

"Russell Williams" williams@adobe.com wrote:
> > > 300mm, f2.8 (600mm)
> > > 14 - 54mm, f2.8 - f3.5 zoom (28 - 108mm)
> > > 50mm, f2.0 macro (100mm)
> > > 50 - 200mm, f2.8 - f3.5 zoom (100 - 400mm)
>
> It's lenses like that that will be the real draw of the format.
> They're not that big, but they're faster than most or
> (in some cases all) of the comparable 35mm focal
> lengths.

But as I've pointed out before, if the noise levels in the Olympus camera
are even slightly higher than the 10D, then a 400 f/4.0 is _lighter_ than
the Oly 300 f/2.8, and you simply bump the ISO up one notch. Right now, ISO
400 on the 10D is better than ISO 100 on any of the consumer cameras, so
unless Oly does a lot better than the E-20 (which has 10D ISO 400 noise
levels at ISO 80) there's no point in the Oly 4/3.

To reiterate: to be meaningful it _must_ match 10D noise levels. Even one
f-stop higher noise will mean that there's no advantage to the 4/3 sensor
size. But at 1/2 the size, it's extremely unlikely it will come even close.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] Foveon in the news

Hi Dennis,

> IMO this is very significant
>
> Nat Semi licenses Foveon sensor technology
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030310/sfm096_1.html

Thanks for the pointer...

What would be significant is if they were able to produce a sensor that
didn't have the problems the one used in the Sigma camera has. It has quite
bad color rendition, bad bloom, and quite bad low light performance.

Austin




Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: numbers of lost images - film vs. digital? Re: my first prints

dr bob wrote:

> My major concern is that in 50 years there may be no light sensitive paper
> to print upon. There will always be chemicals and optics.

I've heard about an invention that uses an inkjet printer, but uses
"ink" made of normal b/w chemicals. You let the printer splatter
necessary amounts of photosensitive chemical, develope, and fix it. The
result is like a chemical print. The main difference is that it can be
done in broad daylight, because the shades of gray are made by rationing
the "ink". In fact you *must* do it in light, to expose the ink.

-- Lassi




From: tww@execpc.com (TWW)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: numbers of lost images - film vs. digital? Re: my first prints
Date: 11 Mar 2003 


Bryan Olson fakeaddress@nowhere.org wrote
> Digital makes archiving and retrieving images *easier*, once one
> develops a methodical workflow.

Great concept in the short term - provided the methodical workflow
remains constant. Given the changes in media storage over the years,
the methodical workflow would require constant revision.

The first system I worked on was a VAX 15 years ago. With all my data
stored on an 8" floppy, I then moved to 5 1/4", but I had to have the
system/software/process capable of reading from 8" to 5 1/4". Then, I
moved to 3 1/2". Again, I needed the system/software/process capable
of reading from 5 1/4" and writing to 3 1/2". Then, the ZIP drive
came along. Then, I moved off a PC onto Unix where I used a DAT.
Then, I moved back to a PC and used a CDROM.

All the while, I accumulated more and more data. Over time, file
conversion from the old to the new became less important. Affect -
information loss.

Meanwhile, I can open a binder filled with negatives more than 20
years old. With my static method of storing negatives well defined, I
surmise the overall effort is less.

I appreciate the notion that PCs make life easier. Data retention
proves very costly, both in time and money. I'd agree with a previous
posting that stated the permanent record will be the printed photos
generated from a digital means. The digital data for the most part,
over time, will be lost.

My $0.02 worth - minus inflation,
TWW

BTW, does anybody have a Wordstar 2.0 word processor that will run on
my present PC so I can convert a bunch of files I failed to convert 15
years ago. :-))




From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: numbers of lost images - film vs. digital? Re: my first prints
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 


Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu writes
>I think vastly more images are preserved via film than digital techniques.
>
>For one thing, what about all those digerati who take zillions of photos
>in a short walk, then spend hours deleting all but a handful of them?
>That's a lot of lost images in the first day ;-)

Yes, as a UK magazine pointed out a while ago, perhaps the worst place
to 'edit' a series of photographs is a press shooter crouching in a
doorway in the pouring rain, trying to find space for more shots for a
'must have' assignment that's already in progress and surrounded by the
rest of the press pack. They pointed out that's the job of the picture
editor in their nice cosy office, and that many photographers are poor
picture editors.

>A good example is the Time cover of monica lewinsky being huged by Clinton
>at a gathering. Lots of digital photographers were there, but none of them
>had saved that image. It was the film shooter who had it in his files, and
>was able to find it.

Yes, just one of many cases where being able to go back to the actual
film produces some surprises. Recently when the Major/Currie scandal
broke in the UK, the papers were full of previously unpublished (and
pretty much unremarkable) shots of John Major, his wife and Edwina
Currie. Had these been digital they'd almost certainly have been lost.

More seriously, there appear to be some pro portrait photographers who
see the 'instant' aspect of digital as an excuse to not bother with
storing the data after a session. They work on an 'order today or forget
it basis'.

--
John

Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk




From: "Mike Lipphardt" mlipphardt@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.marketplace.digital
Subject: Re: Open Source Tools For Photographers? ( working on vvgallery.org & pnavy.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003

Have a look at Image Magick

http://www.imagemagick.org/

Mike




From: opensourcedrm@netscape.net (opensourcedrm)
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.marketplace.digital
Subject: Re: Open Source Tools For Photographers? ( working on vvgallery.org & pnavy.com)
Date: 12 Mar 2003

Hello,

I think that in the near future tons of photographers will be using
open source tools to host and sell their photographs.

At http://pnavy.com , here is some of the functionality delivered by
free open-source:

Create Albumns | Add Captions | Set Permissions
Create & Define Users | Print Pictures | Viewer Comments | Viewer
Count
Drag & Drop Photo Loading | Camera Type Detection | Sort by Popularity
Exif | NetPBM | Image Magick | GD Library
Viewer Polling/Voting/Ranking | Define Custom Fields for Descriptions

And I just integrated some rights specifications at:

http://pnavy.com/dcgallery

I was wondering if anyone else used open source packages/programs for
hosting/selling their photos.

Best,

Ranger




From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Jack Dykinga in the latest View Camera
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 

Gregory Blank wrote:
>  Leonard Evens
> len@math.northwestern.edu wrote:
>
>
>>The latest issue of View Camera has an article by Jack Dykinga about
>>digital vs film photography for large format. I found his comments very
>> enlightening. One such comment is that the largest digital capture
>>units which are readily available for large format produce 6 x 4.5
>>images, and that requires very small precise movements if one is going
>>to take advantage of camera movements. With a full 4 x 5 image, the
>>scale is closer to what the human eye and hand can accomplish. In my
>>case, that was one reason I finally decided to go from 6 x 7 with a
>>technical camera (with movements) to a "real" 4 x 5 view camera. The
>>digital view camera of the future may have a large lcd display and
>>servomechanisms for producing precise movements using a relatively small
>>but very high resolution sensor array. But it won't be able to
>>reproduce the tactile pleasures of working with present day view cameras.
>
>
>>Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu 
>
> I think you missed his point.

Well, what was the point, then?

It seems to me that he had several points, but this was most certainly
one of them. Let me quote one sentence from Dykinga's article. "My
fear is that the tight focus tolerances required by small capture area
cameras will require endless fiddling with 'micrometer-like' controls to
achieve what I can do quickly...even with my tired old eyes using my 4x5
Arca F-Field Camera." But I did say some additional things along the
same lines which are just my thoughts after reading the article. For
anyone who is interested in testing my ability to read plain Enlgish, I
strongly recommend getting hold of the magazine and reading the article.
And you can also look at the other interesting articles, several
focusing on architectural photography, in the same issue.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu 





From BJP Equipment News 28 March 2003:


Fuji is planning on offering a new digital back with 41.4 megapixels of recorded
information in a digital back for medium format cameras (size, 37x52mm). The back
uses Fuji's super CCD HR technology. The one shot back was shown at the 2003 March PMA
show in Las Vegas....





From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji's 41.4 Megapixel back for Med Fmt cameras...
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 

> Fuji showed a 37mm x 52mm digital back with 41.4 million "recorded" pixels
> of info at PMA, using Fuji's super CCD HR technology in a one shot back
> etc.
>
> Could be some buys on 16 MP backs for MF cameras in the offing? ;-)

I don't want to spoil a party (it's an interesting development), but
according to a press release in January (on a different chip) Fuji described
the following:

QUOTE
Super CCD HR - High Resolution
The new Super CCD HR (high resolution) announced today incorporates a total
of 6.63 million pixels into a 1/1.7" chip, performance made possible through
new strides in miniaturization. Cameras equipped with this imaging device
can produce up to 12.3 million recording pixels, resulting in remarkably
high-resolution images.
END QUOTE

This means that the recorded pixels are the interpolated results of more
than (in the case of the MF version) 20 million pixels on the CCD.

The difference between 16 and 20 million pixels is not that significant,
although there are some benefits of the increase of horizontal/vertical
resolution at the expense of a reduction of the diagonal resolution.

Bart









From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji's 41.4 Megapixel back for Med Fmt cameras...
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 

Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl wrote:
> "Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote 
> > from BJP Equipment News 28 March 2003:
> > Fuji showed a 37mm x 52mm digital back with 41.4 million "recorded" pixels
> > of info at PMA, using Fuji's super CCD HR technology in a one shot back etc.
> >
> > Could be some buys on 16 MP backs for MF cameras in the offing? ;-)
>
> I don't want to spoil a party (it's an interesting development),

{SNIP}

> This means that the recorded pixels are the interpolated results of more
> than (in the case of the MF version) 20 million pixels on the CCD.

You're right. It's _only a measly_ 20 MP.

> The difference between 16 and 20 million pixels is not that significant,
> although there are some benefits of the increase of horizontal/vertical
> resolution at the expense of a reduction of the diagonal resolution.

20MP in a 1:1.414 aspect ratio nearly full-frame sensor is a major
improvement for rectangular prints, and means that your lenses function the
same for digital and film. (Assuming it'll be 3700 x 5200 pixels as opposed
to the 4000x4000 of the current backs.) Since the Fuji S2 has the lowest
noise of the 6MP dSLRs, there's a good chance that it'll cough up very good
images.

Also, it's Fuji's gimmicky double-sensor pixel: each pixel has two sensors,
one small and one large, so that even if the main sensor gets blown out, it
still has valid data. This might be a significant improvement.

Since Bayer cameras resolve 70% of Nyquist, the resolution should be around
35 lp/mm, or 2500 lines per height, as opposed to the 1Ds of 40 lp/mm and
2000 or so lines per height. 13x19 prints will knock your socks off, even if
you're as pathological a grain sniffer as I.

Anyway, looks good to me. Wonder if they'll throw in a free GX645AF???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan









From: drsmithhm@hotmail.com (drsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: digicam's 100% depreciation Re: Future Trends
Date: 23 Mar 2003 

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> With 16 MP digicams expected to range down to $100, and even be embedded
> in cell phones in the mid-term future, who is going to want to use their
> older 640 kpixel digicams, or 1.2 MP, or even 2 MP? The issue isn't
> whether they will still work in 20 years, but who will want to use them?

One problem not mentioned here is that the infrastructure for
manipulating these monster images doesn't exist yet. Even for the
Canon 1Ds, I shudder to think of what it's going to cost me in CF to
take 100 high quality images in a single day - even if the camera
really did come down in cost to ~$100.

I just went through this type of decision process, personally. MF vs
high quality digital. Digital was very tempting, but completely
unsupportable from a financial standpoint - I wanted to be able to do
20"+ prints for those really great images. For that to happen, it
would have meant an investment of $10k+ for camera, lenses, storage,
printer, supplies, software, etc. After I got through with some
back-of-the-envelope calculations, I discovered I could take over
4,000 images with 6x7 before I was even close to breaking even.

The only con is the film camera is heavier than the digital. I think
I can live with carrying an extra few pounds instead of being
terminally broke for the next 5 years.

--drsmith





From camera makers mailing list:
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Digital imaging
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 

Interesting. It's probably a scan-camera (like putting a
flatbed scanner in a filmback). Pentacon has been making
similar cameras in the 15-20 mpix range for some time, I think.

http://www.kreatv.de/Seiten/cam.htm
http://www.dcviews.com/_Pentacon/ps3k.htm

What makes today's developments interesting in the 4mpix range
is the fact that these are instantaneous capture, opposed to
using a scan (which takes up to 30s in some cases).


you wrote:
>This is perhaps a bit beyond the range of the home photographic
>experimenter, but I thought it interesting enough to pass along.
>
>Here's a quote from an interview with Dr. Thomas G. Giallorenzi,
>director of the optical sciences division of the Naval Research
>Laboratory, published in the January 2003 issue of _Photonics
>Spectra_ (which I'm just now getting around to reading):
>
>"While you can buy a four-megapixel camera now commercially,
>we've flown and deployed 85-megapixel cameras."




From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: why no scanning backs in LF/MF?
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 

Or, look here -

http://www.eyelike.de/temp/produkte.php?language=2&column=2

Regards,

Marv

Robert Monaghan wrote:
> yes, ROFL ;-) It is disconcerting to see $6,495 as the base cost, and $25k
> at the top end for a scanning back that takes from 21-300+ seconds ;-)
> Yikes! And I agree with your explanation.
>
> here is a sample $45 handscanner into camera article:
> http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-better-scanner-cam.html
>
> or http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-demo-scanner-cam.html - this one is $50
> but scans a 4 inch wide format, perfect for 4x5" cameras...
>
> or http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/8296/tech/scanner.html
> a flatbed scanner into digital camera conversion
>
> These suggest to me too that it should be possible to convert an existing
> 4x5" sized film scanner to scan an image projected by a LF camera (or MF
> camera), for a lot less than $6,495 ;-)
>
> another dang project ;-)
>
> grins bobm




From: Lassi Hippelinen lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: digicam's 100% depreciation Re: Future Trends
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> You know, I hear this nonsense a dozen times a day ...
>
> WHAT do you think might make the digital camera you buy today
> non-functional in 20 years?

Availability of chips. This can be broken down to two separate issues:
- memory chips for storing the image
- spare parts

I haven't heard of any plans to guarantee availability of either for the
next 20 years. When something breaks, it remains broken. The first to go
is the memory chip. Their lifetimes may be less than five years. Flash
memories are designed for data density, not for long lifetime.

When the chips aren't available, the rest of the electronics is
obsolete, and so is mechanics, even if it were operational. This will
not change until functional modules and interfaces between them are
standardised. Maybe the Olympus etc. collaboration produces some?

-- Lassi




From: NickC n-chen@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I won't by (another) digital camera
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 

My D100 camera plus two batteries (@ about $50.00 each) and a couple of
512MB compact flash cards (@ about $150 each) cost about $2,600 NOT
including taxes and lenses. One of my mint condition Nikon APS 6i cameras
with a 20-60mm IX-Nikkor lens and a 60-180mm IX-Nikkor lens, with assorted
filters cost me $123.00 off of e-Bay. One APS film cartridge of 40 pictures
cost me about $3.00, developing only (no prints) cost $1.25.

Not including the $123.00 cost to buy the Nikon 6i camera and lenses,
that's about 24,470 pictures I can take with the Nikon 6i APS camera just
to equal the cost of buying the D100 digital camera plus batteries and
compact flash cards. Picking up a Minolta Scan Dual III for up to $300 (and
for an APS film holder add about $125) makes photography very inexpensive
for someone who is just casually interested in taking pictures and can get
bargain deal off of e-Bay.

Buying a fairly good P&S digicam runs about $800 (not including taxes) and
that's about 188 finished rolls of 40 picture APS cartridges (buying and
developing) which comes to about 7,529 pictures that could be taken with
the Nikon 6i camera just to equal the cost of buying a fairly good P&S
digicam.

Is the Nikon 6i APS camera any good to play around with? I would say it's
as good as a N80 camera, and in some respects may be equal to the N90s. Are
pictures taken using APS film as opposed to digital pictures taken and
posted on the internet as good as each other as seen on the internet? Well,
I'm occasionally still getting e-mail asking for information concerning
those series of snap-shots using APS film and a Canon 370Z APS camera, I
posted a long time ago. Perhaps when someone does a Google search for APS,
that information along with other related information pops up in the scan.
Beats me!

Nick





From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I won't by (another) digital camera
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 


> If I calculate
> the cost for a working camera like an accountant, let's say in
> dollars-per-month or cents-per-picture, this digital camera becomes
> darn expensive when I consider that I have to throw it out after two
> years when the batteries are flat.

So you want to be an accountant...

I bought a Sony digital camera kit in January 2002. Camera,
accessories, adequate memory, spare battery, etc, all amounted to about
$1900 total purchase. Similar quality equipment in 35mm film camera
equipment would have amounted to probably a $1200 purchase. So the
digicam kit cost me $700 extra.

Between the point when I bought it and now, I've made 12000+ exposures
with the digital camera. In 35mm film, I shoot Fuji Reala ASA 100 ...
best price I can find on it is $2.79@roll (import) ... 12000 exposures
is 333 rolls of film, so that's $930. Add the cost of C41 negative
processing at $3@roll and that's another $999. So a film system of
comparable merit to what I bought with the digital camera would have
cost me $1200+930+999 or $3129 to the present moment and will continue
to cost more with every exposure I make, where the digital camera
system cost me $1900 and has not cost me any more since I paid that.

So far, the digital camera has saved me $1229. It is still in perfect
working condition, looks and works like new. It should remain useful
and productive for another three years at least. If my use continues at
the present pace, I would have paid another $4000 or so by the end of
that time in film and processing for the film camera, so overall I will
have saved $5200 or more by using the digital camera, easily financing
its successor and to spare. Even if I do have to buy another battery
along the way ...

Godfrey




From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 
From: "Don Dory" dorysrus@mindspring.com
Subject: [Leica] Exposure latitude of DSLR's

Last week I had the opportunity to borrow a camera similar to Kyle's Leica
D100 :0. When looking at the images I noticed that I had to do an amazing
amount of exposure compensation to maintain a good histogram. This was far
more that adding or subtracting exposure due to items in a scene. I was
having to subtract 1.7 stops just to take a picture of a red tulip in open
shade.

My second discovery was that I had to adjust white balance constantly to
maintain a decent color cast in the image. I was wandering aimlessly
through a forest using the camera like I always use a film camera with the
added benefit of looking at the screen after a shot.

My impressions were that in a non studio, non dedicated flash situation, the
DSLR was an incredible PAITA. I recognize that once I had set up for a
situation there were benefits to the post-view, but catching situations on
the fly would not be easy.

My question is, was this camera typical, or is the exposure/white balance
dance typical of DSLR usage? In other words, more things to learn, more
equipment to carry, more batteries to charge. Compensation would be knowing
I got the shot, and not waiting to process film.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com




From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 
From: "Don Dory" dorysrus@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Exposure latitude of DSLR's

Bob,
Yes, the RAW mode would satisfy most of the complaints I aired. However, in
RAW, close to 18MB are expended for each shot. With the 256 card I had that
would only be 12ish shots which would not be enough. Next time I will
venture out with a Gig card and try my luck again. I am beginning to
suspect that I will stay with film for a few more years at least. It is a
classic time/money scenario. I already have the film equipment so it only
takes time to process and scan.

If I spent 3-9000 dollars I could go digital in a way that equals what I get
with film and avoid the processing/scanning loop. The high end figure comes
from the price of a 1Ds which is the closest equivalent for film.

Thanks,

Don
dorysrus@mindspirng.com
...




From: thcaadoc@hotmail.com (camera critter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: built-in camera cell phones
Date: 19 Apr 2003 

The cell phone + digital camera combination is, of course, very
rudimentary at this early stage of commercial development.

Two improvements that will be necessary for its commercial success:

1) The cell phone's browser needs to be able to access this newsgroup,
so the newbie user still can ask questions about photography while
busy shooting out in the field.

2) The cell phone needs an adequate quantity of random-access memory
(RAM) to support Adobe Photoshop, to clean up the digital photos
before transmitting them.


"mp" mp@123.com wrote
> > Said press release expects 1MP cell phones to appear this year.
>
> Lends a whole new meaning to phone sex, doesn't it?




From: "Webmarketing" blades@starband.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I won't by (another) digital camera
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 

About the only true statement here is that media is expensive. I wear out a
CF card about every other week. They just quit working and need to be
tossed. But it is still way, way cheaper than film. Perhaps you'd like to
buy my Nikon F100?

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

"Londo" tjapungk@indosat.net.id wrote 
> Well, I have been in photography for nearly thirty years, worked with
> all sorts of cameras from 8mm Minox over 35mm (SLR and whatever) to
> big formats (^x9 and more) and had - in the 90s - the feeling that
> there is not much new anymore in photography. And then the digital
> cameras came: Nice stuff, handy, fast cycle time from the shot through
> the computer to the fine print and - admittedly - with pretty
> reasonable quality. But then:
>
> What I don't like about digital cameras:
> A reasonable digital camera with enough features, bells and whistles
> costs about as much as a basic SLR with a lens or two but does not
> last as long. Besides, it is clunky, heavy, big, given the same
> functionality for comparison (Have you ever held a D-100 ? - A brick!)
> Speed of focusing and shooting: Even the best digital requires at
> least a split second to make the shot. Many other digitals nearly a
> second. That's just too long to be on top of the situation for action
> shooting, sports and similar stuff. I really miss this _immediate_
> response of the camera. Also, when switching the thing on: Wait for
> the software to come up....
> Useful lifetime (and cost): The "good old" SLRs would last for ten
> years and longer, maybe become a bit scratched or don't have the
> latest electronics gizmos, but they were workable for ten years and
> longer. And the useful lifetime of the system (camera, lens and all
> other connected accessories) was 20 years and more (unless you made
> the mistake to buy a M-42 SLR in the 70s).
> Batteries: While the old SLR's were running on simple AA-cells which I
> could buy in any shop and anywhere in the world, the accumulators for
> the digital ones are very specific - and expensive!. And you don't get
> spares/replacements anymore after the camera is a year old and no more
> a top-shelf item in the shops. And after maybe two years the batteries
> are flat. Now what ? Toss the camera, buy a new one ? If I calculate
> the cost for a working camera like an accountant, let's say in
> dollars-per-month or cents-per-picture, this digital camera becomes
> darn expensive when I consider that I have to throw it out after two
> years when the batteries are flat.
> System compatibility: Nothing fits from one manufacturer to another.
> No third-party manufacturer for extra lens, so: no competition and the
> prices are showing it. Have you ever seen a 500mm (equivalent) mirror
> lens for digital ? Or a fisheye that is better than toy quality ?
> Nada! The good news: They still use the same thread size for the
> tripod connection. But that might change, too.
> Choice of films and hot pixels: This one goes both ways: With the
> digital, I don't have to plan ahead if I need 800ASA or 25ASA films
> for the day, just flick a switch - all done. Nice and very convenient
> ! But then, those CCDs, notably the most delicate and expensive part
> of the digital camera have the tendency to develop "hot" pixels, the
> first few are usually not critical, only slightly annoying. But they
> tell you that the aging process of the digital camera has begun and
> you better start putting money aside for a new one. Not so in 35mm.
> Just put in another film. Problem solved. What I want to say here, is
> that the "old" film systems were less critical when you had to depend
> on them somewhere in the jungle or desert.
> Image storage (short term): Well, very nice at the beginning. Take a
> few shots put them in the computer and then go out again and take more
> pictures. Simple. How about traveling ? Here the problems begin: Need
> to take a laptop ? Find a Internet-cafe which is willing and capable
> of burning CDs, ? What a waste of time! Or take more memory, CF-cards
> and their microdrive bretheren ? Expensive, mate ! Was much easier to
> have half a shoebox of films after a few weeks of travel (except for
> the X-rays on the airports) and file them on the bookshelf after
> processing.
> Image storage (long term): Put it on the computer. Fine. And then what
> ? The files and database grow. So does the demand of back-up media.
> And how to archive all those precious and beloved pictures so they are
> safe for say, the next fifty years ? How many data systems and media
> have we seen coming and going ? 8-track tapes, 8" diskettes, 5.25"
> diskettes, 3.5" diskettes, CD-Roms, DVD, Exabyte tapes, Colorado
> tapes, 4mm Tapes, Zip drives, Microdrives, what else ? So, a typical
> digital media lasts a few years, maybe ten years if you are lucky.
> After that time you are out of luck: No more spares, no more media.
> The data may persist but after that time you won't find a machine to
> read your data and see your pictures anymore. The way out ? I don't
> know. Good old negatives were nice. I still have historical stuff from
> the 20s and 30s (i.e. last century!) on file, from my ancestors. (Do
> we really believe that our grandchildren will know what a CD-ROM is
> and where the next museum might be to read such stuff ???).
> So, in summary, I found that those digital cameras are only "nice",
> but nearly everything is more complicated, more bulky and heavy and
> -more expensive than good, old chemical photography, yeah, THAT old
> stuff with the silvergrains. How come I get this feeling that the
> industry is trying to push some other new product on us... ? (remember
> those APS films ?)
>
> My personal way out: I will keep on shooting 35mm (and 120 where
> needed) and scan the most relevant pictures for digital
> post-processing. That's cheap, easy to archive and fast. A good
> scanner costs not much more than a good digital camera but I believe
> it will serve me for many years. And for the editing, I have the
> scans. Well, I liked darkroom work but it's very time consuming. And I
> can make the same mistakes (and correct them) on a digital system.
> Much easier and sitting upright at a monitor rather than locked away
> in the dark with the fingers in cold water and being unable for hours
> to light a cigarette.




From: tjapungk@indosat.net.id (Londo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I won't buy (another) digital camera
Date: 17 Apr 2003 

...
I think the difference between digital and film is not only a matter
of "absolute quality" in terms of something that can be measured, it's
rather a matter of touch&feel, very much similar like the quality (and
subsequent discussions) around digital audio, tube-aplifyers and vinyl
records. There is a definite difference, and some people like it like
this way others like that. I.e. the discussion reaches the area of
taste (as opposed to technical specs) and will therefore be endless by
definition.

Myself, I have done extensive testing of digital vs. film and found
that there are more and other qualities in a picture than can be
described in terms of resolution and bit depth only. Example: A
digital exhibition picture for a 60x90cm light box came out much more
"friendly" than the film version, just more pleasing (same resolution
colour balance, etc.). On an other occasion, I had digital travel
photography compared with film scenes of the same subject (and same
day) and the film won. It just had captured more of the "ambience" (or
"feel" or whatever you want to call it) than the digital.

I guess the bottomline is to select the right tool for the right
purpose, the right camera and system for the given job or subject...




From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 17 Apr 2003 
Subject: Re: Why I won't buy (another) digital camera

>Subject: Re: Why I won't buy (another) digital camera
>From: Per Inge Oestmoen pioe@[rmv]coldsiberia.org
>Date: Thu, Apr 17, 2003 
>
>Jim Davis wrote:
>
>> The side by side samples I have seen all favour digital in quality and
>> detail, and that's 6 megapixel not extrapolated.
>
>What I have seen so far, from my own results and from those of others,
>is that digital has a color rendition that is equal to or better than
>film, whereas film preserves more detail. My impression is that film
>still has that little edge whenever the distance stretches towards
>infinity. For portraiture, weddings and wildlife on short distances
>6mp digital beats film by an insignificant margin. For landscapes 35mm
>still seems to be further ahead. On balance, 35mm still has an edge
>judging from what I have seen so far.
>
>I will perform some tests of this. The first in a series I hope to do
>this weekend, with a Canon D60, as well as a Nikon FM2 loaded with
>Provia 100F and Superia 200. Yes, I use both film and digital. Of course.
>
>Per Inge Oestmoen
>http://www.coldsiberia.org/

I saw some of Dennis Reggie's work (wedding photographs) at Photo Expo.Prints
were larger than 10x15" possibly between that size to the near 16x20" range.
Despite what anyone says, from what I have seen in person in these prints is
that fine details just aren't there, subtle tones just aren't there, and this
is from an 11MP camera. Both me and a fellow/tech? from Agfa saw exactly the
same thing. And no, I didn't use a loupe, just eyeballed it to see this
"lacking". And yes, it could have been the way it was processed/etc. Either
way, people who are satisfied w/ just having/seeing images regardless of
quality will be satisfied, those looking for "quality" (read fine detail and
tonal separation and subtletly) won't be.

On another related note (related more to what Jim has been talking about w/
regard to the compatability, or lack thereof, between 35mm and landscape
photography), I have seen excellent (technical quality - sharpness, tonality,
fine detail, etc.) landscape photos, large at 20x30", taken on Ektar 25, at an
art show in Salem? (or Eugenbe?) Oregon a few years back. I have seen excellent
4x6 foot (that's right, feet) photo murals off of Ektar 25 and a Leica M 35mm
(focal length) lens. I used to make 30x40" prints off of Ektar 25 (and
kodachome 25) that were, if not excellent, damned damn good. If you maximze
your technique, its hard to max out the quality of 35mm film - sure, larger
formats will always be better for finely detailed, subtle toned landscapes, but
as long as you maximize your technique, its hard to max out the quality of 35mm
even at large siuzed prints, but every link in the chain must be superbly
handled, if it is, you will get superb, if not astonishing results, but so few
of us (possibly) take 35mm to this extreme level.

As it stands now for 35mm or smaller sensor DSLRs there just isn't enough
information recorded to satisfy my eye for fine detail - I can live w/ more or
less grain, it doesn't bother me as many if not most films today are excellent
in this regard. As for resolution (fine detail) and blown up excellence, 35mm
still has (35mm DSLRs) digital beat. That's not to say you couldn't produce
great results off of a DSLR given the right subject matter/application, but for
size (blowing images up to large print sizes), nothing compares (yet, anyways)
to the fine detail and subtle tonality that 35mm film can record.

When DSLRs will match or excede 35mm in terms of resolution and subtle tonality
I don't know (12MP, 24MP, larger?), but when it does, it will come down to both
a matter of economics (affordablility, both in the short and long terms) and
"look". Though I have seen some excellent blow ups (off of a D30 onto 11x17"?
Epson ink jet prints) from digital, it all depends, for me, anyways, whether
the subject can handle digital's inherent lack of resolution when blown up to
larger sizes. Digital seems better suited for portraiture than for landscapes
because of its lack of resolution. I can stand more or less grain, so long as
resolution is not compromised. For me, digital may be grainless, but it also
lacks the 3D presence of film, w/ the digital I've seen the image seems to rest
on the surface and has, for lack of a better term "a higher res video plasticky
look", digital has apparent clarity, but it lacks life/depth in its "look" (at
least in sizes somewhat larger than 8x10" prints to me). However, I do fine art
(surrealism and photojournalism) and aim for a quality16x20" print (w/
occaisional forrays into 20x30" territory) - for smaller sizes, digital may be
all you need. Everybody's taste and quality standards and print sizes will
vary, so what may work for me might be overkill (or underkill) for others...

Regards,

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm




From: "Eugene" eugene_NOS_pam_jobrien@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Re: Why I won't by (another) digital camera
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 


You've figured me wrong. I am all for digital progress and I am an IT nerd
from way back. I've worked in the web development industry for many years
and therefore I'm certainly not a technology-phobe. I just know that digital
does its share of issues which need to be carefully considered. I think a
lot of younger people now are too inclined to think that just because as
long as they can remember there's been CD's that there will always be CD's.
This assumption is just completely wrong. Computer technology changes at an
alarmingly fast rate, and I know that if my grandchildren are going to be
able to see my images then I need to make sure I keep up with it, I doubt
this will be a problem because I make a point of keeping up-to-date with the
latest developments in the industry.

The big difference with digital though is that it's an all of nothing thing.
Digital images will either remain in perfect condition or very suddenly be
completely unusable, there isn't any middle ground. If you have all of your
images stored on a hard drive all it takes is for a serious disk crash and
they are all lost, it would take something a lot more severe to completely
destroy my collection of B&W negs.

>
> >If I have a 35 mm slide however and I took it back in time 200 years people
> >would be able to work out a way to view it. If I took it forward in time 200
> >years, people would be easily able to view it (and digitise it).
>
> You should see some of my Dad's old slides from the 80s then. They're
> totally lost, nothing left of most of the images. Film storage is
> unpredictable. Digital storage is transferable. None of your points
> have any merit whatsoever. Face it, you just can't afford a digital
> camera and love those little slides.
>
> Jim Davis
> Nature Photography
> http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/




From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I won't buy (another) digital camera
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 

The question isn't really whether a JPEG can be converted into a TIFF
... that's certainly possible ... The question is whether the JPEG
image is clean enough to be worth converting to a lossless format for
editing work. My experience is that it is certainly worth doing with
most of the better cameras that have a JPEG high-quality storage mode.
Losses and artifacts from JPEG Fine mode images are typically not
significant for producing prints up to a respectable size, 8x10 to
11x14 from 5Mpixel cameras are quite reasonable.

In general, experiments comparing film scans and digital camera images
seem to show that I can print digital camera images at about 1/2 to 2/3
the output density to achieve quality comparable to the film scans, due
to lack of grain and other image-degrading film defects. So where I
would normally want 260-300 ppi to print from 35mm or APS format,
150-200 ppi seems to give me the same perceptual results on paper from
a 5Mpixel digicam.

Godfrey




Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I won't by (another) digital camera


Just to add a bit more Bob, not all pros have the same requirements. High
volume and ultra short deadline photographers can see an advantage from
digital. Some product photography studios are going only digital since their
clients want a CD-R full of at least 100 shots of the same product (for an
example). With photojournalists, some still shoot film, or have film cameras
for back-up usage (often manual bodies), but the quick deadlines dictate
digital to get the images to the editors desk.

With advertising photographers, and some other pros, I hear more about time
expense of digital. Most photographers not into high volume or
photojournalism have probably been working in PhotoShop for a few years now,
or have an arrangement with a PhotoShop expert, or lab. Regardless of the
arrangement, getting an RGB image to go to publication as CMYK takes
adjustment time. Time might be somewhat free for the hobby photographer, but
can be costly for some professional photographers. Not all that time can be
billed, or incorporated into the billings, though that can depend upon the
contract. Sorting through digital images on a digital light table (computer
monitor) is often a slower process than just looking at transparencies on a
light table.

Some adjustments to fees and client expectations may help in the future. It
is ironic that I here about some clients expecting a digital photo shoot to
cost them less, when it may actually cost the photographer more.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
...




From: "Joseph Meehan" sligojoeSPAM2@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: digital theory
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 

Well, no.

First I would say that exposure latitude does not define "better." It
may be one factor, but there are many other factors.

Second their are limits to digital exposure latitude.

Third, for a given situation, traditional film has all the latitude
necessary to produce the final product, so the only thing gained by
additional latitude is the elimination of the need for different film speeds
and a reduction in the need for precise exposure control at the time of
exposure, neither of which is much of a problem

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"The Dave©" no@no.com wrote
> In theory, shouldn't digital be **better** than film, because there's no
> limit of exposure latitude that film has, thus allowing a truly accurate
> reproduction? In theory, of course.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: OT: built-in camera cell phones
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003

Seriously off topic for medium format, but since bobm likes to theorize
about 64MP cell phones...

I just saw a press release for motor driver ICs for use in cell phones. Now,
why would a cell phone need a motor? Because the next generation of cell
phone cameras is slated to be 1MP, and at that point you need a zoom lens
and AF, and that's two motors.

Said press release expects 1MP cell phones to appear this year.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why I will almost certainly buy another digital camera

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
> "Gordon Moat" moat@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > > I do not believe digital SLR's are strengthening the position of film,
> > > however. These techniques are direct competitors, and after scanning
> > > the film-based photographer is left with a file that, although each
> > > step in the workflow may be a little different in the application of
> > > various adjustments, for all practical purposes are similar to what is
> > > produced by a digital SLR.
> >
> > Perhaps, though in low light photography most digital SLRs really
> struggle.
>
> I'm surprised you say that. Both the D100 and the 10D are perfectly usable
> at ISO 400 for A4 prints, and I find ISO 400 films to be completely
> unacceptable. XP-2 in 645 isn't adequate for the quality I want at A4...
>
> And although the D100 is pretty funky at 800 and above, the 10D hangs in
> there until ISO 1600.
>
> I think anyway. Am I way off base here???

No David, you are not way off base. I am not too thrilled with most ISO 400
films either, though pushing Kodak E200 gives good results. I was considering
a recent photo situation in which I needed to shoot at ISO 2000 and above.
Even film choices in that realm are tough, but there are a few that produce
good results. When there is no white point, then setting up a digital SLR
could be tougher. With the last session done at high ISO, the colour quality
was the most important aspect.

In general, as the ISO setting is pushed farther, the chips do not do as
well. I have not tried this with medium format digital backs, so perhaps the
cooling of the chip in many of those gets around that problem, though at a
much higher cost. I hope future chips improve on this, as well as lower cost.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





From leica user group mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Javier Perez 
Subject: [LUGforum] A fundamental rethink on digital
Message-ID: <20030424110351.18301.qmail@web40811.mail.yahoo.com>
References:

Hi Everyone
Ever since I bought an old DCS5c EOS 1n based digital
camera, I've been digital happy and wanting to
upgrade. So I started doing some research and came up
with a little table of EOS cameras.


Model      Sensor Size       Resolution       MP    PPM
D30          22.7 x 15.1      2160 x 1440    3.25   95
D60          22.7 x 15.1      3072 x 2048    6.3    135
10D          22.7 x 15.1      3088 x 2056    6.3    136
1D            28.7 x 19.1      2496 x 1665    4.15   87
1Ds          35.6 x 23.8      4064 x 2704    11.1   114
DCS 520  22.5 x 15.1     1728 x 1152     ?        77
DCS 560  27.4 x 18.1     3040 x 2008     ?        111
DCS 1      27.6 x 18.4     3060 x 2036     6        111
DCS 3c    20.5 x 16.4     1268 x 1012    1.3      62
DCS 5c    13.8 x 9.2       1524 x 1012    1.5      110



I've gleaned the specs from manuals and the Canon
site. What I've noticed that has shocked me is that in
terms of actual resolution, there seems to have been
no significant improvement whatever from the days of
my lowly 5c and the 8000 dollar 1Ds. Based on the
figures I got, the DCS 5C has 110 pixels/mm while the
new 1Ds has 114. In other words while I may be getting
a far bigger window with the 1Ds, the quality of the
image coming through it should be about the same! I
think all of these cameras are 24 bit capable or
better though I'm not sure, but I've never noticed
much of difference above 16 bit colour anyway. I'm
really shocked because I had assumed that they were
increasing the ccd density of the chips the same way
they have been packing more transistors into ram chips
and cpus. But apparantly only the size of the sensor
has increased! I'm wondering now if they have hit some
sort of density ceiling. And now on to my question for
the knowledgeable. Assuming I care ONLY about image
quality and don't care at all about lcd viewers, usb
ports, compactness, or anything else, is there any
reason I would need to upgrade from my decripit and
cheap 5c?

Javier




From BJP Digital News - 6 May 2003 (British Journal of Photography Online..)

The Canada-France Hawaiian telescope has a 340 million pixel (!) digital
camera, the largest ever mounted on a telescope. The camera has already 
helped locate new satellites of Jupiter, and will be exploring the Kuiper
Belt for larger bodies (KBOs)....





From Leica Users Group:
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: optics for digital

Jim

Congratulations! You did it again, without resorting to mysticism.

I wondered why there were different requirements for digital vs.
film lenses. Now what does a low pass cut-off filter look like?

Jerry

Jim Brick wrote:

>  George Lottermoser wrote:
>
> >For all techies who have found interest in the optical requirements of
> >digital - Schneider has a white paper on their thoughts:
> >
> >http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/white_papers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf
> >
> >Fond regards,
> >
> >G e o r g e L o t t e r m o s e r, imagist
>
> I've been pointing folks to that white paper for a couple of years now. And
> I still get poo poo'ed. And I also said that this is why Schneider (and
> others) make a complete set of LF lenses for digital. They are computed to
> produce a lower MTF frequency than film lenses. This way a low pass cut-off
> filter is not needed over the digital sensor. This increases sharpness in
> many ways.
>
> All high-end digital SLR's that use film camera lenses have a low pass
> cut-off filter over the sensor to dumb down the lens to match the sensor
> pixel frequency. This is unnecessary with film because the grain structure
> of film is random and much much tighter than current pixel spacing.
>
> For Kodak digital backs, you can buy this cut-off filter as an accessory,
> specifically to quell aliasing.
>
> Jim




From leica users group:
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Re: optics for digital

Hi Jerry,

Actually I don't know squat about the Rolleiflex Optical Glass Film Plane in
the Rolleiflex F or the Tele Rollei, and they really don't have much to do
with this subject as far as I know. The only reason I know squat about
anti-aliasing filters in front of CCD sensors is I've designed digital image
capture devices, and had to specify the frequencies of the filters, and test
different filters.

The anti-aliasing filters used in front of CCD sensors are typically simply
diffusers of some kind, made via one of many different techniques. The ones
I am familiar with for high resolution digital imaging sensors can use
lithium niobate, which, from my understanding, is a very small crystalline
structure that is very uniform and can be controlled such that the amount of
diffusion is easily controlled. You might want to ask Richard Knoppow, or
some physicist who specializes in optical materials, they might be more
helpful.

Austin
...




From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Ken Watson" watsok@frii.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 
Subject: [Cameramakers] Scanner camera

Bob,

You are correct that any sensor is possible given the "cost does not matter
crowd" inside governments. IF you are out of this group then you are stuck
with what is commercially available. Which is CCD linear and area sensors.
I assume you are interested in linear because one can buy a camera from
Kodak that has resolution as good as 35mm film.

The "move the linear sensor across a 6 cm back" has been done or tried
commercially. It's problems were to many internal reflections, and very
slow. The examples I saw were for still life taken with a hasselblad front.

If you stick with all the electronics inside the scanner, you will be
hampered a lot to do unusual things. You may find it is wise to use the
analog circuitry and wire around the digital controls and manipulate the CCD
directly. Most CCD's are now custom made for each scanner maker, so you
need an old one to have any luck finding a data sheet to allow you to do
this.

Exposure control is combined with the stepper drive electronics. As you can
expect they do not want to be stepping while exposing. The exposure is also
derived by the stepper dwell time and shift time. Or how fast are you
moving each step, plus settling time, and then how long does it take to
shift off the X amount of pixels you have just taken, and reset the CCD.
Shift rate vary from 2.5 MHz to maybe 5MHz. All this is wrapped up either
in the drive software or on the board inside the scanner. With newer ones,
it is driven mostly from the computer to keep costs down. Early scanners had
their own controllers, Peter would be intimately knowledgeable of these I
suspect.

Linear sensors running as scanners have been
> assembled to form a longer line of pixels. To get the beginning of one
sensor to just hit the end of the previous one the CCDs are offset with the
offset then being taken out by the software (Just shift the data
appropriately to line
> up the partial images.)

Today these are called contact image sensors and can be found inside the
very thin Canon scanners and other knock off's. Their dept of field is 2mm
and they are CMOS sensors so they do not perform ( image quality)as well as
CCD's. The real problem with stacking the sensors end to end is the
packaging. Bigger packages get expensive very fast. Once again not something
consumers get happy about.

>
> It surprises me CMOS sensors are more expensive than CCDs My
understanding was the opposite,
> that CMOS sensors can be made on production lines suited for other common
semiconductors causing the costs to be much lower. CCD s require special
facilities and thus tend to cost more. The extra complications of CCD s
> are not overwhelming and I just discovered a single package from one of
the leading makers of semiconductors which includes the bulk of the
electronics needed to run a CCD (including the ADC s).

National Semiconductor?

HP has better analog specifications in their designs, but the are
proprietary.

Yes, this is the story from manufactures that made Cmos sensors. They just
forgot that the competition with CCD expertise may know how to better
optimize the CCD products they were already making. CMOS sensors look
simple, but it is hard to compensate for the types of noise they generate.
CCD's do not have this issue and are inherently less noisy ( from a
commercial offering point of view).

See how many cameras you can find today that are using CMOS sensors. You
will find only the under $100 offering using these devices. They are now
dirt cheap as they have almost no market. Well maybe cell phones, now
,might help pull them out. Low power extra cheap is hard for cell phone guys
to pass up. How good do you have to be for viewing on one of these phones?

be precise with micrometer accuracy. The pixels are only a few (roughly
> 10) micrometers in size and wobble of the scan works should be well below
> this.

As you point out Early CCD sensors had pixel sites of 8-10 microns in size.
Some ( over the last three years) get down to 5 or 4 microns. For signal to
noise ratio reasons they have drifted back up to around 6 microns . Also ,
today, you will find all CCD's in scanners have staggered pixels. In other
words two rows of 600dpi sensors for each color. This gives you 1200 DPI
resolution. While it looks to be a gimmick, it really does improve on image
resolution in that the spaces between pixel sites are not zero.

Have fun, you have a large project in front of you.





From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 

"Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote 
> Finally, the claims that digital photography is "nearly free" is
> laughable,given the rapid depreciation of gear, software, and the large
> amounts of time in front of computer and scanners and learning new
> software tricks it takes to do digital well. For the vast majority of
> users, it is well worth paying a few $$ for film and processing rather
> than have to make those kinds of investments in time and effort and gear
> to do digital photography well.


These discussions inevitably end up as an "either/or" proposition. Film
will not die in our lifetimes. But it does not appear that all those
digital users out there are about to chuck their shiny toys and return to
film, either.

The ones that will drive the market are probably not the relatively small
numbers of professionals and advanced amateurs, but rather the "bread &
butter" customers--the ones that take awful photos, using relatively cheap
equipment, of their family picnics, kids' birthdays, and all those mundane
things that people record with their cameras.

Even though that type of consumer shoots only a couple of rolls per year,
taken in the aggregate they account for probably the bulk of Kodak's film
and processing sales, don't you think?

Isn't this the market segment that Kodak is aiming at with their line of
digital cameras with docking stations ("You press the button, we do the rest
. . . ")???? These are the folks that QVC and Home Shopper's Club are
talking to whenever they are hawking a new model of digital camera. This
market segment, God love 'em, doesn't know or care about optical
performance, color balance, sharpness or archival issues. They just want
pictures that "come out," i.e., that are not too over-or-under-exposed.

To make a buck off this market segment, Kodak sells "double prints," not
enlargements. This market segment buys Picture CDs when they get their film
processed, but will rarely buy a Photo CD. This market will probably take
more photos with a digital camera than they ever did with a film
camera--because they can make prints at home, without waiting for
photofinishing.

These are the folks whose only exposure to the internet is via America
Online. They are not technically proficient, and probably don't even know
about internet newsgroups.

I believe that this market segment is the one that will drive digital sales.
These are the folks that used to buy point_and_shoots and have their
processing done at Eckert Drugs or K-mart. Now they're all going high-tech
and printing at home on cheap inkjets.

It is easy for us to dismiss them as irrelevent, but how much will film cost
to buy and to process when it is no longer a mass market commodity? Even
though Kodak's film factories are already paid for, at what point do they
start consolidating their film manufacturing and processing facilities
because growth has levelled off, or even shrunk?

I am very happy to have my film processed and printed into 5x7s at BJ's
Wholesale Club, for less than $4.00 per roll. But, if film use drops off,
how long before BJ's decides that the square footage currently dedicated to
film and processing could be put to more productive use selling some other
product?

If I have to go to a specialty store, or use film mailers, what is my cost
going to become? To me, this is not a question of whether film will
survive--it will most certainly be available for those that want it and are
willing to pay the price. But how long before it ceases to be a mainstream
consumer product? I don't look forward to paying $20.00 for the same
processing that now costs me $4.00.

The higher the price gets for film and processing, the more the incentive
for the photographer to go digital--especially if he/she already has a
computer, an internet account and an inkjet printer.

If you want to see how the mass-market consumer views digital, just sit
through a sales presentation for a digital camera--any digital camera--on
QVC, during one of their electronics products hours this weekend. Listen to
the glowing testamonials from all those ordinary folks calling in, telling
all about the wonderful things they have been doing with their digital
cameras. Look at all the brightly-colored prints that will be displayed,
all while the QVC huckster assures viewers that they "will be able to take
photos as good as these. . ."

What we should be concerned with is--not that film won't survive--but how
many of us will be left to support what is likely to become a dwindling
market.




[Ed. note: a warning from Fujifilm; see related British Jrnl of Photography issue for more info]
BJP PROFESSIONAL NEWS - 21 May 2003

Fujifilm warns of vanishing trick

Fujifilm research has found that digital camera users are in danger of
losing their images if they continue to rely on poor-quality inkjet
prints and computer hard drives to store their pictures.

The report found that 63% of the UK's five million digital camera owners
are at risk, and now the company's digital processing minilab division
is targeting them in a campaign to raise awareness about the benefits of
obtaining silver halide prints to preserve their images. Of particular
concern is the number of consumers - more than a third - who rely on
their computers to store their images.




Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kodak Lab Closing--Film Use Is Down

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Steven M. Scharf" scharf.steven@linkearth.net a écrit 
> > Ah, you've stated the crux of Kodak's problem.
>
> I think this problem may be more than just Kodak's.

More a problem for Epson and HP, though all involves companies will have an
interest in future market changes.

> > Digital is going mainstream but people don't do
> > anything with most of the photos.
>
> I think a number of companies somehow got the idea that everyone would go
> out and buy millions of ink-jet printers, spend $60 a pop on ink cartridges,
> and print all of their digital photos on paper at $2 a sheet. Of course,
> none of this has happened. Do-it-yourself printing is largely confined to
> hobbyists, and digital users are often not printing anything at all.

This was one of the original marketing pushes, and one of the biggest reasons
behind the large investments. Part of the problem started with cheap inkjet
printers sold at a loss, or nearly a loss. The hope was for paper and ink
cartridge sales to make up the difference, though most of the big players never
seem to have met their goals.

With a larger push of digital camera sales, again the hope was that this would
sell more ink and paper. It still did not improve the situation much. Then some
computer makers started packaging digital cameras as value added options,
though part of that incentive was hoped to sell the computer. Neither of these
proved to be successful strategies.

The newest pushes are now for printers that print without a computer, and
digital printing kiosks. The kiosks are a novelty for those without computers,
or who just do not get it for printing at home on an inkjet. The standalone
printers are also targeted towards those people, but also to those who do not
want to have home computers.

In my opinion, the basic problem with all these strategies is that they place
digital still photography as a support item for other technologies. Sales of
related supplies have been the focus. If you watch many digital camera users,
they take a photo, and pass it around to their friends to see on the back of
the camera. A large percentage mostly use these images for e-mail, or to show
others on a computer screen. This fits better with a Polaroid mentality, except
the only consumables are usually batteries.

Another aspect is that the word digital has become the beginning and end
definition for the average person not into photography. It makes little
difference to them about lenses, features, or much of anything beyond the size
of the camera. Really small digital cameras are somewhat popular, and good
sellers. When quality is judged on a computer monitor, or just on the camera
LCD, it becomes tough to convince people to pay for more of anything, though
the marketing machine has caused people to latch onto "MegaPixels" as the sole
indicator of quality.

This leads us to the next great big push, wireless imaging. Of course, this is
just hoped to sell more phones and air time. Which brings us to the great
dilemma, direct digital photography has rarely been about photography. What I
mean by that is that it has been a tool of other industries, and little
industry emphasis has been placed just on the photography aspect, and I am not
referring to the advertisements of camera makers.

> > Gone is the double prints of every 24 frame roll
> > where 2/3 of the photos are stored or discarded.
>
> Gone and good riddance!

I would not be too hasty with that. Consumer film sales do drive the market,
and provide a fewer percentage of photographers with some nice film choices.

> It used to be that you couldn't even get film developed without buying
> prints as well.
>
> > The wide availability of low cost digital prints
> > is the big enabler for digital.
>
> It's an enabler for film as well. I get all my prints by taking a CF card
> to the local lab, which is right down the street and has a Fuji Frontier.

It may be an isolated trend, but I have found more people lately that have
recently bought film cameras to compliment their digital cameras. Many people
are not computer literate enough to print images, or unhappy with the quality
of digital images. Easy mistakes like taking an image at the lowest quality
setting, and wanting a full letter sized print, or just confused why the
colours do not look like the monitor. Some people find that the old idea of
taking the pictures, and the lab does the rest, is an easy way to enjoy
photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Date: 12 May 2003

rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote 
> What if those millions of 16MP digital cameras in cell phones and so
> on opens up people to the joys of taking photos and sharing them? What if
> 1% of U.S. cell phone users get into photography in a more serious way? or
> 2%? or 5%?

Bob:
I doubt you will ever see a 16MP camera in a cell phone unless there
is a reversal of the trend toward smaller and smaller size. Even if
you were to use a 2/3" sensor, which is *far* too large for cell phone
use, 16mp would require 1.9 micron pixels, which is just won't work
well with the simple low cost lenses needed. A far more likely
endpoint is 1 to 3 megapixels in the cell phone market, and the
sensors will be *tiny*.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: "Vedran" padawan@vip.hr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The film v digital debate
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 

> And I'm guessing you want those "memory Chips" to cost around $4 a time ?
> ;^)

YES!!!

The point is: film is memory and I just need to process it and scan it. It
contains 36x60MB cause I scan at 48bit RGB no IR. When I take a trip to some
godforgotten place don't give a rat's ass about processing speed and instant
availability. Just want to take as many photos as I can. Here in Croatia
(Europe, near Bosnia and Kosovo, you know...) roll of 36x60MB of Fuji
Superia 100 "memory chips" costs about $3 US.

What? Should I buy DSLR and carry 30GB hard disk with me?




From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: [Leica] Re: optics for digital

 George Lottermoser wrote:
>For all techies who have found interest in the optical requirements of
>digital - Schneider has a white paper on their thoughts:
>
>http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/white_papers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf
>
>Fond regards,
>
>G e o r g e L o t t e r m o s e r, imagist


I've been pointing folks to that white paper for a couple of years now. And
I still get poo poo'ed. And I also said that this is why Schneider (and
others) make a complete set of LF lenses for digital. They are computed to
produce a lower MTF frequency than film lenses. This way a low pass cut-off
filter is not needed over the digital sensor. This increases sharpness in
many ways.

All high-end digital SLR's that use film camera lenses have a low pass
cut-off filter over the sensor to dumb down the lens to match the sensor
pixel frequency. This is unnecessary with film because the grain structure
of film is random and much much tighter than current pixel spacing.

For Kodak digital backs, you can buy this cut-off filter as an accessory,
specifically to quell aliasing.

Jim




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film versus 6 MP digital
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

"pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org wrote 
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > Yes. If you look at the better film/digital comparisons out there, it seems
> > 35mm Provia scanned at 4000 dpi will outperform 6MP digital by 50% or so.
> Well...have a look here:
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

He has the 10D looking somewhat better than his Provia scans. I suspect his
use of GEM may have softened the Provia scans. (The Nikon 4000 is said to be
a bit harsh and accentuates grain.) I'm using the Nikon 8000, and Provia is
nearly grain free at 4000 dpi and, at its best, a bit sharper than those
scans.

I don't know what your conclusion from this page would be, but mine would be
that as a practical matter, one can't beat the 10D with 35mm by enough to
make 35mm worth the bother. Which was exactly my conclusion last year for
the D60, and why I jumped for 645. (And I'll go one step further and say
that 645 only beats 10D digital by enough to make it worth the bother at ISO
100 when has done everything right. Beating the 10D is _hard_.)

So my feeling on your whole "35mm is better than 6MP dSLR digital" rant is
that it's dead wrong. The convenience advantages of the 10D are so enourmous
as compared to film scanning (and the slight loss of potential quality so
minimal) that 35mm film just isn't worth it. Get MF if you need more detail
than your D60 provides.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: 26 May 2003 

"Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote
> About testing:
> Is it fair to compare a scanned slide with a pure digital recording?
> How much degradtion comes from the scanner optics and how much
> noise is introduced?.....is it the real grains we can see in the film or
> is it noise from the scanning?

Hi Max:
If you scan films with ISO values of 25, 100, 400, and 3200 you will
definitely see a difference in the severity of the grain - even if you
only scan at 2700 dpi. This difference is obviously due to the film
image itself and not the scanner. There may indeed be a noise
component due to "grain aliasing" or some other phenomenon, but I
would expect this to be a minor thing unless you are scanning really
low-grain films. Certainly in the case of faster films a 4000 dpi
scan will show true grain structure. I have seen high resolution drum
scans and micrographs that do show slightly less noise than a 4000 dpi
CCD scan, but the film grain is still there.

I suppose an interesting test would be to compare an ultra-high
resolution micrograph with various drum and CCD scans just to see how
the appearance of grain changes.

If you search through this article:
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/ you will find both a
micrograph and a 4000dpi scan of a Kodachrome 25 test slide. Although
the overall impression of roughness is similar, the micrograph does
show grain details that aren't seen in the 4000dpi scan. A similar
comparison of a TMAX 3200 slide would be a different story!

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 

Max Perl writes:

> Is it fair to compare a scanned slide with a pure
> digital recording?

Probably ... since the objective these days is usually a digital file,
it's hard to use film without scanning it, so you more or less have to
factor scanning into the comparison. However, the scanner used should
be a good one, one that fits the budget of the environment for which you
are doing the comparison. And if you are doing absolute comparisons,
you need the best scans that money can buy, not just any old scan,
otherwise you don't get as much information from the film as is truly
possible.

In some cases, you can skip the scans, as when comparing only paper
prints. But paper prints lose so much in all but the largest sizes that
it may not matter, anyway.

> How much degradtion comes from the scanner optics
> and how much noise is introduced?.....is it the real
> grains we can see in the film or is it noise from
> the scanning?

Good questions. A lot of comparisons that seem unfavorable to film
include some very bad scans. I routinely get much better results from
my scans than I see in film-to-digital comparisons, so someone is either
using inferior equipment or inferior technique, and perhaps both






From: "pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 

brian wrote:
> Per Inge Oestmoen pioe@coldsiberia.org wrote 

>>D60:
>>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3374_RT16_rotate_800_al.jpg
>>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3375_RT16_cut2_no_sharpening.jpg

>>Nikon FM2, Superia 200 scanned:
>>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-1_800.jpg
>>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-4_cut2_no_sharpening.jpg

> A good scan of a 35mm film frame does show a bit more detail than 6MP
> digital, although the increase in noise is substantial. For many
> people, myself included, the lack of noise in a good 6MP digital image
> more than makes up for a slight loss in resolution.

I bought a $2000 digital camera and then five nice prime lenses for
it. I am glad that I made the purchase, but in spite of its price that
camera has a limited application.

The 6 MP SLR camera is good or excellent for general people, animals
and portraiture work, but fails dismally when it comes to landscapes
and other subjects where rendering of detail is paramount. In a
comparison with film it becomes clear that the film brings out details
in conifers, leaves, branches and grasses that are simply absent in
the digicam image.

I have to admit that it is completely beyond me how anyone can prefer
a lack of detail to the much more detailed image which is possible
with film. I suspect that such persons have not looked closely enough.

Per Inge Oestmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/




From: Per Inge Oestmoen pioe@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital v Film
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 


Alan Browne wrote:
> Read correctly: I said the digital gives the "impression" of being
> sharper. Look at the detail of the tree on the left. In the film
> version you can see some detail in the bark that is simply not there on
> the digital.

I did, but I can hardly see any single element in the D60 image that
gives me any impression of greater sharpness than the film counterpart.

> The film IS carrying more detail and sharpness. But is very noisy in
> the low contrast areas as well (water)... some people will like the
> digital more because it appears smoother.

A closer look at the surface of the water will reveal that the reason
why it is smoother in the D60 image is precisely its lack of detail.
The Superia film simply has captured details in the water which is
hopelessly out of the D60's capabilites. In a print, there is not all
that "noise," and the better sharpness will really show.

But - there is a big but - the D60 colors are on balance better and
more natural than those rendered by film.

I think we have pinned down the reason why some people believe that a
6 MP digital camera beats film: They are being fooled by their looking
at the color fidelity only, and not the detail in addition.

I have noticed this many times. Digital cameras really give stunning
color which may impress the untrained observer. However, as soon as
one understands how to look for detail, it becomes clear that digital
still has some way to go before it can compete with film.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/




From: Per Inge Oestmoen pioe@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 

brian wrote:
> I ran across these pages today which appear to be an excellent
> comparison of 35mm and 6x7 format ISO-100 film and a variety of Canon
> digital cameras (1Ds, D60, 1D) using two different test scenes:

The following two images very clearly shows film's superiority over 6
MP digital:

Canon D 60:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/port/E8BA3554_20x13neck.jpg

Canon EOS 1:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/port/50mmf8_20x13neck.jpg

The greater detail is obvious. This would have been even more
noticeable with conifers, grasses and other subjects in nature. For
portraiture and weddings the D60 excels, but film wins by a
significant margin for detailed work.
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: 24 May 2003 

I ran across these pages today which appear to be an excellent
comparison of 35mm and 6x7 format ISO-100 film and a variety of Canon
digital cameras (1Ds, D60, 1D) using two different test scenes:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/build/building.htm
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/port/port.htm

To my eye the 1Ds still lags behind 35mm film very slightly in terms
of high-contrast resolution, but is drastically better in terms of
tonality and overall image quality. The comparison with 6x7 is a bit
more muddled: it really depends on how much you value resolution vs
grainlessness/tonality.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: Pete Su [psu@kvdpsu.org] 
Sent: Sun 5/25/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System

FWIW, this is a pretty good article on lenses, sharpness, and digital
sensors vs. film.

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/

Pete




[Ed. note: - interesting review of lenslets for credit card thickness lenses and digicams;
also defocusing lenses which increase depth of field by tenfold etc. ;-) ]
From: George Kenney [gdkenney@bellatlantic.net] 
Sent: Sat 5/24/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System


I found that article I mentioned. As Jim noted, this is not news for chip
designers and was, in fact, the subject under discussion here if only I'd
not been too dim to understand. Nevertheless, for people who prefer the
long explanation in English instead of the engineers' verbal shorthand, I
think this is a really interesting article. An additional benefit: It gives a few
comparative examples of photos with/without the induced blur which
leads, through the miracle of software, to sharper, greater depth of field
images. Btw, I think this process was just recently patented.

Thanks, Jim, for the note about the white paper. I guess this has
advanced a lot farther than I'd imagined.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20030329/bob9.asp




From: Jim Brick [jim@brick.org] 
Sent: Sat 5/24/2003
To: georgekenney@earthlink.net; hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System


George Kenney wrote:

>It may not pertain to this exactly, but I was reading somewhere recently
>(in the last few weeks) about research in imaging that found a certain
>amount of induced distortion in digital imaging sensors' input resulted in a
>cleaner and visibly sharper analog output.



As Austin and I have been saying, this is exactly the anti-aliasing filter
(low pass) is used over the digital sensor of those sensors that will be
mated with film camera lenses.

The consumer digital cameras with fixed lenses have lenses designed with
the low MTF frequency required for use with the digital sensor contained
therein.

Schneider has a wonderful white paper on this subject. It's on their web
site. Schneider makes a full line of LF digital lenses. Lenses unsuitable
for film use but dynamite for digital use.

Jim




From: "Paul Worden" printsweston@bigpond.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Will Digital last another 6 months?
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 

At the risk of starting nuclear war....

Digital images do not approach the definition of 35mm film until you get
over 7 million pixels (some say over 25 mp) . I started my career using 5x4
and 10x8 cameras and I know what 'sharp' is. Images from a 35mm camera do
not compare favourably with the larger formats. There is a 'smoothness' in
large format photography that miniature negatives can never achieve.

But I have a 2MP Nikon Coolpix 2500. In theory the results from this should
be dreadful at anything greater than 6 x 8 inches.
In practice, it appears to provide a sharp A4. I take multi stitched
panoramas and print them up to 1 metre wide and they would not exceed 12
megapixels in total, but they look acceptably sharp.

I am waiting on the delivery of a 5 MP Sony DSCF-717, with which I expect to
print A3 prints.

So why do these cameras with mosaics of pixels at appallingly low resolution
give such apparently good results?

I believe it's in the inkjet printing process, with it's very slight
diffusion, that smooths out the gritty definition of digital images.

If you created 'slides' from the home user digital cameras and projected
them, I'm sure the results would be awful and the sensor grid very
noticeable.

I love digital for its immediacy and flexibility - the instant results, the
better colour saturation (compared to colour neg not slide film).

But I'm still horrified by the lack of definition after spending years
perfecting the art of a sharp 35mm negative.

Paul W




From: "William Graham" weg9@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So is digital dead yet?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003
Pat Chaney pat@nomail.com wrote 
> "William D. Tallman" wtallman@olypen.com wrote:
>
> > You guys are missing a very important point here: with digital, you get to
> > see the results immediately; with film, processing is necessary.
>
> You say that as if it is a bad thing. A lot of people enjoy that aspect of
> photography.
>
>
> Pat

And, I question how much you can, "see the results immediately". You can
tell from looking at that little one square inch screen that there is some
kind of an image.....(It's not completely black, or completely white) But
you sure can't see the same subtle gradations I can with my loupe and light
table when I inspect my slides, and decide that I should have
added/subtracted a half an f-stop to the exposure.......




From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So is digital dead yet?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 

"Mark M" mjmorgan2@cox.net a écrit 
> There are a ton of situation where immediate feedback
> that is 2 inches accross is helpful...mostly those
> that involve tricky exposure settings.

Only if that tiny screen is properly calibrated. If it isn't, what looks
good on the LCD screen may turn out overexposed or underexposed when you see
the final result.

> With digitals that have histogram displays, you
> can know immediately if you've blown things out,
> or otherwise.

That is certainly helpful.

> Film still has some significant advantages over
> certain aspects of digital. It's just that the
> gaps in those areas keep shrinking...quickly.

I haven't seen much change in the gaps. The only gap that is closing is
resolution, and it isn't closing that quickly.




From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Ritz/Wolf intros US$10 one-use digital camera program in June 2003
Followup-To: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 18 May 2003

Just to pass on the news that the "one-use" recycled digital camera is now
about to become reality in a number of USA cities under Ritz/Wolf's new
program, with a cost circa $10 US$, for which you get the digital camera
and flash unit (rental, in effect), plus 25 "high res" prints (whatever
that means ;-) when you return to Ritz/Wolf stores for recycling.

again, this fits with the industry view that digital cameras may well take
the consumer mass market end, even from one-use film cameras in $10 price
range.

fyi bobm




From: "JanR" jrosseel@toohottomailto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003

"Chris Quayle" lightwork@aerosys.co.uk wrote
> "pioe[rmv]" wrote:
> > As a matter of fact, I chose negative film because it has greater
> > sharpness.
> You're kidding right ?.

No he's not. Take a look at the numbers that Bill Tuthill posted in this
thread. According to manufacturer published data, slide and negative gilm
have comparable sharpness, and the RMS grain indez of negatives is typically
a factor 2 lower.

> Have never seen a neg scan that even approached
> the performance of good slide film, either in terms of sharpness, or
> dynamic range.

This by itself does not prove that slide film is finer grained. My
impression is that scanners (and their accompanying software) initially were
calibrated for slides, not negatives. According to tests I've read over
time, scans of negatives seems to have improved a lot.

> You can theorise all you like, but just compare the
> difference. Something like 400asa print film has typically lousy
> performance (grainy) whan scanned IMNSHO, though negative film typically
> scans more easily precisely because it has less dynamic range.

Hmmm.. We have to define clearly here what dynamic range is. According to
the definition I use, negative film has more dynamic range, but lower Dmax.
Dynamic range for me is at the moment of taking the picture. Slide film
typically has a linear range of 5 stops, whereas negative film has roughly
10 stops. Just take a look at some curves, for example here:
http://www.agfa.com/photo/products/pdf/F-PF-E2_en.pdf

This greater dynamic range of negative film is reached at the "price" of a
lower slope of the density curve. This has an interesting side effect that
3.3 stops difference (1.0D) in ecposure will result in 0.6D difference on
the negative, but 1.8D difference on a slide. This also implies that a
negative has to be scanned with 3x "finer steps" between D values to be able
to have a similar result as to scanning film. Or in other words: where a 12
bit scanner could maybe give OK results for slides, 14bits resolution will
be needed for an equivalent negative scan. It is my assumption that that 14
bit resolution was not there in the initial scanners, even for the ones
claiming to be 14 bit. I think that this is the main reasons that scans of
negatives got the bad reputation they have. The cause of this is not low
quality of negative film, but the harder requirements on the scanners.

> Many
> desktop scanners have real problems getting the range (esp shadow
> detail) from good quality slide film, which tips the balance to start
> with. If you think print film produces better results than slide when
> properly scanned, then I would suggest you need a better scanner, or
> better match of scanner setup to film characteristics.

This is the difference between Dmax (dynamic range of the scanner) and
resolution. Typically, 12 bit scanners will be calibrated for a Dmax of 3.6,
which should be adequate for slides (Typical Dmax of 3.2 or thereabout). For
negatives, such a scanner would look like overkill, as negatives have a Dmax
well below 3.0. However, as I explained above, this is not true. This has
especially bad effects on the shadows, as these have really low D values on
a negative, and one only has a few bits at his disposal to distinguish the
lower 0.6D of the negative's D values. Bad shadow performnce is programmed
in that way. Note that 16 bit scanners that claim a Dmax of 4.8 still suffer
from the same problem. I would rather buy a 16 bit scanner with a Dmax of
4.2 than one with a Dmax of 4.8. Unfortunately the newest Minolta scanner
(with a reolution of 5400dpi) still suffers from this, so one can alreay
assume it will be lousy for scannign negatives despite its record breaking
dpi number...

Jan




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital v Film
Date: 28 May 2003 

"pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org wrote 
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >>How did you see these things?
> 
> > The scans have the grainy, patchy look of scans that have been pushed
> > too hard, and/or cheap development. Some cheap films do this, too
> > (Kodak Max Versatility, for example), but this wasn't cheap film, IIRC.
>
> I have investigated, and it turned out that the laboratory is run by
> young ladies who like to look good. That may lead to their results
> looking less than good.
>
> >>By the way, I always scan at max bit depth.
> 
> > Much depends on what you do after that.
>
> Of course, but several of these scans were not processed in any way
> after the fact.
>
> > As I've pointed out before, look at this scan:
> > http://www.mxsmanic.com/kitty.jpg
> > Find the grain in this image. Or try:
> > http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg
> > http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScanDetail.jpg
>
> Thank you. But they only prove the fact that film still has a lead
> over digital cameras. They do not tell why my scans were much more
> grainy.
>
> > The scans mentioned above look like sandpaper compared to my scans. I
> > find it hard to believe that the film used was really that bad. That's
> > why I suspect scanning technique or development.
>
> I will check some of my previous scans from the same type of film, but
> then other rolls. If they are much less grainy we will have pinned
> down the resaon why these were filled with grain.
>
> > And, based on my own experience, I'm confident that a drum scan in the
> > hands of an expert would look even cleaner than my own scans. Properly
> > scanned film is stunning. The better my scans get, the happier I am to
> > have stayed with film.
>
> There is no doubt that film _is_ superior. Personally I am at a loss
> to understand why many deny it when it is easily demonstrable. Even my
> grainy scans bespeak that superiority. Whatever the source of error
> may be in my case, the film scans stand out as having vastly more
> detail. That is what it boils down to: Absence of grain and brilliant
> color is of no use when detail is insufficient.
>
> Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
> http://www.coldsiberia.org/

Per:
If you have access to a microscope with a camera attachment, then
simply photograph a small section of the negative at high
magnification. Compare to your scan. You may just find that most of
the noise in your scan is due to grain in the negative.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital v Film
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 

> How did you see these things?

The scans have the grainy, patchy look of scans that have been pushed
too hard, and/or cheap development. Some cheap films do this, too
(Kodak Max Versatility, for example), but this wasn't cheap film, IIRC.

In the early days of scanning, I used to get similar results. I don't
anymore.

Scanning, in the final analysis, is a science. But it's a complex one,
and so a fair amount of experience is required in order to get really
good scans, even with a good scanner. My early scans from years ago
were far worse than the ones I have today, even with the same hardware
and film. What has changed? Well, I have more experience now.
Clearly, I'm doing something different ... although, since I haven't
logged my progress, I'm not really sure what I'm doing now that I didn't
do back in those days.

> By the way, I always scan at max bit depth.

Much depends on what you do after that.

As I've pointed out before, look at this scan:
http://www.mxsmanic.com/kitty.jpg

Find the grain in this image. Or try:
http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg

Again, find the grain. If you think I'm cheating by reducing the size
of the scan, look at
http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScanDetail.jpg

That's a full-size portion of the scan. Here again, find the grain.
Yes, if you look very, very carefully, you'll see what appears to be
grain. But when you consider that this is equivalent to looking at a
3x5-FOOT enlargement, is it really that bad? I don't think so.

The scans mentioned above look like sandpaper compared to my scans. I
find it hard to believe that the film used was really that bad. That's
why I suspect scanning technique or development.

And, based on my own experience, I'm confident that a drum scan in the
hands of an expert would look even cleaner than my own scans. Properly
scanned film is stunning. The better my scans get, the happier I am to
have stayed with film.




From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: 29 May 2003 
quoting Leonard Evans:
I agree that figures like 100 lp/mm, in practice, are fantasy.
end-quote

Don't say that to the tech-pan users, they'll just laugh at us. Probably
some of the Tmax folks too. Those films are rated up to 340 lpmm (1000:1)!

actually, lots of low cost normal lenses can reach 100 lpmm in careful
use, see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html , and with current films:

quoting:
October 1978 Modern Photography by Bennett Sherman and Al Gordon titled
"How Sharp Can You Get" [p.112-3, table from p. 178, 182, 186]. They
noted:

"The first thing which can be inferred from the tables is that the 100
lines per mm level of image sharpness can be reached by many normal focal
length lenses when the aperture is set at f/4 or f/5.6, and the "best"
film is used." [Ibid., p. 174]
end-quote

with films like velvia hitting 160 lpmm (at 1000:1 contrast ratio) and 80
lpmm (1.6:1 ratio), for real world color subjects 100 lpmm should be
readily achieved (at 6:1 or so ratios anyway). B&W is even easier with
thin emulsion films and the right development. Specialty films (high
contrast high resolution etc.) and microphoto films can also hit 100+...

I find this part of the argument of digital camera equals film quality
argument disingenuous - they argue that film users can't get 100 lpmm,
then say we can't get 50 lpmm, and after they scan film with a scanner
with a 40 lpmm max. response limit, they say, look, digital is as good as
film ;-)

I have a number of lenses, some costing as little as $17 used, which can
deliver 100+ lpmm with careful technique, esp. focusing, on fine grain
films. No digital camera, and few film scanners, can preserve or equal
that level of performance from current optics, largely due to the low pass
filters in these designs etc.

regards bobm




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 

Gordon Gekko writes:

> I would hardly call 2880 dpi "fairly low resolution".
>
> The naked eye cannot see the individual dots.

But it takes many dots to print a pixel, so the overall resolution is
fairly low, compared to photographic (wet) printing, dye-sublimation,
and other pixel-per-dot techniques.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 

"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
> J Stafford writes:
> > You are dearly trying my patience.

Nothing new for MX maniac there...

> > Perhaps I missed the specifics, but
> > WHAT inkjet printer does 2,880 "dpi"?
>
> Many Epson printers achieve 2880 dpi. A number of other manufacturers
> match or exceed this figure.

Are you being intentionally ridiculous?

That's the resolution of the dots used in the "dither pattern" and has
nothing to do with the resolution of the printer. Tests here indicate that
(for sharp originals) feeding the Epson 950 (2 pl, 1440x2880) anything more
than 250 dpi results in prints that are indistinguishable. My estimate is
that the 950 is around a 4 lp/mm printer.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 

Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
> Many Epson printers achieve 2880 dpi. A number of other manufacturers
> match or exceed this figure.

The vendors can say anything they like. They make it up as they need to in
order to keep up with the lies of the competitor. I know of no standard
for measuring digital printer performance. That "2880" DPI does not mean
it can resolve 2,880 discrete dots per inch. Nowhere near it. There are
multipliers in there for the number of inks (the Epson you refer to is a
seven-color printer), for head movement resolution and for dot size.
Strange multipliers they won't explain. 




From: "pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital v Film
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 

Woody W. wrote:

> Hi, Per Inge,
> This is not called self delusion. Allow me, at risk of being called
> egotistical, to quote myself from earlier in this thread:

I beg you pardon for my perhaps a bit harsh words, but even though not
personally meant, I still believe that it is self delusion to pretend
to oneself and/or others that it does not matter if digital does not
give as much detail as film.

> "Any of the current digital SLRs will compete favorably against most 35mm
> film well beyond 8x10, with only the
> NATURE of the image "flaws" changing, trading grain in the case of film for
> a bit of ultimate detail in the case of digital "

Objectively, you do not lose just "a bit of ultmate detail." In
reality, 6 Mp digital fails to record critical detail, and does so to
the point that the viewer's experience is seriously reduced. Alas,
this is generally not understood until one views a better image. Most
buyers of consumer digital compacts accept images with even less
detail, but they do not know it and cannot be bothered to know.

The remarkable in this situation is that the average level of image
quality within amateur photography has been considerably reduced. Even
more fantastic is it when people defend the demonstrable lack of
detail by saying "But there is no grain." Okay, but that does not
create any more detail.

> What, may I ask, in your images contradicts my interpretation of reality?
> There is more ultimate detail in your film scan, and the D60 image has
> virtually no grain/noise.

It is truly frightening if an absence of detail is overlooked or
thought unimportant because there is no grain. It is a good thing if
there is little or no grain, but if rich detail is absent the whole
purpose of photographying is largely defeated.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/




From: "pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film versus 6 MP digital
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

brian wrote:

> Hi:
> Level 12 JPEG or even TIFF would be great if you have the bandwidth.
> Using a smaller crop would be OK. I really am curious to take a
> closer look and will appreciate anything you can do here.

I have the bandwidth, but not all who subsequently download these
images will have.

Here come JPEG's that have 0 in compression level:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3374_RT16_cut2_uncomp.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-1_cut2_uncomp.jpg
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/









From: "Dallas D" dallas@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Digital v Film
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 

"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote
> Dallas D writes:
>
> > If you have ever shot sports professionally you'll
> > know that being able to dump as many of the shots you
> > won't use before returning to your laptop in
> > the media centre saves a huge amount of time.
>
> It takes longer to dump the shot on the field than it does to dump it in
> front of the laptop. This being so, unless you are running out of
> memory, there's no point in doing it immediately.

Wrong.

It takes me all of 2-5 seconds to review (and erase) a shot from my
Microdrive (which is a lot slower than a CF card). It takes the better part
of 10-20 seconds to download and decode an image from the camera into
Photoshop on my very fast AMD Thunderbird pc via USB2. If I have about 250
images to download and wade through, you'll see the kind of time it takes me
just to move them from one media type to the next. I then have to open each
image and see if it's worth wiring.

> > At the end of the game you'll find the digital
> > shooters drinking beer. You'll find the film shooters
> > sitting in traffic. And that's no lie.
>
> They both seem disagreeable to me.

Well then, the teetotallers you'll find drinking Fanta and munching hors
d'ourves in the media centre.




From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film versus 6 MP digital
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

Michael Stevens bigmikeatbigmikesdotorg wrote:
>
> Is everyone looking at the same photos I am? The film image looks like
> a grainy pile of shit.
>
>>D60 image:
>>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3374_RT16_rotate_cutxx.jpg
>>
>>Superia 200 image:
>>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-1_cutxx.jpg

I agree that the sky is quite grainy in the Superia 200 image,
and would greatly benefit from a Gaussian Blur, but don't agree
that the remainder of the image looks grainy.

That's what photographic detail looks like!

Water in the D60 image looks out-of-focus. The trees aren't bad
but look greener in the film image. And look how much sharper
the (near-center) house structure is in the film image.




From: Austin Franklin [darkroom@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sat 5/24/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Digital Distortion

Jeff,

> >> > Therefore, film, which can accept very steep angled
> >> > light rays, can be used with virtually any lens system.
> >> > A digital sensor, however, cannot. Light will not be
> >> > accepted when delivered at a steep angle.
> >>
> >> Then the sensor needs to be fixed; there's nothing wrong with
> the lens.
> >
> >How Anthony, prey tell?
>
>
> Time and technology. Film has been evolving for 150+ years. Digital
> has been around, what, 15 years (at the most?).

Well, it may seem so, but that's not reality. I designed the first
commercially available digital imaging system in 1978, and had been doing
research in this area for 5 years prior. There was other work in this area
for, I'd speculate, some 10 years before I was involved in it...so it's more
like digital imaging has been around for some 40 years.

But, that wasn't my question. I know the "issue" will be solve to some
degree, as sensor process technology develops. No doubt. I was asking
Anthony for a specific "fix" for the sensor, seeing if he might be able to
provide some insight into it that no one else had thought of. Not that I
expected an answer, of course.

Austin




From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Bernard Cousineau [flatbroke@sympatico.ca] 
Sent: Sat 5/24/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System

> I doubt seriously if the new 40mm lens was specifically made to have a
> better MTF than the old 40mm, for the purpose of digital photography. The
> better MTF performance is for film photography. The low pass filter on
> digital sensors equalizes all lenses to the same MTF curves in order to
> provide a clean, non aliasing digital image.

MTF is not all about "high resolution." Zeiss' MTF graphs only go to 40 cycles/mm. If you compare the graphs for the old and new version of the 40, you will see that the big improvement with the new lens is in the 20 cycle/mm range, which should give
some extra "snap" to the new lens where it counts for this application. I am sure that someone will put up a web page comparing the two lenses soon enough.
This does not mean that the lens is any worse for film photography, of course. With the improved MTF and the claimed 200 lp/mm, it should be outstanding.

> The 905SWC 38mm Biogon lens performs (according to the MTF charts) worse
> than the 903SWC version of the lens.

It is slightly worse in the centre of the field (where it had performance to give away) and slightly improved in the perimeter. I wouldn't say that the new lens is "worse" than the previous one, but I respect your opinion in this matter as it
pertains to your own imaging needs. As an example, if you were to use the 905 as a "shift lens" (cropping out the bottom of the image), you would probably find the new lens to be somewhat better than the old one.

Bernard




From: Austin Franklin [darkroom@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sat 5/24/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: RE: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System

> > How Anthony, prey tell?
>
> That's the sensor designer's problem, not the lens designer's problem.

Anthony,

The well depth issue of digital sensors is a well known issue amongst people
in the field of digital imaging. But, it is also the lense designers
problem, as lenses can be designed with this issue understood, and because
of this understanding, lense designers can mitigate the effect that well
depth has on fall-off towards the outer edges of the sensor.

Austin




[Ed. note: Mr. Brick is a senior designer at Agilent working on digital sensors and 
AF optical systems etc.]
From: Jim Brick [jbrick@elesys.net] 
Sent: Fri 5/23/2003
To: HUG 
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System


Very high resolution lenses and digital sensors are mutually exclusive. All
current Hasselblad have an MTF frequency too high for any digital sensor.
This is why a low pass filter is used over digital sensors that are
intended to be used by film camera lenses. The low pass filter "dumbs down"
the lens MTF to be below the pixel spacing frequency.

Therefore,

I doubt seriously if the new 40mm lens was specifically made to have a
better MTF than the old 40mm, for the purpose of digital photography. The
better MTF performance is for film photography. The low pass filter on
digital sensors equalizes all lenses to the same MTF curves in order to
provide a clean, non aliasing digital image.

The 905SWC 38mm Biogon lens performs (according to the MTF charts) worse
than the 903SWC version of the lens. This is because Zeiss had to re-design
the 38mm Biogon to use lower polluting ingredients. It was these polluting
ingredients that gave the older 38mm Biogon its edge in performance.

Of course, none of us could possible see the difference in real
photography. It's moot. These differences can only be detected in a
laboratory on an optical bench.

Jim




From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Jim Brick [jbrick@elesys.net] 
Sent: Fri 5/23/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System

you wrote:
> > Also, I'd like to know what "specially design with digital photography in
> > mind" is supposed to mean. Digital and film photography are identical from
> > a lens standpoint.


No always. Digital sensors have a tiny photo transistor (semiconductor
junction) which makes up each pixel. This photo transistor is covered by a
piece of colored glass (tiny lenses R, G, or B) and then an anti-aliasing
(low band pass) filter over that. If the rear element is too close to the
digital sensor (wide angle lenses,) then the angle of the image rays from
the lens rear element to the edges of the sensor is too great for any light
to get around the corner on to the photo transistor. So you get a round
image in the center of the sensor.

Retrofocus designs where the rear lens element is a considerable distance
from the sensor, work pretty well. A full frame (645 or 6x6) digital back
will, however, exhibit this problem in spades if used on a SWC.

Therefore, film, which can accept very steep angled light rays, can be used
with virtually any lens system. A digital sensor, however, cannot. Light
will not be accepted when delivered at a steep angle.

Jim




From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 

David Goldstein wrote:
> I was happy to start this discussion with reference to Michael Reichmann's
> tests and article. I would point out that he is the only person that has
> rendered an opinion on this subject that I am aware of that has actually
> gone out and tested the comparison between Canon 1Ds and medium format under
> reasonably scientific but real world conditions and then written about it.
> Everyone else who has an opinion does not have the hard results to back it
> up (or has not written about it). Until someone else does this and comes up
> with contrary results, I think Michael Reichmann's article has to stand as
> the most authoritative test of digital quality versus film.

If his test is authoritative, then we are in dire straits. It is not a
scientific test by any means. All his 'study' does is affirm the abysmal
state of his ability to define the experiment and then perform it in a
scientific, indeed even a _meaningful_ manner. If you remove all the
meaningless chit-chat in his test you find nothing, absolutely nothing
'scientific' about his test. It's bullshit. If I find the time (and
maybe I will) I will edit our the irrelevant parts of his post/test and
insert criticisms. There will be nothing left of his "test" but the
paraphrase "I did a test and digital is better. I hope I obscurred my
utter ignorance and poor critical ability with my friendly manner."

All his test does is reduce the MF image to the performance of the
scanner and software, and regardless of the high-rez scan, it is still a
test of DIGITAL vs DIGITAL further confused with his poor techniques.

And then he's comparing his digital with a half-frame MF. Since when is
645 representative of Medium Format?

He did no color balancing and therefore admits he didn't pay attention
to how the comparisons were skewed in terms of the curves (contrast,
etc) which most certainly does effect accutance.

Scanners, despite the number of bits they pick up, also create noise.
His images show that quite clearly. The scan and his conversion to the
screen image is "pushing" through the grain via virtual overexposure
(under to the screen) which enhances noise and 'grain'.

Shutter speeds were not equal. The digital camera shot at almost a third
of the exposure time of the film camera. That matters a lot in
resolution tests. He's shooting from the top of a building. Buildings
move. Believe it.

The 'dust' issue is a red herring. He's showing his dire need to
diminish the results further. If he got a "good" scan as he claims,
there would be no dust.

Maybe he could write it up for Pop Photo or some other uncritical
publication pandering to the low side of the Bell Curve.





From: "T Rittenhouse" gray_wolf@charter.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003

Funny thing is, most of the folk who have done their own tests say his
information does not match their experience. Tell you what, do what I did.
Down load a full res. digital photo from one of the camera manufactures
websites, print an 8x10, then compare that 8x10 to an 8x10 chemical print
from one of your own 6x7 negatives. You do have 6x7 negatives, right? My
conclusion was digital ain't even near there yet.
--
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

"David Goldstein" davidgoldstein@sprintmail.com wrote 
> I was happy to start this discussion with reference to Michael Reichmann's
> tests and article. I would point out that he is the only person that has
> rendered an opinion on this subject that I am aware of that has actually
> gone out and tested the comparison between Canon 1Ds and medium format under
> reasonably scientific but real world conditions and then written about it.
> Everyone else who has an opinion does not have the hard results to back it
> up (or has not written about it). Until someone else does this and comes up
> with contrary results, I think Michael Reichmann's article has to stand as
> the most authoritative test of digital quality versus film.





From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> > Did they test this using lenses or some scientific device that has
> > absolutely nothing to do with photography?
>
> They used microscope lenses capable of producing more than 1000 lp/mm
> images.

I tell a lie. That's what Fleischer/Mueller says manufacturers of film use
to test their products.

Zeiss, he says, used typical photographic conditions: sunlight outdoors;
exposures using normal camera shutters; focussing done using normal
focussing devices found on cameras; normal film processing in a regular lab;
and using normal photo lenses, made by Zeiss, of course. The only thing not
found in normal photographic practice was the Carl Zeiss Stereomicroscope SV
11 Apo they used to examine the film.

Fleischer/Mueller mentioned how manufacturers of film say (as one reason why
they don't make more high resolution films) they don't believe that lenses
are good enough to show what a high resolution film is capable of.
Fleischer/Mueller, being a Zeiss man, of course rebukes by pointing to the
1996 Photokina Zeiss exhibition, in which they displayed photos, made from
Ektar 25 (capable of 200 lp/mm) negatives, and made using Zeiss lenses, that
show lenses in fact can use the film's high resolution. Every last bit of
it, in fact.

He also mentions that they (Zeiss) are considering staging another such
demonstration. When they do, David should make sure he attends. ;-)




From: edgy01@aol.com (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?

I have to agree with David. I start with a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED scan at
4000 dpi and then ultimately go to a 500 ppi file at my ultimate print size
(e.g., Super B) and no digital camera that I've used yet gets there
(particularly the 35mm SLR sized ones). 

Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara




 From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 
"David Goldstein" davidgoldstein@sprintmail.com wrote:
> I think everyone who thinks digital isn't there yet has not been keeping up
> with what has been going on. I suggest reading the following article:
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
> It is eye-opening

Eye-openingly dizzy.

The problem is that he's printing at a size where the digital is still
holding up fairly well (over 3 lp/mm) on an inkjet printer with relatively
large droplets, so there's not much room for improvement. I suspect that if
he had actually made full 13x19 prints, with the 1Ds enlarged 14x (leaving
40/14 or under 3 lp/mm on the print) and the 6x7 enlarged 19x25.4/69 = 7x he
would have begun to see differences.

His title to the only valid comparison on the whole page was "The 1Ds frame
above appears to have lower resolution because it is a MUCH bigger
enlargement for this particular comparison than the film scan ."

It doesn't _appear_ to have lower resolution, it _does_ have lower
resolution. He's comparing a 24x36 40 lp/mm original to a 56x69mm  lp/mm original. If he can't get more detail
from MF he's doing something seriously wrong, and what he's doing wrong is
comparing prints that are too small.

(I strongly object to twits who claim film resolves 100 lp/mm, but it
certainly resolves 40 lp/mm, even in actual practice.)

Of course, what is interesting, is that it's much easier to _use_ digital
images. At enlargements where film is showing 3 lp/mm, the grain noise is
unbearable, but digital at 3 lp/mm is still showing full tonality. (I.e.,
film enlarged 14x is seriously ugly, but digital enlarged 14x is quite
useable.)

Anyway, he's printing at 10.6x16 on an Epson 2200 at 255 dpi from digital.
That'll make a very nice print that's hard to beat. (Once you're over 11x14,
you don't put your nose 10" from the print.)

(Note that he's seriously numerically challenged: he thinks he made 13x19"
prints, but he says "16 inches wide, so he's got 10.6x16 printed area from
the 1Ds. The MF are probably 13x16, since he printed them both to 16" wide.)

With a Nikon 8000, it's pretty easy to get _very_ good 2000 dpi scans (I use
a careful 2-step sharpen/downsample/sharpen/downsample sequence from 4000
dpi scans that retains more detail than a 1-step downsample), and from 645,
that's 13MP of better quality pixels than the 1Ds produces.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 

"Chris Quayle" lightwork@aerosys.co.uk wrote
> brian wrote:
>
> >
> > Digital images *must* be post processed in order to achieve the best
> > quality. To not do so seems absurd to me. The truth is that digital
> > files are much better suited to post processing due to the lack of
> > noise, and this is a critical factor in evaluating the relative merits
> > of film and digital mediums.
>
> Ok, so do you have figures for attainable dynamic range for film /
> scanner and a high end digital cameras ?. What dmax do you get from a
> high end digital vs a hi end drum scanner, for example ?. I don't have
> figures, but would guess that you have looked into this in depth.

Dunno about drum scanners, but scanning Provia 100F on a Nikon 8000 gives
pretty much grain and noise free images, although noise shows up if you
sharpen it carelessly, so the lower 2 bits (out of 8) are noise.

Grain noise goes up with scanning resolution, so "dynamic range" (assuming
you mean lack of noise) is inversely related to resolution. Downsampling
4000 dpi scans to 2000 dpi gives sharper, slightly less noisy images that
can be printed at 250 dpi (an 8x enlargement from the film) for prints as
good as you are going to get from an inkjet. Anything over 8x from film is
unreasonable.

The monkey wrench here is that the Nikon 4000 accentuates grain more than
the 8000 does. Sigh. The Canon 4000 seems indistinguishable from the Nikon
8000, though.

> A 35mm frame at 2700 dpi gives me ~10Mpixel scan and the limiting factor
> is definately the scanner, since the image starts to appear pixelated
> long before the film gives up on detail. There may be some grain
> effects, but the detail is still recognisable when the slide is
> projected, so the film is not the limiting factor.

4000 dpi captures all the detail I see with a 60x microscope, although scans
never have quite the pop Provia does under a loupe on the light table. Sigh.

> If you think about it, a scanner could be viewed from an engineering
> point of view as a specialised and optimised version of a digital
> camera, right ?, so the same measurement criteria (dynamic range,
> linearity, spectral balance etc, should be applicable and measureable.

Careful there, you're turning into Mxsmanic{g}.

> What i'm really saying is: Can we be more scientific about this?.
> Everthing else is just subjective opinion...

As I've said before:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "jriegle" jriegle@att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film versus 6 MP digital (My own test)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 

In my own test (resolution ONLY), I conclude that not even 12mp can out
resolve film using a prime lens and ISO 100 film. Still it may be good
enough for most purposes.

6mp is not even close, but may be good enough to equal faster film using
mediocre quality zooms.

http://home.att.net/~jriegle/resolution.htm

I'm not taking sides. I love film and digital for what each offers.
John


"pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org wrote
> Here are new versions of my comparison images between the Canon EOS
> D60 and the Fuji Superia negative film scanned on Nikon LS-40.
>
> D60 image:
> http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3374_RT16_rotate_cutxx.jpg
>
> Superia 200 image:
>http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-1_cutxx.jpg
>
> For my film shots, using Nikon FM2, I used the Nikkor AI 50mm 2.0. On
> the Canon D60 sat the 35mm 2.0. In both cases the aperture was 5.6.
> The shutter speed was not recorded.
>
> Now, what image carries the most detail?
> Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
> http://www.coldsiberia.org/




From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
Date: 30 May 2003 

David, you aren't thinking this out right ;-) Film is not limited to one
sensor or grain being on/off in a 2-dimensional plane, as you suggest...

Each grain is submicron in area and maybe a cubic micron in volume, right?
The film emulsion layer is at least 20+ microns thick for a thin emulsion
film. Thick emulsion films can have lots more depth, so this is a minimal
case. That means you can potentially have at least 20 grains stacked up,
one atop another, in a silver rich emulsion. You don't get that always in
practice, but you do get a lot of grains floating around in the emulsion,
overlapping and stacking many grains deep at every point in the emulsion.

This varying degree of overlap of exposed grains, at 20+ levels in the
emulsion, simulates a much wider range of tonality values than the binary
on/off value of a single grain per site that you seem to infer in your
argument. It is also bigger than 20 stacked grains in range, because
you can have _any_ fractional value of grain overlap impacting the
range of tonality. So it isn't binary, but an infinite range analog setup

That's why an analog system like film has a huge tonality response range.
Film is NOT a planar sensor, like a DSLR, which is a key to one of its
(many) superiorities over a planar DSLR sensor ;-)

Now consider you have 3 or 4 emulsions in typical color film. Makes it
even worse, huh? Moreover, the range of colors which are encoded are
hugely greater than anything a DSLR can do today, or even a 36+ bit color
scanner can get out of film. Your analysis would suggest 100 times less..

On top of this, film grains are typically submicron in size, while the
typical (bayer or X3) sensor is more like 25 or 36 square microns in area
for the DSLR sensors. So again, there is a huge advantage to film grains.

Finally, the range in sizes of grains is significant, and their random
distribution by size is significant, as both of these eliminate the
problems with aliasing seen with planar and regular sensors as in DSLRs
;-)

How do I know this analysis is right? Because film preserves much more
fine contrast and high resolution details than a 6 MP DSLR (estimated by
Kodak at 24 MP for mid-speed films, more like 100 MP for fine grain films
in 35mm format). That requires that film have a better tonality and range
response than digital sensors per unit area. It does, because film is
three dimensional, while DSLR sensors are planar. This higher contrast and
tonality range is readily apparent on high quality enlargements compared
to ink jet digital prints (with good quality lenses, film, technique..).

How big an error is this? The DSLR has 2^8 to 2^12 tonality ranges, per
your analysis (256 to 4,096 levels), versus say 0-36 micron sized grains
in the same area per your analysis (ignoring film is 3-D and not planar,
as noted above). That's 4,096 vs. 36, or a factor of 100+ fold bias
against film by reducing it to a 2-D medium. But as I've shown, film has
far _more_ tonality range than 6 MP DSLR sensors, and more color bit depth
etc. So once again, circa 99% of the quality benefits from using film are
being ignored or dismissed in pro-digital "analyses" ;-)

grins bobm




From: "Vedran" padawan@vip.hr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Re: The film v digital debate
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 

> A digital pro will also shoot many frames. But, he can then delete all
> but the one he wants to keep. Therfore 36 exposure can be equivalent
> to 36 rolls of film.
>
> And extreme example, but there is some truth in it. There is no need
> to keep images that are worthless. No need to go through rolls and
> rolls of slide trying to find a couple of images. That's history.
>
> Jim Davis
> Nature Photography
> http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/

Sorry to say, but the concept of reviewing and deleting frames on spot is
total crap. I don't have time to review and delete frames when I'm shooting
people and events. And even if I do have some time I would NOT decide on
keepers by reviewing shots on tiny LCD. Did I mention crap? Finally, when
I'm on shooting I spend a LOT of frames because I shoot a LOT of stuff not
because I need 10 frames for one portrait. I spend a couple of moments to
create the image in my mind. I do not shoot randomly. Even if I go digitally
I wouldn't shoot randomly.

I think the general trend in modern photography is moving towards installing
a digital camera with multigigs of storage in your sunglasses. Take a trip
to Rome, Paris or even Dubrovnik. When you get there switch the bloody thing
on and let it shoot by itself until you return home. All you have to do is
to review a couple of hundred of thousands frames and find the keepers.




From: NickC n-chen@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The film v digital debate
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 

Jim Davis wrote:
>  NickC n-chen@attbi.com wrote/replied to:
>
>>While I can acknowledge advantages gained in the use of digicams, I
>>can also see where exclusive use of digicams would be an unwise thing
>>to do for one who is serious about photography. I also think that
>>those who tout the advantages of digicams while not illustrating the
>>co-advantage's of film, may not be ponderers of the future or just may
>>not care about the future.
>>
>>Nick
>
> Points well taken. I was exaggerating of course to illustrate the
> point that a photographer is very lucky indeed to get one 'keeper' on
> a roll of 36. So comparing the available shots of film vs. digital
> media is difficult.
> There are times, for example panning a bird in flight, where you can
> definitely delete plenty of frames with a simple scan of what you got
> on camera. Of course anything that may possibly be decent gets kept.
> There are also plenty of times when I know I shot out of focus and
> that frame gets dumped immediately.
>
> Not only does this maximize the number of shots my media can hold, but
> it cuts out the time 'culling' through all the frames I've shot later.
>
> Of course one can not always apply these rules for fear of missing the
> next shot while previewing. I don't do this.

Jim, If I am correct in understanding the points you are attempting to
make to support your views concerning the use of digicams, then I can
only agree that given certain photographic situations a digicam would
be an asset.

The hesitance that I have to be as vocal about the use digicams as you
are is that I have found there are photographic situations where
digicams work best and there are situations where film works best.

For example: Today my wife and I went to an old Spanish Rancho where
there were people were dressed in the period of the times. I compiled
a camera bag with both my D100 and my F5 (with rolls of film). I
started off taking pictures with the D100 (with reserve Flask Cards in
my shirt pocket). Nothing felt right to me for the type of pictures I
was taking. Moreover, although I'm using 40x Luxar Flash Cards, I
wasn't taking pictures fast enough (or couldn't take pictures fast
enough) to suit the events taking place; the dances, rope tricks, and
many more events.

I changed cameras and loaded up my F5 and never had a photographic
problem from then on. In fact, my movements in camera adjustments and
framing seemed almost automatic, as if I was not even aware of making
the movements. Camera adjustments necessary are far faster and easier
to do with the F5 than the D100. For a time there, I thought I should
have brought my F4 instead of the F5 which would have been better.

I haven't yet had the film developed and that doesn't bother me.
Tomorrow (Monday), I will go to my favorite camera store and while I'm
digging into the boxes of gadgets, the film will be developed and I'll
later scan the frames I think best.

Just as a passing remark, of the many cameras that were there at the
Rancho, I saw only one digicam and that was a Canon EOS-1D. The
photographer using that camera came over to me after I finished
shooting a dance scene and wanted to know what I was using.

> The real beauty of digital is the totally carefree way you can just
> shoot 9 frames at no cost. This is the way you learn quickly and in
> the field what you're doing right and wrong. With film, you often
> don't have time to write down notes but digital gives you all your
> shooting info even if you do only check later back home.

I can agree that shooting off a bunch of frames in a carefree manner
is indeed a digicam asset. But I don't shoot a bunch of frames in a
carefree manner. There is a purpose in every shot I make. Whether I
like the results later is something else.

As to the ready ability to actually see on the camera monitor what was
taken in the field, I must openly disagree. I have found, in open
daylight, the digicam monitor is just about useless. I've had to
purchase a product called "Screen Shade" to place around the monitor
to see something of the picture just taken with the digicam. I have
that product on both my digicams and find even with that product,
screen viewing in open daylight is difficult. In fact Jim, I have
found I fidget more with a digicam than I do with a film camera and
that does bother me.

> Even if a DSLR is only bought as a learning tool, it is a very good
> investment. The learning comes fast and any questions or experiments
> are simply a matter of trying it.

I can see both sides to this but I would never think a digicam as
being a good investment. I can see a tyro using a digicam more often
than using a film camera but I can't see a tyro learning more about
picture taking by using a digicam. I have noticed of late that my wife
who is a typical tyro, who uses a P&S Canon and has an Olympus
digicam, has been using her digicam less and her Canon more. I have to
talk to her and find out why.

>
> As to the future thing - if I'm shooting something like a town parade,
> I'll shoot more with digital. More means a better overall picture of
> the event. More means better composition and possibly less blinking,
> etc. With film, I used to always get shots that would have been
> excellent, if only I'd shot a few more. Always having to take along
> way more film that I'd ever need, and keeping in mind the cost would
> get me photos where the subject moved, blinked, or a slightly
> different angle would have been much better. Digital allows me to
> without thinking take many angles, shoot sequences of everything just
> for the hell of it, and generally getting more good stuff easier, and
> without cost.

Well Jim, to each his own. I don't shoot things randomly. Where no
subject action is involved, I tend to "see" a picture before I take a
picture. When action is involved, we both know the F5 has focus
tracking ability and I'll shoot at opportune times. As for cost of
film and $1.25 for developing a 36 roll, to me it's peanuts. Digicam
camera depreciation would be more a concern than the money spent on
quantity film buy's and $1.25 per roll film developing costs. Heck,
the hours upon hours spent on one of my computers processing pictures
is enough to possibly driving me back to having the film developed and
printed by others.

Then again, I'm a hobbyist not a pro. If I were a pro, I don't think I
would have the assets I have to allow me to think as a hobbyist.

Nick




From: NickC n-chen@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The film v digital debate
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 

Jim Davis wrote:
>> Snip
> Here's the thing. A pro with motor drive will take a bunch of series
> of shots to get one good one. He might have a whole roll where he'll
> have one keeper if he's lucky.

Depending upon the scene being taken (action as opposed to still life
types) a pro sees the picture and composes the picture first in the
mind then with the camera. However, it is true that not all scenes
will be aesthetically acceptable as the rest of the scenes, but they
will all be good photo's. Commercial photographers that I have known
keep all the photo's for a period of time, culling photo's of a shoot
into two categories; keeper's and probable's. After a time, files are
again reviewed and final dispositions are then made.

> A digital pro will also shoot many frames. But, he can then delete all
> but the one he wants to keep. Therfore 36 exposure can be equivalent
> to 36 rolls of film.

That sounds more like what a tyro would do who isn't at least somewhat
confident as to what effect upon a viewer a captured scene will have.
This type of random shooting may well produce some good photo's but
may do very little in further enhancing the education of the
photographer.

Though it's perhaps too early to tell, but a beginning photographer
who learns the business using digicams exclusively, may well be
different from a photographer who started with film. Just as we can
see the difference between photographers who used the old glass plates
to take, develop, and print pictures as opposed to present day film
photographers, leading to digicam users and ink print pictures.

>
> And extreme example, but there is some truth in it. There is no need
> to keep images that are worthless. No need to go through rolls and
> rolls of slide trying to find a couple of images. That's history.

I agree, there is no need to keep images that are worthless. However,
it's been my experience when reviewing my cache a photo's, those that
I think should be circle filed, others have thought to be keepers.

For example, many years ago, I used to take pictures of an annual
parade that's held here, which was my habit to do annually. The parade
was held in commemoration of a sister city in Mexico. I took rolls of
slides and at those times I culled the slides into keepers and ugh's,
and filed them away. :)

After a while, the local city officials decided not to have the parade
held anymore because local business' and residents complained about
traffic jams and streets being cut off from use. Much later, the local
historical society wanted to gather as much information about the
history of the community and asked the citizenry for memorabilia and
pictures of times past.

Apparently, I was the one of few locally who had a yearly series of
pictures of the parades and of the times when this community was
nothing but farms and milk dairies, gradually changing when the land
developers came. All of these pictures, as well as others, I gave to
the historical society and they think all of them are keepers.

My point Jim in illustrating this example is to say "one man's trash
my be another man's treasure." The libraries are full of books
containing pictures authors have used in telling stories of
yesteryear. With the mind sets being used by digicam advocators in
trashing photo's, much of history may be photographically lost as not
only would digicam photo's be instantly deleted, but digicamer's may
dispose of CD's as equipment and technologies change.

Matthew Brady's pictures of the Civil War is a good example of what I
mean about pictorial history. There's not many of those pictures left
and the remaining plates are worth fortunes. Even original prints are
worth tons of money.

Just think, in the days of the Roman empire, if photography were then
an invention of the times, those originals and prints would be
priceless. :)

While I can acknowledge advantages gained in the use of digicams, I
can also see where exclusive use of digicams would be an unwise thing
to do for one who is serious about photography. I also think that
those who tout the advantages of digicams while not illustrating the
co-advantage's of film, may not be ponderers of the future or just may
not care about the future.

Nick




Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kodak Lab Closing--Film Use Is Down

Gordon Gekko wrote:
> Jim Davis spammenot@someisp.jp wrote 
>
> > Last year, back when I was using film, heh heh, my local lab told me
> > he was glad I kept bringing in my films, even though I never got
> > prints, only had my negs developed. He said he needed more work for
> > his negative processor. Apparently so many people are now digital he's
> > having trouble keeping enough C41 film going through his machine. Now
> > he'll have to do without me, a big problem for film users now will be
> > the chemical process getting bad because of low volume.
>
> Is his C41 processing down because of digital?

The most recent SEC and other financial reports of Kodak, Fuji, and AGFA point to other factors. In fact,
out of a large stack of reports I have reviewed, only one analyst was willing to point any downturn in
film sales due to digital, though that company only estimated less than one percent change, and only for
one reporting quarter. There are many readily available financial reports on the state of the industry.

> Or merely because the
> economy is bad? (People don't go on vacations and take pictures when
> the economy is bad.)

A downturn in travel has been listed as the largest impact on film, and one time use camera sales.
Interestingly, the largest film sales have been around major holidays, and around the middle of
September. The summer sales increase normally seen has felt the most impact from decreased travel, though
it is hoped that this will improve, and return to pre 9.11 figures.

>
>
> If the lab services pro customers, then it's probably digital that is
> hurting his business.

The digital lab I use for 95% of my work is usually very busy. A decrease in advertising spending, and
the slow recovery of the advertising market has decreased work for some professionals. Prints from
digital has increased slightly at the lab I use.

If photojournalism was the primary consideration for your statement, remember that most of the film
processing in the past was done at the company, and rarely outside labs. Sports and news have been large
converters to direct digital, though they rarely had need for outside labs. The other large digital
migration has been for catalogue and product photography, which are mostly high volume. In the past, many
of these were complete in house operations, again having little need for professional labs.

There are many more areas of professional photography than sports, news, and catalogues. Portrait studios
have also been more in house operations. Wedding photographers are another area, though where I live, the
split is almost equal between in house prints, and those that use pro labs. It may be similar in other
cities.

As sometimes discussed in PDN, advertising and publication photographers have seen a slight downturn in
business due to a weaker economy. This could likely impact pro labs, though the smarter ones will add
more services, and take up any slack. At whatever point the advertising market picks up again, the pro
labs that are still around are likely to have more business.

> With more pros going digital, professional quality processing places
> are obviously going to start shutting down.

Many professionals have been digital since 1995 (or earlier), though perhaps not in a way that many may
consider. Knowledge of PhotoShop was often one of the first moves, especially with the introduction of
version 3. A decrease in the costs of scanning, and desktop scanners was often a second move. These
skills can be valued added services for some clients. Direct digital only works well for high volume, or
ultra short deadlines. Also, the potential for a large volume of images from direct digital acquisition
can lengthen editing time, which causes more working hours that may not be easy to recover compensation
from clients. Going direct digital does not increase, nor guarantee profits.

If the main lab that I use is any indication, the opposite of your last statement would be true. Really
good quality printed outputs can be done economically, on equipment at a pro lab, that is financially
beyond the reach of most professional photographers. Prints from digital files use to be a service bureau
(as in printing industry) speciality. Professional photo labs have become more like service bureaux were,
starting with Kodak PhotoCD, then drum scanning, and now digital file printing services. The larger
service bureaux became more like printing companies, or aligned themselves with printing companies, while
the smaller companies have largely disappeared. The other aspect of that is more professionals having
good computers, scanning gear, and the ability to use PhotoShop (or similar), creating less need for some
service bureau services.

Just like any industry, if you want to work in, and understand that industry, you have to keep up a
certain amount of research. There are many great resources for information, and many pro labs are great
sources of information, including the health of the industry.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From: "pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So is film dead yet?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> Both were produced by standard techniques. It's a quite fair comparison
> because it shows what actual 3MP consumer digital users and actual ISO 100
> consumer film film user will get. Some people will prefer the slightly
> higher detail in the film, some will prefer the vastly lower noise in the
> digital.
>>http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html

This should be a no-brainer.

The film shows an amount and quality of detail that is incomparably
superior to 3 mp digital. This is particularly evident with the
uppermost example, where we can discern the individual letters in a
road sign in the film image. That detail is completely lost in the 3
mp digital image.

Likewise in the succeeding images: Each and every film image is
significantly more detailed than its 3 mp digital counterpart.

This also parallels my own test of 6 mp digital Canon D60 at 200 ISO
against Superia 200, which you can find here:

http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/

I used prime lenses only for both cameras, as I always do:

Look, for instance, at these images:

D60:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3375_RT16_cut2_no_sharpening.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3374_RT16_cut_no_sharpening.jpg

Superia 200 scanned with the LS-40 film scanner:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-4_cut2_no_sharpening.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-1_cut_no_sharpening.jpg

How could anyone contest the superiority of Superia?

With the same amount of sharpening applied, it becomes even more
conspicuous that the negative film carries better detail:

D60:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3375_RT16_cut2_sharpened.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/CRW_3374_RT16_cut_sharpened.jpg

Superia 200 and film scanner:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-4_cut2_sharpened.jpg
http://www.coldsiberia.org/film_digital/Untitled-1_cut_sharpened.jpg

It is easy to conclude that the absence of grain in the digital images
fails to bring out more detail. That detail is present and easily
visible in the film images.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway




From nikon manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 
From: wdshpbiz@aol.com
Subject: Re: Buying into a system...

Thom Hogan just made me aware of another issue that relates to this,
specifically in the use of manual focus lenses on digital SLRs. Thom tells me that
because there is a need for light to hit CCD sensors at non-oblique angles, the
lenses that are excellent for film may not be the best for digital. So there
are obviously other issues besides simple resolving power at play here.

William Sampson
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html





Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 
From: Ronald Weinstock rbluesw@yahoo.com
To: contax mailing list contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: [Contax] Contax Digital SLR discontinued

Here is a link to Rob Galbraith's website noting that "Contax in the US has
confirmed that the N Digital SLR camera is no longer being manufactured."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6234-6239




From: Jermann Dieter dieter.jermann@hinni.ch
To: "'contax@photo.cis.to'" contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: AW: [Contax] Contax Digital SLR discontinued
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 

what I heard from in April (on Professional Imaging, form Yashica Switzerland)
is, that Contax will discontinue ND and introduce a new digital SLR body late
this year.

Dieter





From: Bob Monaghan [rmonagha@engr.smu.edu] 
Sent: Sat 6/7/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?


I'm forced to agree (again) with John S.- the big problems I keep reading
about on many scanners is they have very little depth of acceptable focus
when scanning film, and if you don't use the right accessory carrier
properly you can easily get outside the acceptable DOFocus limits (which
can be well under 1 mm (as in 0.2mm) on some scanners. Much of the poor
quality in scanning seems to be a side effect of out of focus image losses
due to problems with maintaining flat film in these narrow DOFocus zones.

This problem is also present in enlargers, but enlargers have lenses that
you can easily stop down and generally do in making sharper prints. You
can't do that on the integrated optics on a scanner. That means your
enlarger has a much larger DOFocus when stopped down. Moreover, flat film
carriers, and especially glass plate carriers, make it possible to get
rather better results from enlarged film than by scanning it.

my $.02 ;-) bobm




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 

Rafe B. writes:

> Resolution and detail are not at all the same thing ...

Actually they are. 

> You cannot resolve details (using a scanner)
> that don't exist on the object being scanned (ie., the film.)

Correct.

> The resolving power of film is finite, as is the
> resolving power of any digital capture device. Both
> are limited by optics, of course -- in that regard
> they are identical.

Correct.

> I urge you to do the test yourself, if you own or have
> access to a film scanner.

I have three scanners, and I scan film every day.

> Compare high-quality scans of your very best 6x6
> transparencies against images from the EOS 1Ds.

I have. My very best transparencies--and indeed, even my mediocre
transparencies--leave the 1Ds and every other digicam so far in the dust
that it makes me smile each time I compare. Even 35mm transparencies
look better.

> Believe me -- I was quite surprised at the results.

I wasn't. The only thing that surprises me is that so few other people
see this. I suspect, though, that most people have no clue as to how to
properly scan film.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From: "Pierre L" pierrot51@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

"Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote 
> 20. You enjoy taking pictures very casually, looking at them with
> friends, and then discarding them, at minimal cost (e.g., parties and
> other social gatherings).

Just one comment. Pictures I never really liked 30 years ago I treasure now,
because they show some context of my life at that time. I'm glad I kept them
all these years. Digital photos deleted to make room on the card for more
are gone forever.

Pierre




From: fcarello@tiscalinet.it (Fernando)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $2 "coke bottle lens" on scanners vs. Zeiss glass & film
Date: 13 Jun 2003 

rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote

> I wonder how much the "optics" in the typical scanner cost? Most seem to
> be about $2 mfgers cost items (granted, the scanners probably cost $50 to
> make for a $300 retail scanner ($150 wholesale, $75 importer..), little
> more than an uncoated cylindrical lens.

Well, nobody with a working brain (or eyes) would ever consider saying
that an Epson 3200 is able to capture all of the details in a MF
film...

Maybe the Nikon 8000 is able to capture 90% of details of a good film,
and 80% of a top-of-the-line film, but Epson 2450 (that I own) and
3200 (that shows little improvements, thanks to $2 optics :) ) is far
away from even 30% of those details... its *extinction* frequency is
only 30 lp/mm! :)

All of our previous discussions about "MP equivalent" for 645 was
centered on using a MF filmscanner the likes of Nikon 8000, of course!

Fernando




From: dbaker9128@aol.com (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 12 Jun 2003 
Subject: Goodby Nikon F Mount :-(

Well, what I had hoped never would happen, has! Nikon will be moving on from
the "F" lens mount and will obsolete all of us loyal Nikon owners of the past
43 years.

Why now? In the pursuit of a full 24mm x 36mm digital chip Nikon made the move,
the F mount was just to small to accommodate the perpendicular light ray path
which today's digital chips require. My source for this disturbing news comes
from a newsletter called Leicainfo.com and it references the German Photo
magazine Color Foto. The new mount will come out later this year along with a
whole new line of lenses.

I wonder why Nikon did not hang on with the F mount until a new chip arrived
which could accept oblique light rays? It can't be that far off! I'm
disappointed in Nikon. :-(

Doug from Tumwater




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003

bill martin writes:

> Now I think I know why I like digital: On browsing
> through photosig again, it occurred to me that the
> digital pictures are MUCH more like medium format
> than the 35mm pictures are.

I've already explained the reasons for this.

As long as the images are small, digital will look great. However, MF
film will continue to provide sharp detail long after digital has turned
to a blur, if you make very large prints.

This photo is scanned from MF film:

http://www.mxsmanic.com/church.jpg

This Web version of the photo is only 0.6% of the original size of the
scan
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

bill martin writes:

> You may be correct, but it seems like every
> really good photo I see nowadays on the web
> ( e.g. photosig ) was taken with a digital camera.

That's because very little manipulation is required to get from a
digital camera to the Web. With film, there are far more variables, and
messing up any one of the variables will produce a Web result that looks
inferior to digital. But the problem is in the workflow, not in the
method of image capture.

Most people don't know how to prepare film images for the Web, and so
they get very poor results. Some even make the mistake of scanning
prints, which produces abysmal results. In contrast, they can copy
files from a digicam almost as-is to the Web, and they'll look great.

Properly prepared film images look just as good as digital images on the
Web. Both types of photography are more than good enough for Web use,
by at least an order of magnitude, so the choice is yours if the Web is
your target.

> Very creamy textures and colors ...

Creamy to the point of blurring in many cases, particularly for colors.
But the absence of grain does make the images look very smooth. Grain
is by far the biggest problem with shooting film, although grain can be
invisible in well prepared film images from fine-grained film.

> ... seemingly a lot more exposure range ( latitude )
> than film.

Not so. Current digicams have a smaller exposure range than film,
although CCDs themselves can match or exceed film under the right
conditions (large, artificially cooled CCDs, etc.). The inexpensive
design of digicams and the internal software they use limits exposure
range, but produces more pleasing pictures for ordinary applications.

> The EOS 1D, Nikon coolpix, canon D60, fuji finepix -- they
> all make beautiful pictures, and without the hassle of having
> to develop film in a foul-smelling darkroom. What's not
> to like, aside from the price?

The upper limit on image quality is far lower for digital photography.
That's really the only significant disadvantage (apart from price),
although there are some minor drawbacks as well.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

bill martin wrote:
> Now I think I know why I like digital: On browsing through photosig
> again, it occurred to me that the digital pictures are MUCH more like
> medium format than the 35mm pictures are.

The statement above will live as on as of the most blatent examples of
not understanding that an 800x640 (or whatever) pixel image on the web
cannot come close to illustrating what a 35mm film can do, never mind MF.

Alan.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 
"Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote:
>
> fine contrast detail (over 40 lpmm, due to anti-aliasing filter in
> digicams)

But film doesn't record that either (unless it's the 1000:1 contrast image
on a test chart). The more serious comparisons show Provia/Velvia recording
50% more detail than digital. Not a whole lot of difference.

[Ed. note: actually, real world tests per Zeiss have reached 200+ lpmm with
fine grain 35mm film (ISO 25) and real world scenes per their scientific tests]


> shallow depth of field shots (portraiture..) due to great DOF (small
> sensor..)

Not with the Sony F707 or any dSLR. Even the f/2.0 3MP and 4MP cameras can
blur the background nicely if you use the longest focal length at wide open.

[Ed. note: but less that 0.1% of digital cameras are DSLRs or have f/2 speeds at long focal lengths]

> long duration exposures (moonlight...) often problematic

That's one.

> very fast shutter speeds (freeze-motion) often lacking

But focal plane shutters have problems with fill flash. The leaf shutters on
consumer digital are an advantage for flash.

[Ed. note: fast shutter speed is independent of flash, if only because there is a lot of light for a fast exposure ;-)
More directly, many film cameras have fast focal plane shutters (1/2,000th second etc.); very few leaf shutter
cameras have shutter speeds above 1/350th second (marked 1/500th second), but the ability to use flash with
any shutter speed can be a plus, and one reason I promote leaf shutter medium format cameras for portraits etc.]

> cold weather - batteries fail, motors and lubricants gum up etc.

Same story on modern film cameras.

[Ed. note: not if they use selenium cell meters like my Rolleiflex ;-)  Lots of manual cameras can be setup to work
in below freezing temps, whereas most digital cameras are heavily battery dependent and not spec'd for this task] 

> wet weather - possible electronics shorts

Same story on modern film cameras.

[Ed. note: yes, a potential problem with electronic film cameras and all digital cameras, but many film cameras are
not heavily electronic, lots don't have a battery at all, actually, so don't have electronic shorts potential at all ;-) ]

> rough handling - river rafting, wars.. - vs. Nikonos or Nikon F "bricks"

There are waterproof digitals and underwater housings that work with
digital.

[Ed. note: true, but many manual film cameras are "bricks", survive rough treatment and shocks which would 
destroy many electronic cameras (e.g., often killed by fall off table). ]

> dusty or sandy areas - dust in drive filters, internal guts (via card
> port..)

Same with film cameras, where only the absolute top of the line cameras are
adequately sealed. Besides, put a big CF card in your Nikon D100, and you
can shoot 10 times as many shots before opening it as you can with any 35mm
cameras.

[Ed. note: but dust is a problem even at low levels, as with changing lenses and static charges attracting to 
charged sensor surfaces, in digital cameras, causing problems. Dust usually isn't a big problem with film cameras
except maybe in processing, where it is easily controlled. ]

> remote area supplies - batteries? solar panel rechargers? storage media
> (Nepal?)

Very few people get very far from their cars/hotels.

[Ed. note: tell that to the PJs who use digital etc. or landscape types and so on ;-) Reading about digital camera use
in Iraq War and Afghanistan, lots of problems cited with power for laptop, need to upload and offload drives, cards..]

> repairs - only at mfger, forget local repairers (vs. watch and camera
> repairers)

You'd let a non-authorized repair person touch your Nikon F5???

[Ed. note:  again, many film cameras can have easily repaired problems (stuck meter switch, loose film counter..), and
the largely mechanical film cameras are readily repaired in emergencies. See Camera-fix mailing list for D-I-Y tips ;-)]

> Lighting control - off-camera lighting interfaces costly/clumsy if
> available

Just as with consumer film, flash capability varies widely among consumer
digital. dSLRs are the same as film SLRs.

[Ed. note: Yes, it varies, but vast majority of digital P&S etc. have only popup flash for flash capabilities, no remote
PC cord or similar off-camera flash setup.  A lot of film cameras at least have a flash hot shoe or PC connection etc.]

> small screen sizes - hard to really see screen esp. if bright light on
> LCDs

If you can't see the LCD, you're stuck with a camera that's just as limited
as the equivalent film camera. If you can see the LCD, you're ahead of the
game.

[Ed. note: good point, except that many digital users claim to use that small screen to review and delete and reshoot
photos. In the latest (June 2003?) Pop Photo "Film vs. Digital" Shootout, the digital shooter had to go home to review
on laptop his shots, to discover he had to go back and reshoot bad shots as couldn't see to edit on LCD screen etc.]

> lack of focusing aids (split prism, grid for architecture, variable
> diopters..)

The better consumer cameras have magnified focusing on the EVF/LCD, and the
dSLRs are the same as the film cameras.
[Ed. note: true, but only for less than 1% of digital cameras in use; the typical film SLR has split prism rangefinder screens
and option for interchangeable diopters and so on, as do most film rangefinders etc. in serious amateur photographer use] 


> shutter lag - considerable with AF designs and storage sequences

Again, same as the film cameras: consumer cameras are a bust, the dSLRs are
fine.

[Ed. note: actually, many of the DSLRs are bad, even the pro nikon F5 is 330 milliseconds delay in AF mode, only
72 milliseconds in manual mode on the same camera; DSLRs are worse, as they have to do post exposure processing
on top of the AF delays, to offload to storage, esp. after a burst of 3 to 5 shots etc. get multi-second delays in DSLRs]

> sequence photography - length of bursts limited (vs. roll of 36 to 250
> exposures)

The Minolta D7 will do time lapse photography unattended for as long as the
CF card you can afford. Besides, no one has a 250-shot film camera.

[Ed. note: the length of the burst before you have to stop and offload the images with a multi-second delay is usually
only 3 to 6 shots, depending on the digital camera; whereas it can be 36 shots for the typical motor winder film SLR.
Time lapse is not a problem as you noted, but not the kind of sequence photography whose burst limits I was noting]

> sequence photography - speed of shots limited by storage speed and image
> size etc.

That's not a limitation of digital per se, that's a limitation imposed by no
one needing it enough for mfrs to think it'd be selling point.

[Ed. note: but many mfgers highlight speed of their motor drives for film SLRs, and the ubiquity of motor winders for
even low end film SLRs, and built-in winders and motor drives on many film SLRs, suggest it is an important feature ;-)]

> range of equiv. speeds is limited - vs. film 0.8 ISO to 6400 ISO film
> options

ISO 1600 with the 10D is significantly better than ISO 400 film. ISO 3200
with the dSLRs is getting funky, but there are people who argue that true
film ISO never really exceeds ISO 1000.

[Ed. note: perhaps, but nobody argues that films range in ISO from far under typical DSLR options (ISO 6 and under)
to above ISO 1,000, and lots of us have had to use EI 3200 and push film in low light successfully. Moreover, I use a lot
of Fuji MS100/1000, which can be exposed and developed at ISO 100 through any speed up to ISO 1,000 very nicely]

> range of light levels may be less than dynamic range of film

Digitals have slightly wider latitude than slide films, and the negative
films (except for maybe Konica Impressa 50, if you can stomach the
pink/magenta cast) aren't as good as dSLR image quality.

[Ed. note: but film has a non-linear toe and shoulder response, which makes it able to capture details in shadows and
highlights which digital misses due to its linear response characteristics. Moreover, film tolerates exposure errors better
than digital with wide latitude subjects; digital exposures have to be right on to use their exposure latitude. Negative and
B&W films have _far_ more latitude than digital cameras, and much more tolerant of exposure errors due to the nonlinear
response (toe and shoulder) curve ranges. ]

> highlights bloom and blockup - exposures must be exact or else!

It's the same story with slide film, but with digital at least you have a
histogram.

[Ed. note: the difference is nonlinearity of film response curve's toes and shoulder enables details in shadows and highlights
to be retained, which are lost with digital sensor's linear response. With digital, you _need_ the histogram to be sure you haven't
blown the exposure, as this is easy to do, blocking up highlights etc. With print film, which you again conveniently ignore ;-),
there is a huge amount of latitude in exposure from which a very good print can be pulled]

> smaller less massive cameras more subject to camera vibration and shake

So buy an E20 or dSLR.

[Ed. note: you can't have it both ways ;-)  Either the low weight is a plus for carrying but a problem for camera shake,
or the reverse ;-) Seriously though, the low 40 lpmm resolution max. of most digital cameras covers up some of the
losses to camera shake and vibration due to lighter weight, but becomes more of an issue with those higher density
sensors often found on the smallest and lightest P&S digital cameras with tiny lenses and smaller denser sensors...]

> no DOF depth of field indicators or preview option

The EVF cameras provide DOF preview and dSLRs are the same as SLRs.

[Ed. note: true, for those high end DSLRs with this feature, but 99% of the digital cameras sold lack these options ;-( ] 

> operation with telescopes and microscopes is problematic

Tell that to the hordes of Nikon 990 digiscopers...

[Ed. note: wait, the Nikon 990 lens can't be removed, so it has to used afocally with eyepiece projection, right?  Bah!
The vast majority of film SLRs used in astrophoto and microphotography do not use their own normal lens optics, but
are integrated with the telescope or microscope via a T-mount or similar coupling. You can't do that with a Nikon 990.]

> tripod unfriendly - hard to do rule of thirds with central AF sensors on
> tripods

So get a dSLR. Or one of the myriad high-end consumer cams with multiple AF
sensor spots.

[Ed. note: Again, only the high end models (under 1% of digital camera's 40 million sales) offer the option; in fact, dang
few digital P&S and other cameras have a real tripod mount, and the few that do are of plastic like the rest of the digicam
body and would not last a weekend's encounter with a real tripod with metal mounting screen and baseplates ;-) Right? ;-)]

> operation with bellows and extension tubes may be problematic (no
> couplings?) - esp. with fixed lens models ;-)

Bellows is a rather specialized tool, but consumer dcams have far better
macro capabilities than consumer film cameras.

[Ed. note: only down to their fixed lens close focus limits, and then you are limited to afocal diopters - assuming your
digital camera has a filter ring for mounting them, which dang few of the digital cameras I've seen have. Bellows and
extension tubes, along with macro lenses, are the main tools of macrophotography, and neither are available to 99% of
digital camera model owners ;-( ]

> smaller lenses can be slower, making AF and other features problematic in
> dim light

There are lots of f/2.0 consumer digitals, and dSLRs use the same lenses.

[Ed. note: most of the digital cameras have significant focus ranges, labeled 4X or even 10X and 16X optical zoom
ranges. Their lenses are not f/2 at the long end, right? ;-)  AF sensors become problematic at f/5.6 up on many SLRs.]

> problems with ultrawide lenses and fisheyes esp. with 1.6X and similar
> small chips

That's two.

> software bugs and glitches, lack of workarounds

Electronic whizbang film SLRs have the same troubles.

[Ed. note: true, but vast majority of film SLRs sold don't have software, some don't have batteries, most are integrated
electronics, only a relative handful have high end software upgrades and related bug issues common in DSLRs etc. ]

> all or none operation - glitches can be fatal vs. problem in 35mm SLR, can
> still shoot

Very few modern 35mm film cameras will shoot without a battery.

[Ed. note: Huh?  Most film SLRs cameras have at least two settings (bulb and their base set speed, e.g., 1/90th on FE)
with a manual speed, even if you take the batteries out of the camera. The majority of older rangefinders and manual
cameras only use a battery for exposure control. Some recent AF cameras may not have manual settings, but in terms
of the total number of film cameras, tens of millions sold since WWII, most have manual no-battery default speeds]

> lack of or difficult manual settings and over-rides (ambient light meter
> etc.)

All the high end consumer cameras have full manual control

[Ed. note:  Again, high end digital cameras may have this, but 90%+ don't, and many digital cameras can't override
meter settings (cf. digital P&S). So for 9 out of 10 digital camera owners, this is a problem hence I listed it ;-) ]

> red-eye from on-camera flash which is too weak to be very useful anyway

So? How is that different from film cameras?
[Ed. note: lots of film cameras have off-camera options ranging from hot shoe (for larger flashes, e.g., vivitar 283)
to PC connection for cords or wireless triggers. On digital cameras, you usually don't get any of these options, just
the built-in pop-up flash, which is a recipe for red-eye in your shots etc. ]

> complexity of manuals and operation - manuals may weigh more than cameras
> symbols (icons) often cryptic, complicated by multi-modes and interacting
> controls

Yup. Dumb users need not apply. But I assure you: photography itself is a
heck of a lot harder than operating a consumer dcam. If you're too dumb for
a consumer dcam, best stay away from photography in general.

[Ed. note: agreed, but we make it look too easy ;-) ]

> while some of these issues may be overcome in a few very pricey high end
> models, the vast majority of digital camera users face many limitations.

You were dead wrong or irrelevant on all but two issues above. The vast
majority of your complaints apply exactly to consumer film cameras as well.
Oops.

[Ed. note: for the vast majority of 40+ million digital camera owners and users, these are real 
issues and limitations. For the fortunate few with multi-kilobuck DSLRs and other high end digicams,
some of these issues are addressed. But my points above are that for the majority of digital camera
owners and users, the experience is less than ideal. In fact, that is a major reason why folks pay $6,000 US$
for a high end DSLR body, when the same size digital sensor in a digital P&S may cost much less. The 
ultimate DSLR is a film camera body taking film camera lenses, bellows, T-mounts, and so on ;-)  Is not
imitation the sincerest form of flattery? ;-) ]

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
[Ed. note: in my original short reply, I largely questioned the claim that film can't exceed 40 lpmm in quality.

I routinely leave my pro nikon F series bodies at home, and go out shooting with lighter nikon FE or nikkormat
bodies, achieving the same quality of results with the same film and lenses. How many digital shooters take their
low cost webcams or older digital cameras out, when they have a new higher megapixel DSLR?  They don't
because they can't achieve the same quality results and features with the older digital "obsolete" cameras.  That's
the big difference between film and digital for many users. A low cost film camera offers the same quality of results,
often with the same essential features (DOF, manual settings, meter..).  Only the DSLRs built into film camera style
bodies seem to have the range of features and capabilities to make them usable by pros and competitive - at a high cost -
with even modest cost film cameras in features and image quality. ] 





From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

David J. Littleboy writes:

> But film doesn't record that either (unless it's the 1000:1
> contrast image on a test chart).

Films like Provia manage 80-90 lp/mm easily, even with moderate
contrast. I've verified this directly.

> But focal plane shutters have problems with fill flash.

That's why God created the Hasselblad.

> Besides, no one has a 250-shot film camera.

Some people do. I've seen the backs for it.

> It's the same story with slide film, but with digital
> at least you have a histogram.

So you know immediately what you've lost. Scant consolation.

> Electronic whizbang film SLRs have the same troubles.

But with film, you can buy a non-electronic, non-whizband SLR that has
no troubles at all.

> You were dead wrong or irrelevant on all but two issues
> above. The vast majority of your complaints apply exactly
> to consumer film cameras as well.

But you are overlooking an absolutely critical point: You can buy a
great top-quality film SLR for a price that would get you only a
mediocre consumer digital camera. Dollar for dollar, then, you are
constrained to compare consumer digital P&S cameras with top-line film
SLRs, since they cost the same. A digital SLR that matches a top film
SLR in most respects will cost five to ten times more money.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 4mp digital vs. film: my comparison

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gordon Moat writes:
>
> > Kodak E200 can easily be pushed to ISO 800, with
> > much nicer results than from using Portra 800.
>
> With less grain?

Yes, and better colour saturation. And I should add that the scanning
results are better. It does not handle underexposure well when pushed, which
is the main reason for extra exposure as you push more.

I have samples, but I do not have a hold release from the publisher yet, so
I am not able to post them to a news group. However, if you would like to
see some examples from a 4 2/3 stops push, e-mail me off group. I can give
you some recommended settings as well, if you want to try a roll like this.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

W Bauske wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> Negatives on a CF card? And at what point (and how often) do you plan to
>> re-archive them as computer formats change. How many 5 1/4 drives (or
>> syquest disks) have you seen lately? What will you do when your disk
>> wouldn't read because of 1 scratch in the wrong place that kills dozens
>> of images?
> Of course it's impossible to scratch a negative
> or slide film...

Sure it's possible (and happens often) but when you scratch a negative does
it make it totally unusable/unviewable? And does this kill all the other
negatives on the roll?
--
Stacey




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 

Rafe B. writes:
> That is not what I have been hearing from folks who
> have recently purchased the EOS-1Ds.

In terms of resolution, the 1Ds isn't even close to exhausting the
capabilities of any good lens. However, it may well show other defects
quite clearly.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> There was some discussion on an earlier thread about whether or not the
> quality of today's lenses exceeds the quality of the lenses available
> for the Koni. I've read, with respect to 35mm lenses that the lenses of
> today aren't engineered to be as fast since usable film speeds have
> increased so dramatically since the 35mm rangefinder heyday of the 1950s
> and '60s. So my next question has to do with the "digital" revolution.
> Is there even less demand for lens quality with digital technology?

No, there's more demand. One reason is that it's easier to see the
differences: loupes are only 8x or 12x at the most, but 100% "actual pixels"
on the screen is like looking at an 20x30 with a loupe. Other than Bobm,
Mxmaniac, and I, not a lot of film types look at every frame with a 60x
microscope.

But what the digerati are seeing is that even with the D30, one is happier
at f/8, and happier with better lenses; even only slightly better lenses.
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

> Are
> our vintage MF lenses of today and the recent past going to be the best
> we'll see for many years?

But we're film limited anyway: "photographic quality" really is limited to
under 10x magnifications, so what we need in our lenses is not higher
limiting resolutions, but higher contrast at 50 lp/mm. (IMHO: Bobm
disagrees {g}.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

Mxsmanic wrote:
> W Bauske writes:
>> Of course it's impossible to scratch a negative
>> or slide film...
>
> It's easy to scratch a CD-R. Try it, and then try to read the CD.

Bingo and it kills 700MB+ of images instead of one.
--
Stacey




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 

W Bauske writes:
> Depends on the scratch, the cd-reader, and the OS/SW you
> use.

A scratch that penetrates the coating on the back of a CD-R will ruin
it. That's one of the weak points of CD-Rs.

Mass-produced regular CDs do not have a coating on the outside that is
vulnerable to scratches.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

Chad Irby wrote:
> Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > W Bauske writes:
>> >> Of course it's impossible to scratch a negative
>> >> or slide film...
>> >
>> > It's easy to scratch a CD-R. Try it, and then try to read the CD.
>> 
>> Bingo and it kills 700MB+ of images instead of one.
>
> On the other hand, CD-R is cheap now, and is down to pennies per disc.
> With a fast writer, you might as well do two as one.


Sure if you are vigilent and upgrade media as it changes/make duplicates
you're unlikely to have a problem. My point was how many people using
digicams (general public) are going to make dupes/upgrade media or even
save them on a CD to start with? Beyond the print they have made at
wallmart, there will be no "archive". With negatives, you just keep them in
the sleave the lab sends them back in and you're done. Very little effort
required.
--
Stacey






From: fcarello@tiscalinet.it (Fernando)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $2 "coke bottle lens" on scanners vs. Zeiss glass & film
Date: 16 Jun 2003 

rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote in message news:...

> that's a good point allright. If your extinction freq. is 30 lpmm or so,
> you probably don't need zeiss (or even Rodenstock) high end optics. The

No: the signal frequencies in my originals are higher than 70 lp/mm,
it's the 3200 that can't do beyond 30, and not for the CCD, but for
the $2 lens system... this is why I said that you can't use a flatbed
as a paragon to say that scanners are the weak point in the digital
darkroom (as you said in your first message).

A Nikon 8000 or, better, an Imacon Flextight would capture a good
amount of those frequencies, and those are the only scanner worth
talking about when we digress about "MP equivalence" in medium format
film (ok, we could throw in Minolta Scan Multi PRO and Polaroid SS120,
maybe).

Fernando




From: "Lambo" lambonospam@iprimus.com.au
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Thought Canon 10D owners might like to read this article about autofocus problems
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 

No focus issues with mine, more important to me are the
blown highlights I seem to get,. But then again I think I'm
just used to the forgiving nature of the cheap 35m film
I have been using for years and I'm slowly adjusting to
the dynamic range of this camera.

Now I'm thinking I have no choice but to shoot RAW if
I'm worried by the lighting conditions... need more flash$ 8-(

lambo


"M Wells" urbanlegend@ozemail.com.au wrote 
> Hi All,
>
> Tripped over this link while researching ahead of my intention to buy
> a Canon 10D in the near future.
>
> http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=P425_0_1_0
>
> It's an article on a photography blog site claiming Canon France have
> acknowledged an autofocus problem with the 10D, but is claiming it
> only affects a small number of units.
>
> The good news in the post is that the problem can apparently be fixed.
>
> Hope this is of interest to some...
>
> Much warmth,
>
> Murray
> http://www.planetthoughtful.org





From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Father's day. Digital.


it was written:
>Even celluloid requires good storage techniques to last:

Fortunately, film has not been made from celluloid for a very long time.

Lets look back. Reel-to-reel computer 1/2" mag tape, 8" floppy, 5-1/4
floppy, 3-1/2 floppy.

Mag tape, big in 1960-1970. I still have some. Data on them is long gone.
If any data remained, one could not get it off, at home, anyway.

8" floppy. What you recorded on 8" floppy 20-30 years ago is long gone now.
And do you still have a machine that can read 8" floppies should there be
any data that survived?

5-1/4 floppy. If recorded 10-15 years ago, like many of my 5-1/4 floppies,
the data can no longer be read. It's called bit rot. Mag data simply gets
weaker and weaker. I have a 5-1/4 drive but many of my floppies have
deteriorated beyond recovery.

3-1/2 floppy. Quickly becoming extinct. The ZIP's have it. Save that 3-1/2"
drive. Get the stuff off of those old 3-1/2 floppies onto CD/DVD. Then ten
years from now, do it again on to... whatever it is that made CD/DVD's extinct.

CD/DVD's are a chemical change refractive index system when burned. But the
chemical reaction deteriorates over time. Chemical bit rot rather than
magnetic bit rot. Like five to ten times faster than a silver image
deteriorating providing it was fixed and washed reasonably close to properly.

I still have some 6x6 E2 Ektachrome slides that I developed, at home in the
kitchen sink, when I was twelve. I'm 65 now. Most of them are still good.
Some have fungus and some the blacks are fading to redish. But the image is
still there and I could easily copy it if I wanted. All of my B&W work from
back then is still 100% good and usable. As is my fathers. And believe me,
archival processing was not in my vocabulary back then.

The bottom line is that silver lasts. Magnetic, chemical, and semiconductor
memory does not. At least this is the way it is now. Do all of your work on
digital now, you are going to have a heap of copying work to do in the future.

As Bob said, shoot film, scan the film, store the film, done. You lose your
file, scan the film again. There will always be scanners. CD/DVD players
will not always be available.

Fifty years from now, someone else can scan the film if they want digital
prints.

Jim





From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Father's day. Digital.



CD's and DVD's, those recorded by a CD/DVD burner have an estimated life
span of 10 years if not kept in a controlled environment. Music & movie
CD/DVD's are pressed and have a longer life expectancy. But you cannot
press your photos on to a CD/DVD. Therefore you must move your data off of
old CD/DVD and put them on new media.

Jim





From BJP Equipment News 20 June 2003 user poll (60 respondents) asking
how much they intended to spend on used digital gear in the next year.
Nearly 2/3rds (65%) didn't plan on any purchases. About 13%+ said they
intended to spend up to $830 (500 GBP); nearly 12% planned on spending between $830
and $1,660 (1000 GBP),  and only 10% planned on spending more than $1,680 (1000 GBP). 




From Leica Mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 
From: tripspud tripspud@transbay.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] Film is Archival (long reply)

Hi Gerry!

You are of course 100% correct on this. The tragedy
is that nothing could be or can be done about it to somehow
reverse the digital tide. You feel like Tom Hanks in "The
Castaway" fighting the tide.

Rich

Gerry Walden wrote:

> I heard recently that the Twentieth Century will be 'the century of
> film' because, give or take a few years, it will historically be shown
> as the only century in which film was used to record things which are
> then retained for the future. As such it will prove to be the century
> for which we have the most complete record.
>
> The reality is that digital images are being wiped from peoples
> computers all the time for all kinds of reasons. Images which were
> thought to be mundane a century ago are now proving to be a cornerstone
> of social history. The work of people like Margaret Bourke White, Walker
> Evans et el give an unparalleled insight into that period of history, as
> does the work of Fenton before them and Bailey, McCullen, Burrows etc.
> since. Would that work still be available if it were on digital media?
>
> I remember one of the most respected picture editors in the UK (Eamon
> McCabe) saying that so many images were arriving at his desk during the
> Los Angeles Olympics (the first to be covered totally by the major
> agencies on digital cameras and email transmission) that he found it
> impossible to keep up and was deleting whole files without even looking!
> The work of initial editing had moved from the photographers selecting
> images to the picture editor who was getting whole sequences of frames.
>
> I find this loss of archival record to be of serious concern which
> appears to have been disregarded in the headlong rush to use the very
> latest technology
>
> Gerry
> --
> Gerry Walden LRPS
> www.gwpics.com




From: friend me.at.home@universe.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Slide: Color/Saturation
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

"Jar Jar Binks" timmyotoole@shaw.ca wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have spent a lot of time searching google groups, but have not been able
>to find a current, relevent answer to my question.
>
>When considering whether to make the switch from film to digital:
>
>Can digital (low, medium or high end - specify which) cameras rival the
>amazing colors and saturation achieved by professional color transparency
>films like Kodak EPN, 100VS and Fuji Velvia etc?
>
>If not, how far away?
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>
>Jeremy

No, it cannot. Just compare Ektachrome RGB with sRGB. you get ~50% of
film colors if you use digital, then you get even less while printing
inkjet CMYK. In case of digital, it is even less limitation of a
sensor, it is rather filters and coding (hard) of sRGB into firmware.
Some high end cameras/backs do allow for different color space, ie.
more colors. It is possible to implement even in cheaper cameras, but
what for? Most of digital pics are viewed on a screen , which is by
default sRGB, only small portion is printed. In general inkjets do not
compare favourably with those printed onto color paper. It would be a
nice feature for few, but unimportant for most users of low, mid range
digital cameras. Resolution and zoom range sells, color doesn't. Of
course you can produce nice prints out of digital camera, most of
viewers couldn't have a clue it might be better. It is just matter of
taste,
[Ed. note: ends here]




From: Don Stauffer stauffer@usfamily.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Slide: Color/Saturation
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

Depends on exactly what you mean. Do you mean accuracy of saturation,
or the saturation value itself.

The saturation value itself is not that important, as in processing you
can crank the saturation up yourself until you posterize the image.
However, if you want accuracy of color, then nothing beats certain
transparency films. 

Jar Jar Binks wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have spent a lot of time searching google groups, but have not been able
> to find a current, relevent answer to my question.
>
> When considering whether to make the switch from film to digital:
>
> Can digital (low, medium or high end - specify which) cameras rival the
> amazing colors and saturation achieved by professional color transparency
> films like Kodak EPN, 100VS and Fuji Velvia etc?
>
> If not, how far away?
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Jeremy
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stauffer@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer




Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Slide: Color/Saturation
From: philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

David Eppstein eppstein@ics.uci.edu wrote:
> Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Manipulation in Photoshop can change saturation within certain limits,
>> but you cannot manipulate a digicam image in a way that will accurately
>> reproduce Velvia saturation and color (in fact, you can't manipulate an
>> image from film in a way that will do that, either).
>
>I bet you can't manipulate a Velvia image in a way that will accurately
>reproduce D60 saturation and color, either (to whatever standards of
>"accurately" you're using in your statement above). So what's your
>point?

I guess the problem is dat a digital camera has to be able to produce
neutral colors as well. So the filter design has to be such that you
can handle to hardest case (probably skin color) and you try to get
other effects in the digital domain.

With film, every type of film can have its own filters. Velvia doesn't to
be good for portraits because you can use a different film for that.

PHilip Homburg




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Slide: Color/Saturation
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 

Jar Jar Binks writes:
> Can digital (low, medium or high end - specify which)
> cameras rival the amazing colors and saturation
> achieved by professional color transparency films like
> Kodak EPN, 100VS and Fuji Velvia etc?

That depends on the design of the sensor. Current cameras are not
designed to reproduce that level of saturation. There's no technical
obstacle to doing so, though--it's just a question of the type of filter
put over the sensor.

> If not, how far away?

Maybe tomorrow, maybe never ... it's not a technical problem, it's a
marketing choice (just as it is with film). I don't know how much
demand there is for Velvia-saturation in digicams.

The only significant difference is that the saturation level of a
digicam is fixed by the sensor, and cannot be changed without changing
the sensor. The saturation level of a film camera depends only on the
type of film loaded.

Manipulation in Photoshop can change saturation within certain limits,
but you cannot manipulate a digicam image in a way that will accurately
reproduce Velvia saturation and color (in fact, you can't manipulate an
image from film in a way that will do that, either).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs. Slide: Color/Saturation

Jar Jar Binks wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have spent a lot of time searching google groups, but have not been able
> to find a current, relevent answer to my question.
>
> When considering whether to make the switch from film to digital:
>
> Can digital (low, medium or high end - specify which) cameras rival the
> amazing colors and saturation achieved by professional color transparency
> films like Kodak EPN, 100VS and Fuji Velvia etc?

None really, but this is an inherent problem of RGB based sensors, and
limited colour spaces; the colour gamut does not extend as far as with some
films. Most colours from high end cooled chip medium format digital backs,
and some scanning backs, can approach high saturation film results, but at
quite a cost. However, it may not be that important, depending upon how you
want to print your images.

> If not, how far away?

Something to consider is that so far, most development has gone towards
resolution improvements. That also makes the marketing departments job
easier, since they have a quantifiable comparison. Improvements in colour
gamut (or quality, if you prefer) would be the next logical development. Give
it some time, and you should see the high end technology trickle down to the
lower priced gear.

> Thanks for your comments.

Oh . . . my comment about it being not important. You should also consider
that even scanning high saturation films, and trying to print them, might not
show those great saturated colours. Some of the six colour inkjets come
close, but still do bad in some ranges, especially yellow. Even on a
commercial press (not newsprint), the standard CMYK gamut may not show some
colours. Either substituting Pantone colours, going with HiFi Colour, or
Hexachrome, can get closer, but at a cost. Prints from slides are another
matter, and depend a great deal on the operator, and the equipment, but get
much closer and at a better low volume output cost.

Basically, decide what you want to do for printing your images, then get as
much quality as your printer will handle from the film, or digital, that you
use. If most of your printing will not match those high saturation films,
there might not be much point in using them.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?

Fernando wrote:
> Hello Gordon,
>
> first of all thank you for the useful infos you posted.
>
> Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net wrote 
> > The latest this year in drum scanning is 64000 dpi, and should be able to
> > resolve somewhere near 3 microns.
>
> (this should resolve the film grain aliasing thing once and for all
> {g})

It has been my experience that lesser scans showing what appears to be "grain" (noise) on a monitor, often will not appear on a final print. Too much complaining about this "grain" has to do with the view on the monitor, though proper
file preparation and printing techniques can avoid any appearance in the final print. Some films are inherently grainy, and keeping that aspect in a print from scanned film can enhance the feeling or mode of an image, and there are
methods to properly retain that as well. As early as 1996, I was making grainless prints from scanned film, using a tool as simple as PhotoShop 3. It really just depends upon what final affect, or look, is desired.

>
>
> > Where drum scanners have two advantages are the scanning oil and the photo
> > multiplier tube technology. While it may be tougher to see resolution
> > differences, PMTs are much better than CCD scanners are getting accurate >colour
>
> Now a question comes to my mind:
> Drum scanners exists since quite a few years; and pro labs like yours
> should be able to pay off for them in two-to-three years, I assume.

This might not be an easy to estimate idea. It depends upon how busy a lab can make their scanner. There will be an operator to pay, and computer time for scanning and burning to disc. These devices do better in high volume environments.
The other issue is that currently, there are a few film scanners that produce quite good enough results for 90% of required output.

>
> Still, there aren't, on the used market, many drum scanners at "human"
> prices.
> How is it? They don't find the way to used market, do they?

When some Service Bureaux close, the equipment can often go at auction locally, but that is a tough way to 
find this stuff. There have been some used drum scanners occasionally appearing on the market. One reality is that many of these
are still fast enough, and produce good enough quality images, that they will have a long useful life.

On source for used and refurbished Leaf scanner gear is http://www.leafstuff.com/. Some of these may not be as good an option as a newer film scanner, or an Imacon. You can also directly contact companies like Creo, Howtek, Leaf, and
others about refurbished gear, or lease returns. Another issue is having an older computer dedicated to the drum scanner, since some will not have a modern version of software able to run on a newer OS. Almost all the older devices are
SCSI based connection.

> > Here is something interesting you might want to try. Your Nikon 8000 should >be able to be altered to accept film with drum scanning mounting oil. Why not >try the same bit of film with that, and without, and let us know the results?

> Very interesting indeed: I even found that a user tried oil on an
> Epson 3200 (!!!!!!), finding evidence of better results.
> How does it work, how oil is to be applied, and who sells it (for
> final users)?

David Littleboy mentioned that use for the Epson. I have seen this for a Creo IQsmart and Eversmart scanners
 (high end flat scanners). More information at:

http://www.creo.com/global/products/scanning_systems/color_scanners/scanner_applications_accessories/oil_mounting_station/default.htm

I should mention that neither of those Creo scanners is low cost, nor physically small. The oil can be ordered, or found at some graphic 
arts supply places, and some art stores. The oil is not expensive, though you might need to adapt
some sort of holder, depending upon the scanner you want to use. This is great on older scratched negatives and  transparencies, though that is only one aspect.

> Thank you!!

Hope that helps. None of the high end stuff is really affordable. However, if you have a pro lab that can 
provide this service, ask them to show you what they use. You might be impressed enough to try a scan or two.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From contax mailing list:
From: "David Senft" dsenft@execpc.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 
Subject: [Contax] scanner resolution vs film resolution

I am not involved in scanning. It is not my purpose to fault or to defend
scanning. When Popular Photography tested the 4000dpi scanners the reported
resolution at approx 65 lpm. When Ctein tested the Minolta 4800dpi scanner For
Photo Tech. magazine he reported its capability at 90lpm. I would hazard as
guess that the new Minolta 5400 scanner will be in the range of 110 to 125
lpm.

Carl Zeiss in the most recent issue of Camera lens news reports the following
capability for films exposed with a camera in sunlight using a tripod and
photofinisher development: They stated that ordinary equipment available to
consumers was used... exotic equipment was only used to read films.

Film resolution/lpm
Tmax 100 180
Tmax 400 120
Velvia 160
Portra 160 NC 150
NPZ 800 110
Portra 800 90

Naturally, If these films were used with a handheld camera and other
non-optimum techniques, I am sure the results would be reduced.

A true drum scanner when used expertly has the capability of 14.000 dpi.




From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: RE: Antwort: [Contax] Scan Resolution
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 
Michael,

> The Minolta scanner actually has a lot going for it.
> A Dynamic range of 4.8 is extremely good,better than my drum scanner in
> fact !

I HIGHLY doubt that is true. A dynamic range of 4.8 simply means that the
scanner uses a 16 bit A/D, NOT that the scanner can actual get 16 bits of
clean data. If it could actually get in the high 3's, I'd be highly
surprised. This is merely abuse of specs by marketing.

> The 3 line CCD sensor is as good as you can get with one line each of red
> green and blue for purer colours.

That does not give "purer colors". ALL scanners not a days use a tri-linear
CCD (three lines).

> Minolta have been at the forefront of things electronic in the photo arena
> for a long-time and know what they are doing.

I question that... The other Minolta scanners though OK, weren't anything
spectacular, and certainly no better (if not worse) than other manufacturers
comparable models. What Minolta has done is pushed the "spec" envelope, not
necessarily made better scanners, but scanners that they CLAIM are better by
abusing the definition of commonly used specs and terms.

Austin





From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: Antwort: [Contax] Scan Resolution
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003

Hi Pat,

Grain aliasing is primarily caused by the type/design of light source and
lense. Obviously, the film has a lot to do with it (as does the actual
scanner resolution), but only from the standpoint that certain films react
with the light/lense combination worse than others. Some scanners just
don't have this effect nearly as much as others, with the same film.

Regards,

Austin
> I'm no expert here (Austin? little help?) but from what I've read about
> grain aliasing, it is dependant primarily on the grain size of the film in
> question (some light sources would exaggerate or minimize it at a given
> resolution, as well). Some films will exaggerate the aliasing effects more
> on some scanners due to the grain being close in size to (or aligned with)
> the scanner sensors. But I am of the belief that most normal use film (e.g.,
> not Gigabit, or Tech Pan, which are not generally used for general purpose
> photography where wide contrast scenes are recorded) doesn't exhibit grain
> aliasing by the time you reach 4000 dpi. At that point, you start scanning
> the grain.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong. I have not made a study of this, nor have I
> conducted empirical tests.
>
>
> Pat
...




From contax mailing list:
From: "Austin Franklin" darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: Antwort: [Contax] Scan Resolution
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003

Hi John,

> Isn't scanning at a resolution greater than the grain a way of avoiding
> grain aliasing? In fact by scanning at a higher resolution and bit-depth
> than is required and then reducing resolution/bit-depth after editing, and
> appropriate for the end use, I get better quaility images.

Scanners have a native optical resolution that they scan at, no matter what
you select it to scan at. This means that if your scanner is a 4000SPI
scanner, and you choose 2700...it'll still scan at 4000, and downsample the
image data (therefore degrading it) to 2700. My recommendation is simply to
scan at the optical resolution of the scanner, and when printing to inkjet
printers, simply resize the image WITHOUT resampling (uncheck the resample
box in PS) and send what ever PPI it results to directly to the printer
driver.

Austin




From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Date: 10 May 2003 

How about a different approach to the film is dead debate? ;-) I'm going
to show you why the days of "serious" digital photography are numbered ;-)

First, nearly everybody making digital cameras is losing money doing so.
They have lost money, year after year (cf. Kodak, where film profits
support losses in digital camera divisions ;-). Some major players like
AGFA have already dropped out of making digital cameras and scanners at
a loss to focus on profitable film mfgering.

Second, nearly everybody in the USA who wants a decent digital camera
already has one (i.e., 3 MP are now $150 New in Box). Who is left to buy?
Given 89% never make prints, just email photos on web, why do they need to
"upgrade" to newer and higher megapixel cameras when they never do prints?

Third, sales of older used digital cameras highlights the huge
depreciation losses, often 75% to 90% in just 2-3 years. This realization
is going to make it harder for second time buyers to be as enthusiastic
about upgrading to a higher $$ new digital camera, knowing they'll likely
lose another 75-90% of their investment again in a few years. Once burned,
twice shy...

Fourth, an industry shakeout is pending. Corp. are losing $$, cutting
costs, including loss leading divisions like digital photography (Cf.
agfa). As the losers become more apparent, we are going to see a lot of
"orphaned" digital cameras too. No support, no service, no driver upgrades

Fifth, cell phone cameras will meet the needs of those 89% of current
digital camera users who never make a print (per PMAI statistics), which
is to say, 90%+ of current digicam buyers/owners. They're going to send
photos via their webpages or email anyway, so don't need prints. Nor do
they need huge megapixel counts and interchangeable lenses and all that.

The above is a critical point; 90% of the digicam users today - and more
in the cellphone camera future - don't need or want prints. These folks
will NOT be in the market for a "serious" digital still camera.

Sixth, Foveon's 16MP chip should shortly hit the volumes needed to drive
prices under $100, and eventually under $10/chip. So disposable or
recycleable 16 megapixel digital cameras will be available for $100 US$ or
so. Why bother with today's 6MP cameras in the future, when for $100 you
can have a handy and compact cell phone with 16 MP camera built-in? (per
National Semiconductor's CEO, makers of Foveon's 16MP chips, on prices)

Seventh, today's DSLR are transitional cameras, designed to help the OEM
mfgers (nikon, canon..) make $$ and develop digital camera technologies
while retaining their market share and user base. Some of these OEMs are
not going to survive the digital camera industry shakeout (i.e., those
$100 16 MP disposables). Will Nikon, or Canon, or Ricoh.. still be around?

Eight, the digital sensors are limited by physics (noise, capture area..)
in size, probably won't get much smaller per Carver Mead of Foveon fame
(Foveon's 16 MP is 22x22mm size). This means we don't need big lenses of
high resolution, but smaller lenses (22x22mm coverage) with less glass and
lower cost, capable of matching the 50 lpmm resolution of the current
digital sensor technology. You don't need zeiss glass or $$ to do that!

In other words, future 16MP cameras are likely to NOT use today's 35mm
lenses, let alone medium format ;-) Expect a small zoom perhaps, fixed
lens mount etc. with digital zoom

Ninth, today's MF and 35mm DSLR with full size chips will lose out to the
much lower price high volume 16 MP chip cameras. Who wants to carry MF
camera with 16MP back or 35mm DSLR (6 or 11 MP) bagful when a shirt pocket
camera will deliver same resolution 16MP images? When Foveon's 22x22mm
chip is $10 for 16 MP, how many will want to spend thousands of $ for a
larger area chip with the same resolution? It will be much cheaper to
switch to the smaller, more convenient digicam. 35mm gear to the closet..

Tenth, 16 MP will be the "sweet spot" for digicams. Most folks will get a
good enough 11x14" print, and only 1% of current minilab prints are 8x10"
in size or larger anyway. So the benefits of a 64 MP or larger sensor will
be a hard sell to this volume market. If anything, the larger file sizes
will mean longer uploads for no increase in on-screen quality, fewer
images per memory stick or drive etc. So larger sensors will be much more
costly for those serious digital camera users wanting higher image
quality.

=====

On the other hand, improvements in abysmal scanner technology of today
will make it possible to capture the high frequency (high
contrast/resolution) data captured on film with today's lenses. The gap
between digital and film images, which today is only really obvious with
very good drum/laser scanners, will become obvious to even the digi-ratti
Improved digital printers and scanners may make the superiority of film
and film based image prints obvious over limited resolution 16 MP
digicams, just as a good enlarger makes the difference between an 800 ISO
film 35mm image from a disposable camera versus a medium format shot
obvious...

Films will improve, become more sensitive and linear (cf AGFA's 10X faster
formic film technology), and open a new range of high quality low light
capabilities with today's lenses (e.g., 1000 ISO/ASA speed with 100 ISO
grain). see 

====

The bigger threat to serious digital photography is serious video digital
photography. People are buying digital video cameras, and using them to
create those photos they need for prints, email to family, and so on. Many
new mini-DV cameras have both digital tape and memory stick media options
to make all this easier. While the mini-DV camera pixel equiv. is modest,
it is more than enough for most web and email images. Again, keep in mind
89% of digicam users today NEVER make a print, per PMAI statistics.

the second point is that if 89% never make a print, only 11% have ever
made a digital print from their digital photos. In other words, very few
of these users of digital cameras needs anything more than a webcam
quality for email photos and web use. So how will you sell them kilobuck
serious digital still cameras in the future, when they don't need 'em and
aren't pushing the quality of the cameras they have now?

=====

So here's what I think is going to happen in the mid-future.

There is going to be a shakeout of the digital (still) camera making
industry. Corp. HQ is going to insist on seeing some profits after a
decade+ of investments in losing money to buy market share. The flip side
is that most of today's DSLRs and digicams are going to be orphans as
their makers drop out when only a few "winners" emerge after shakeout.

Low cost 16 MP digital cameras, of recycled/disposable $100-ish prices,
will displace today's high end digital cameras in most user hands (those
89% of current digicam buyers, for example, and most of us wanting only
11x14" or even 20x24" prints max.). These cameras will be small, with
optics matched to the sensor size and (low 50 lpmm) resolution limits.

In other words, our old DSLRs and 35mm/MF lenses will be behemoth sized in
comparison, and folks will not want to lug them around. Full format
(24x36mm or 56x56mm) sensors will be very pricey, due to low volumes, and
yield results only marginally better than the low cost 16MP cameras at
typical print sizes.

Similarly, 64MP will be better than 16MP, but not as evident at typical
print sizes and viewing distances, while size of camera and lenses and
weight will be much larger.

Most digital users will want both a video and still image camera, for
graduation and all that. Since most images are not printed but posted or
emailed, the resolution can be modest and still displace much more costly
and better quality DSLRs, even full format ones ;-)

Where does this leave digital still photography? The vast majority will
be using cell phone and/or $100 16 MP disposable cameras to capture images
as good as today's MF backs or best Kodak/Canon DSLRs. That's the good
news.

The bad news is that there won't be enough of a demand to develop 64MP and
produce in millions needed to get volumes up and costs down to make larger
sensors (beyond 64 MP?) as cheap as 16MP. At the 16 MP "sweet spot",
digicams will still be inferior to the quality of film cameras. This will
be more obvious as scanner technology evolves to capture the full range of
data in film, unlike today (unless you are using a drum scanner).

In short, I see digital video with still frame capabilities displacing
much of today's still digital DSLR and digicam use for most consumers. For
those wanting still images, 90% of us for web and email use only (no
prints), the future disposable $100 16 MP digicams with small matched
lenses will fit the bill.

This doesn't leave enough market potential from serious digital still
photography users to justify the cost of developing ($100+ millions for
cameras, similarly for chips) larger sensors. Instead, larger areas of
film in MF and LF cameras will be used in place of larger (low sales
volume) digital sensors, along with low cost scanner technology, to
produce higher quality "digital" images and digital prints at an
affordable cost ;-)

So the future of serious digital still photography is, er, film ;-)

grins bobm




From: chemliftbake@aol.com (Bob C)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Will Digital last another 6 months?
Date: 10 May 2003 

I've already posted this message on the Film-Labs board, but it's just
as relevent here.

Recently, I had an enlightening experience regarding some pictures I
took on a city street last month. After I got them developed and
examined the prints, I noticed the letters on a sign in the background
did not look very sharp. I examined the negative with a microscope
(Can you spell anal?), and was able to see the letters quite well.
When I popped the picture CD into my computer, centered on the sign
and enlarged, the letters were a mass of great big pixels. They were
quite hard to distinguish.

This tells me that modern digital scanning methods can not match the
resolution of my lowly 35-mm negative, and I was using cheap film in a
low-end SLR. If I went out and bought a $4000 Leica, which has
tremendous resolution, and used professional quality film, all that
extra resolution would stay on the negative. All I would get on the
print is pixels. Is there any way around this dilemma, or is it
something we must get used to in the digital age?

Bob




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: So is film dead yet?
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 

"Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote:
> you can buy a $7.95 disposable camera with kodak aspheric lens (plastic)
> that delivers better resolution (equiv. to 24+ megapixels, per Kodak) and
> color depth than any current digital camera.

The noise levels of the garbage consumer film in those cameras is so high as
to make the images nearly useless. Having greater color depth requires
having _lower_ noise, and even the best negative films have noise levels far
in excess of digital.

Here's a 3MP consumer camera blowing away 100 ASA consumer film.
http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html
The grain noise makes the slight extra resolution meaningless for the image
quality.

> quoting:
> With high end digital
> cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
> cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
> format quality").
> endquote
>
> again, Kodak which makes many digital cameras rates 35mm fast film as 24+
> megapixel equivalent (with huge color depth).

You can repeat that all you like, but it doesn't make it true. As soon as
you have noise, those extra bits are meaningless. The claim that negative
film has greater bit depth than digital is simply wrong.

Kodak is completely nuts on those estimates of MP equivalents, and they're
wrong even for a bit depth of 1 or 2 bits.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: So is film dead yet?

Gordon Gekko wrote:

> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.

One thing is that if you want to use the name "Gordon Gekko", then you
should be checking the SEC reports on Kodak, Fuji, AGFA, and Polaroid.
Those reports will give you a more realistic pictures than any article in
any magazine (or any news group).

> Let me make the following points (which some may disagree with):
>
> (1) Digital is more "practical" than film, and what this means is that
> for commercial photography, film is not going to be used much anymore,
> because it's less expensive to go digital.

Wrong assumption because in some professional photography, time in post
production is direct expense. Unlike consumer digital, the time a
professional spends in front of a computer is not free (call it a digital
light box if you like). In some professional areas there are advantages
to using direct digital capture, though you should realize that almost
all publication imagery has been digital for well over a decade. Even if
the originating image was on film, at some point it would have been
scanned, and edited in PhotoShop (or similar). That has been going on for
longer than direct digital SLRs have been "all the rage".

> With high end digital
> cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
> cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
> format quality").

Much more than that, though still fairly expensive. Most of those are
leased, with an upgrade option in the lease, rather than purchase. The
advantage is to high volume catalogue and product photographers. This is
one professional area with digital advantages over film, despite the high
cost of medium format digital gear. Also, forget the megapixel
comparison. Most medium format digital backs have some active cooling of
the chip, meaning more accurate colours and greater colour tonal range,
which are much more important for publication.

With news and photojournalists, the time to press is much more important
than any quality issues. Newsprint printing is very low saturation, and
low resolution, giving much more room to make errors in quality. Digital
is an advantage here, but wireless imaging is challenging in some
markets. The other aspect is more still news photographers switching to
digital video, providing even more saleable products, and still leaving
room to gather digital stills.

> (2) Film has changed. Once upon a time, 35mm wasn't considered a
> useful medium for serious photography, but 35mm film became a lot
> better, and now it's used almost exclusively. Medium format is so
> rare that they never even bothered to come up with a better film
> loading format for it. Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
> medium format is today?

It does not sound to me that you have much experience with Medium Format
gear. Their are flip open backs just like in 35 mm cameras. Not all of
those are detachable back designs. Also, there is a fairly good selection
of films directly comparable to 35 mm choices.

35 mm film is much better than it was ten years ago, and new emulsions
continue to be developed and produced. As for rarity, it is true that you
cannot buy medium format film in a grocery or department store, but these
are big selling areas for 35 mm. Those little disposable 35 mm cameras
are the primary camera for many people, and are a great profit source for
Kodak, Fuji, et al.

Anyway, film quality is much better, which does help 35 mm users and
professionals. However, I think the small digital file sizes from some
digital SLRs creates an acceptance of lesser quality. While it is still
possible to scan 35 mm film to larger file sizes than direct digital
capture, and put those on a CD-R for a client, scanned 35 mm film will
continue to be acceptable. Also, when it is delivered to a client by FTP,
or on a CD-R, there is almost no way they could know whether it was film
or direct digital acquisition, and why should they care.

> (3) The masses continue to use film, and this is written in May 2003.
> A year from now things could be different? At the moment, people are
> convinced that they need a bunch of 4 x 6" prints as a result of their
> picture taking (it was color print film and inexpensive "idiot-proof"
> cameras that probably brought photography to the masses). At the
> moment, the 35mm film route provides this with less hassle than
> digital. Pro digital evangelists argue that there will be a glorious
> time in the near future when it will be as inexpensive and as easy to
> get the same with digital. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
> Behind the scenes, the one-hour photo labs are converting to digital
> equipment... the negatives are scanned and printed out using digital
> technology, and the consumer doesn't even realize it! I forsee that
> film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.

Probably longer than that. Not everyone wants to sit in front of a
computer. Many consumer digital users also have trouble understanding why
their images do not look good when blown up larger than 4" by 6". Keep in
mind that many of these point and shoot digital owners keep the settings
towards the highest volume, lowest quality, to get more pictures into
memory.

Another aspect is looking at every picture on the back of the camera once
it is taken. It is very tough to judge image quality on a small LCD under
any lighting conditions, but people do it all the time. So they see the
image right after they have taken it, then they see it again on their
computer, then they pass it on through e-mail . . . and probably get
bored with it enough to not look at it several months later.

Industry statistics from PMAI indicate that very few people print digital
images. This has been a concern for the inkjet industry, who all hoped to
make quite a bit from digital camera sales. The next big hope is digital
printing kiosks, either one hour photo types, or self serve. It remains
to be seen if this will finally get people printing digital images.

The number one use of digital cameras remains e-mail. The biggest
challenger now is wireless imaging. The mobile phone market needs to
increase sales, and wireless imaging is the next big thing. The advantage
to them is subscriber fees, rather than sales of phones with cameras
built in. The low cost, e-mail and image sharing ability, convenience,
and small size will likely negatively impact sales of digital point and
shoot cameras.

> (4) Could there be technological advancements in film emulsions that
> create a new film renaissance? (Even if this happens, the negatives
> will still be digitally scanned.)

Yes, and already happening. Kodak has recently opened a new plant for B/W
film production, and introduced new emulsions. They also have new colour
emulsions with better capabilities at colour accuracy, saturation, and
grain reduction. All the new films do scan better than older versions,
which is important for professionals, but also means that advance
amateurs can get really nice prints from their slide photography. FUJI,
AGFA, and Ilford have not sat still on developments, and are introducing
similar product. The big struggling company has been Polaroid, though
even they managed to introduce some new professional films, and new
consumer products.

> (5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur photographer. That's
> right. People complain about the high cost of digital cameras and the
> fact that they become "obsolete" in a year. Well digital is actually
> a lot less expensive than film cameras. Of course there is the cost
> of developing and film that we all know about. But if you want to
> have actual control over the print-making process, even a small black
> and white developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
> inkjet printer. (I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
> new model now sells for less money and has more features). Even for
> black and white, it's less expensive and more "practical" to buy a
> good film scanner ($800 range) than an enlarger. As a bonus, the film
> scanner and inkjet can make fabulous color prints as well.

This is a choice on where someone wants to spend their time and money.
There are probably more justifications for the various methods, than
there are methods. There are newer printers coming on the market that do
not need a computer to print directly from digital cameras. Those may be
a better choice for people who do not want to sit in front of a computer
to get images. Of course, as I stated earlier, there are also one hour
photo places that will print digital images. The other development is
that many digital cameras are easier to plug into a television, and allow
a digital slide show to share images with others.

> (6) It has been the ability to make my own prints, using digital
> techniques, that has really gotten be excited about photography. This
> is a follow-up of point 5, but it's worth repeating. Few people using
> film ever bothered to do their own black and white developing--I
> didn't--so I never knew what I was missing.

Not everyone can set-up a darkroom, nor has access to a darkroom.
However, true B/W printing, papers, and films, are very different than
any digital B/W. The reality here is that if someone likes their results,
then they are valid for that individual. Glad you found a way to enjoy
photography more.

> (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> Not true photographic prints. How about that!

Likely a Giclée or IRIS print. These are very expensive to produce,
though there are some advantages over Gravure or true Litho prints. If it
was indeed someone's desktop Epson, and for sale artwork, what liability
was given against image degradation? Anyway, there are some high end
printing methods that use some digital step to arrive a a final image.
These techniques are developments from the printing and publishing
industries, but far beyond anything one could buy at a computer store.
Carbro printing is one method that comes to mind that benefits from some
digital processes, and just happens to be the highest quality, longest
archive, and best colour accuracy of any photo printing.

> (8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art?

It is starting to appear as a "gimmick" method. I see no reason to state
the method of acquisition as the type of work, and I think it is
completely wrong. A painting may be stated as "oil on canvas", but did it
matter if I used Windsor & Newton paints, or what brushes I used.
Traditional B/W photography can often be stated as "Gelatin silver
print", and some colour as "Chromogenic prints". Those refer correctly to
the print, which is the tangible work of art. I feel that putting
"digital photography" on a print is not a true statement of a tangible
work. Additionally, it trivializes photography, and makes it a novelty.

> Once upon a time,
> photography wasn't even accepted as art. The art world can be very
> conservative in what's acceptable.

Photography is gaining wider acceptance. Earlier works are getting more
recognition and notice, as well as greater sales at auction. Galleries
and juried shows are accepting more photography for exhibitions.

> Even today, oil paintings are
> considered more valuable than acrylic paintings, even though acrylics
> have been around for decades.

Oil can be blended and flows differently than acrylics. Oils also have a
different light and colour quality than acrylics. Acrylics work better
for reproductions, since they are closer to possible printing inks than
oils. Oils are still more expensive to produce, and take slightly more
skill and experience to properly work than acrylics. Properly worked oil
paintings also are very archival in nature.

> I see a strong possibility that digital
> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
> color lab in their house, are they?)

Some artists do have a colour darkroom in their house or studio. However,
the more common method is to work with professional labs with experienced
colour printers. Black and white prints will always have a more
noticeable respect from some critics, since they are now established as
traditional photography. Though even with B/W, some speciality labs are
often the choice for printing, rather than do it yourself.

Recent colour printing is improving, and some galleries, critics, and
judges for shows, are opening up to colour photography in the fine art
world. I am glad this is happening, since I have been able to get two of
my works into juried shows this year already. It is an easier route for
me than my oil paintings, which are much more costly and time consuming.

Lots of things to consider. Basically, if direct digital image
acquisition works for an individual, or has any perceived advantage, then
it is a good choice. Using it in combination with film is also a good
choice, since there is no reason it needs to be only one choice. Wireless
imaging will satisfy many e-mail digital image users. Video will satisfy
some others.

When you see disposable, or one-time-use digital cameras, then consumers
may start buying those instead of disposable film cameras. However, there
is still lots of profit in film. There is also a much bigger world out
there than the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there will be
profits to be made from film well past any of our lifetimes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: So is film dead yet? -YES- ABSOLUTELY

The last two years of PDN that I have do not report any fully digital Stock
Agencies. There are several that are moving there archiving to digital files,
but still take submissions in the form of film. Some agencies are starting to
take scanned film if the scans meet their quality criteria. A few others are
reported as starting to take direct digital files, if the file contains enough
information. Some of the newer direct digital SLRs, and most digital backs for
Medium format can accomplish this.

I would venture a guess that a sports only agency might be all digital. If
enough interest is there, check out AllSport, or some of the other big sports
only Stock Agencies. Photojournalism and Sports are heavy direct digital
realms. Good luck on using Google to find anything of value for photography
Stick Agencies information.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com





From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: DSLR and Film Scan Comparisons
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003

"Steve Hoffmann" NOmoreinfo@sphoto.com writes:
>"Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca wrote
>> For a real eye-opener, try comparing a projected film slide to a digital
>> image projected from a multi-media projector. The fact that you can get an
>> absolutely fantastic slide projector for $600 and you can only get a
>> mediocre digital projector for $6000 but at least both are '1st
>generation'.

>That is not a valid comparison. You are enlarging the image of the slide in
>an analog fashion while the digital image is limited to monitor resolution.
>The computer projector shows the image at the monitor resolution of the
>attached computer, or about 70-90 PPI.

Once the image is projected by the digital projector, you're lucky if
the image is 10 PPI on screen. The PPI value that the computer monitor
would display it at is irrelevant.

The real problem is lack of pixels, which results in lack of resolvable
detail. A projected 35 slide has a resolution equivalent to at least
3072x2048 (6 megapixels), possibly much more depending on camera and
projector lens and film choice. A typical digital projector is about 1
megapixel, and completely inadequate for showing the detail in a 4 or 6
megapixel digital image.

Even HDTV equipment, still horrendously expensive, is only 2 megapixel
(1920x1080).

For the moment, if you want to project high-quality digital photographs,
there's not much choice other than recording them back onto film and
projecting the film.

Dave




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film or Digital in 20 questions
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 

Gordon Moat writes:

> ... I doubt many of us have ever
> bought a disposable camera.

I've used them on a number of occasions. Compare:

http://www.mxsmanic.com/church1.jpg (Fuji Velvia, Hasselblad 6x6)
http://www.mxsmanic.com/church2.jpg (Kodak Max 800, Leica 35mm)
http://www.mxsmanic.com/church3.jpg (Kodak Max 800, Kodak disposable)

Do they look different?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.





From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 04 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison

>Subject: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
>From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: Fri, May 30, 2003 
>
>David, you aren't thinking this out right ;-) Film is not limited to one
>sensor or grain being on/off in a 2-dimensional plane, as you suggest...
>
>Each grain is submicron in area and maybe a cubic micron in volume, right?
>The film emulsion layer is at least 20+ microns thick for a thin emulsion
>film. Thick emulsion films can have lots more depth, so this is a minimal
>case. That means you can potentially have at least 20 grains stacked up,
>one atop another, in a silver rich emulsion. You don't get that always in
>practice, but you do get a lot of grains floating around in the emulsion,
>overlapping and stacking many grains deep at every point in the emulsion.
>
>This varying degree of overlap of exposed grains, at 20+ levels in the
>emulsion, simulates a much wider range of tonality values than the binary
>on/off value of a single grain per site that you seem to infer in your
>argument. It is also bigger than 20 stacked grains in range, because
>you can have _any_ fractional value of grain overlap impacting the
>range of tonality. So it isn't binary, but an infinite range analog setup
>
>That's why an analog system like film has a huge tonality response range.
>Film is NOT a planar sensor, like a DSLR, which is a key to one of its
>(many) superiorities over a planar DSLR sensor ;-)
>
>Now consider you have 3 or 4 emulsions in typical color film. Makes it
>even worse, huh? Moreover, the range of colors which are encoded are
>hugely greater than anything a DSLR can do today, or even a 36+ bit color
>scanner can get out of film. Your analysis would suggest 100 times less..
>
>On top of this, film grains are typically submicron in size, while the
>typical (bayer or X3) sensor is more like 25 or 36 square microns in area
>for the DSLR sensors. So again, there is a huge advantage to film grains.
>
>Finally, the range in sizes of grains is significant, and their random
>distribution by size is significant, as both of these eliminate the
>problems with aliasing seen with planar and regular sensors as in DSLRs
>;-)
>
>How do I know this analysis is right? Because film preserves much more
>fine contrast and high resolution details than a 6 MP DSLR (estimated by
>Kodak at 24 MP for mid-speed films, more like 100 MP for fine grain films
>in 35mm format). That requires that film have a better tonality and range
>response than digital sensors per unit area. It does, because film is
>three dimensional, while DSLR sensors are planar. This higher contrast and
>tonality range is readily apparent on high quality enlargements compared
>to ink jet digital prints (with good quality lenses, film, technique..).
>
>How big an error is this? The DSLR has 2^8 to 2^12 tonality ranges, per
>your analysis (256 to 4,096 levels), versus say 0-36 micron sized grains
>in the same area per your analysis (ignoring film is 3-D and not planar,
>as noted above). That's 4,096 vs. 36, or a factor of 100+ fold bias
>against film by reducing it to a 2-D medium. But as I've shown, film has
>far _more_ tonality range than 6 MP DSLR sensors, and more color bit depth
>etc. So once again, circa 99% of the quality benefits from using film are
>being ignored or dismissed in pro-digital "analyses" ;-)
>
>grins bobm

All good points, Bob :-)

Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Digital vs film / color vs b&w?
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 

William D. Tallman writes:

> Suddenly, it dawns on me: b&w and color really are
> two distinctly different disciplines, regardless of
> the fact that the format is the same and the
> same gear is used.

Yes.

> I ****HATE**** color darkroom work!!!!!

Doesn't everyone?

> Does this work for b&w? Well, yeah, but..... so
> far as I've been able to tell, digital b&w kinda sucks.

It does indeed ... but not because it is "digital."

Digital B&W looks bad because it is really just a conversion from color.
You cannot convert color to B&W in a way that duplicates traditional B&W
image capture; you MUST capture the original image in B&W in order to
retain the full flexibility of black and white photography. This is
true whether you shoot film or digitally; the only difference is that
film gives you a choice (you can actually shoot with true B&W film if
you want), whereas digital photography forces you to shoot the original
image in color--because nobody makes B&W digital cameras.

> Result: Digital for color; film for b&w.

Remember that you can scan B&W film for your digital darkroom with
superb results, so you really only need a wet darkroom to develop the
film, and that is very easy in B&W (even I do that, and I hate darkroom
work).

> Color photography will never, ever, ever replace
> b&w photography.

I agree.

> Digital photography will never, ever, replace
> film photography.

For some types of photography, that may be true. Time will tell.

It's virtually certain that digital will not replace film for B&W unless
someone builds a digital camera that can actually capture images in
black and white to begin with. Converting color just won't do.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.





From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why haven't you gone digital yet?
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2

pioe[rmv] writes:
> Also, with my film based Nikon cameras I long ago
> discovered that the difference between consumer
> grade zooms (also Nikkors) and affordable primes
> are clearly visible and much greater than many realize.

The differences are more like night and day. While Nikon consumer zooms
are fine, they cannot hold a candle to their pro zooms.

Just yesterday I was comparing a 28-85/3.5-5.6 to an AF-S 28-70/2.8D
ED-IF. The former seemed like viewing through gauze compared to the
latter, even though it's not a bad lens.

As a more general rule, whether you shoot digital or film, once you've
tasted good glass, nothing else will do. Now, if digital is compelling
people to try better lenses, for whatever reason--real or imagined, good
or bad, whatever--a lot of digital photographers are going to develop
"lens fever," since they are going to see how much better the best
lenses perform, and they may be far less reluctant in the future to
spend a lot of money on good lenses--particularly if they've already
found the $8000 necessary to buy a high-end DSLR.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why haven't you gone digital yet?
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 

the@lanticocean.co.uk wrote
> Why the sarcasm? You certainly wouldn't notice any optical difference
> shooting at only 11 megapixels! With film, yes...but not digital at that
> resolution!

Actually, most dSLR users are finding that digital is much fussier about
lens resolution than expected. Anyone who has tried shooting a 50/1.8 and a
cheap consumer zoom gets very unhappy with the zoom, and most find that the
50/1.8 is noticeably sharper in the middle f stops than at the extremes.

My (flaky?) theory here is that apparent sharpness (in both film and
digital) is due more to what the lens is doing in the 30 to 50 lp/mm range
than to what it's doing in the 80 to 120 lp/mm range. That is: it looks to
me that photodo.com is measuring and reporting exactly the right thing.

> "Ralf R. Radermacher" fotoralf@gmx.de wrote in message
> > > What you must do is sell all your Zeiss gear and invest in some Canon
> >
> > Now, that one really wins you the grand prize.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: Jim Brick [jbrick@elesys.net] 
Sent: Mon 6/23/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Cc: Ruben Blædel 
Subject: Re: [HUG] A new Lens for the V-System

The rear element of the 38mm Biogon is very close to the film in a SWC.
This means that light rays coming from the lens hit the film straight-on,
only in the center, a circle about the size of a US nickle. Going out from
this small circle, the light rays emanating from the 38 Biogon rear element
hits the film at an oblique angle. The farther out you go, the more oblique
the angle.

Film is relatively flat and can be exposed by light hitting grains from all
sorts of directions. But digital sensors have a very narrow angle of light
acceptance and therefore will not see this light coming from such a steep
angle, or the light will be refracted onto the wrong pixels causing color
fringing and massive aliasing.

Digital sensors are not random distributions if silver halide molecules
near the surface of a very thin surface layer They are individual photo
transistors, perhaps one square micron in size, within a 5-9 square micron
pixel site, covered by colored glass (R, G, or B), that covered by an IR
cutoff filter, that covered by a low pass anti aliasing filter. The photo
transistor within each pixel site has to be hit by light in order to record
same. The transistor is not only small, but buried beneath layers of glass.
Light coming from a steep oblique angle, hits the glass and never actually
penetrates down into the sensor itself. The closer the sensor is to the
rear lens element, the worse this phenomenon is. From a SWC, I would expect
to see good image characteristics in about a quarter sized center section
(circle.) Degrading rapidly from there into oblivion. This is one of the
reasons that many digital camera manufacturers are reluctant to move up to
full size sensors. 

Use the center of any lens, keep the light rays hitting the sensor
straight-on, and you're home free.

The 40mm Hasselblad lens on a regular Hasselblad with a full frame digital
back will definitely out perform the SWC with the same digital back. The
sharpness and linear characteristics of the 38mm Biogon will be entirely
lost in a digital sensor. Sharpness lost through the low pass cutoff filter
and linear characteristics lost due to light hitting the sensor at such an
oblique angle.

Experiment: Take a SWC and put a SWC ground glass back on it. Look at the
image. Gorgeous. Now replace the SWC ground glass back with the ground
glass back from a Flexbody. All you see is a quarter sized round image in
the center of the GG. The reason is that the Flex GG back has no Fresnel
lens to allow the edges to actually collect the steep oblique light rays.
Therefore they don't get to the GG so that you can see them. Same
phenomenon as a digital sensor that cannot accept steep oblique rays. But
the Flex GG works perfectly with the 40mm Hassy lens. That's because it is
a retrofocus design that has the rear element w-a-y away from the film
(sensor) plane.

And you folks out there think a regular digital sensor has oblique light
ray problems... try the Foveon sensor with its layered RGB technology. Some
of the colors have to penetrate farther down into the sensor substrate just
to hit the photo transistor. You will get more than color fringing. You'll
get uni-color on the outside edges of a Foveon chipped wide angle lens
camera. Whatever color on top (blue) will be the color of the day.
Actually, it would be psychedelic since the color would morph from full
color to uni-color as you moved out from the center. Note at:

http://www.foveon.com/X3_better.html

that the light rays are drawn hitting the sensor straight on. Imagine in
your mind, that the light rays were coming at an extreme oblique angle,
like from the 38mm Biogon which is only 38mm from the sensor in the center.
Where do they go? Nowhere! You get blue. Maybe a dirty blue.

But you can always fix it in Photoslop, if you have a spare week or so...

:-)

Jim

Ruben Blædel wrote:

> > Retrofocus designs where the rear lens element is a considerable distance
> > from the sensor, work pretty well. A full frame (645 or 6x6) digital back
> > will, however, exhibit this problem in spades if used on a SWC.<
>
>Jim,
>
>This is a late responce to your post of may 23 - I have a swc/m, and was
>planning on getting the digital back 22 mpx later this year - As I
>understand it you write that this will not be a good combination ?? I
>followed your argument with Anthony -(he was a pain) - you did not seem to
>be to happy with him, so I will hurry up and pledge that, as I have very
>little knowlede on this matter, I would be thankfull i you could explain the
>bit with the swc! - Thanks and regards Ruben






From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stick with film or move over to digital...?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003

Jim Waggener wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net wrote 
> > Mxsmanic:
> > I do both film (35mm, 4x5, 8x10) and digital (DSLR), but I disagree
> > with some of your points. My comments below:
>
> Agree with most what you say Roger, but I draw the line on 4x5 film. I've
> seen no digital that can approach its clarity or resolution. And certainly a
> digital image, even from a 14mp camera can not rival a 4x5 at whatever print
> size. It is simply a superb film format.

Jim:
I agree completely with you. I don't know where I gave an
impression that a digital camera can match 4x5. I shoot mostly
velvia which works out to over 200 megapixels with 4x5.

See: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail for my research.
No digital can match fine grained film on 4x5, not even
scanning backs. If possible, I would do every image on 4x5.

However, fast action photography does not work well in 4x5,
so it becomes a great loss in total image detail to record
on 35mm or digital, but at least you can get it!
E.g. a bird in flight can require
1/4000 second at iso 400 and f/4 while panning a 500 mm
lens with a 1.4x teleconverter.
On the canon 10D, that is a plate scale (scale in the
focal plane) of 2.1 arc-seconds /pixel. That is tough
to pan cleanly and steady enough for a sharp image
even on the small 10D sensor, let alone 4x5 (you would need
about 4x the focal length with plate scale ~0.5 arc-second/film
grain group [resolution limit] for a frame filling shot that
records the potential detail of 4x5)!

Reciprocity failure and low efficiency of film means very long
exposure times. Digital can record more detail in shorter
time. I've done astrophotography with 4x5 and 8x10, sometimes
with scientific film, like Kodak 103aF. Digital is winning that
one too.

But big enlargements of landscapes: 4x5 is outstanding and
completely blows away smaller formats for recording detail.

Each tool has it's purpose, and limits. There is no one
tool that does everything.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com





From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Negatives vs. Slides
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 

"Gordon Gekko" gordongekko222@yahoo.com wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote 
> >
> > Try scanning it again with ICE turned on.
>
> My scanner has FARE. FARE doesn't fare well against the pepper grain.
> This is likely a shortcoming of FARE. I wouldn't recommend the Canon
> scanner for this reason, especially with the new 5400 dpi Minolta
> coming out.

Ouch. I didn't realize that FARE didn't fix the pepper grain.

> > Just IMHO: I hate grain. If you don't mind grain, ignore my ranting.
>
> If you really hate grain so much, I see digital cameras in your
> future.

Grain isn't the reason I'll be switching to digital: 645 Provia scanned at
4000 dpi on the Nikon 8000 is essentially grain free albeit a tad soft;
downsampled (carefully) to 2000 dpi makes 13MP files that are significantly
better than what comes out of the 1Ds. The problem is the time the scanning
takes. I'm always 2 months behind and not out taking pictures since I'm so
far behind on the scanning. (So I figure I'll get a used Fuji GW690III for
when I want 26MP, and use digital for the rest.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





From: Elie A Shammas eshammas@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Goodby Nikon F Mount :-(
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 

Film can record light hitting its surface in any direction. But
photodiodes record only the light rays that are perpendicular.
Check this link for some more info:

http://www.four-thirds.com/pdf/FourThirdsSystem.pdf

Elie

Graham wrote:
> Can someone explain to me why this change would be an advantage? As far as I
> know all ccd's are surface devices - just like film - so if the image can be
> formed at the detectors surface then thats all that matters. So if a lens
> produces a 'circle of coverage' that includes a 24x36 mm rectangle why
> should it matter if the detector is film or ccd? Have I got this all wrong
> or if someone knows better then please explain why ccd's are different.
>
> If I am correct in my assumptions then there would no advantage for a larger
> Nikon mount.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham
>
> "BG250" NOamgspam@donet.com wrote
> > Sounds bogus.
> >
> > How does the older EOS lenses work on the full frame 11mp Canon?
> > How does the Nikon lenses work on the new 14mp Kodak?
>>
> > "DBaker9128" dbaker9128@aol.com wrote 
> > > Well, what I had hoped never would happen, has! Nikon will be moving on from
> > > the "F" lens mount and will obsolete all of us loyal Nikon owners of the past
> > > 43 years.
> > >
> > > Why now? In the pursuit of a full 24mm x 36mm digital chip Nikon made the move,
> > > the F mount was just to small to accommodate the perpendicular light ray path
> > > which today's digital chips require. My source for this disturbing news comes
> > > from a newsletter called Leicainfo.com and it references the German Photo
> > > magazine Color Foto. The new mount will come out later this year along with a
> > > whole new line of lenses.
> > > I wonder why Nikon did not hang on with the F mount until a new chip arrived
> > > which could accept oblique light rays? It can't be that far off! I'm
> > > disappointed in Nikon. :-(
> > >
> > > Doug from Tumwater




From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 04 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison

>Subject: Re: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
>From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
>Date: Sat, May 31, 2003 
>
>rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote
>SNIP
>> But as I've shown, film has
>> far _more_ tonality range than 6 MP DSLR sensors, and more color bit depth
>> etc. So once again, circa 99% of the quality benefits from using film are
>> being ignored or dismissed in pro-digital "analyses" ;-)
>> grins bobm
>
>Hi Bob:
>I think you've way-overtheorized things here - to the point that what
>you are saying simply doesn't fit with reality. The only way to show
>that film has better tonality than digital is the compare actual
>images. In my experience, digital has better tonality than film:
>transitions are much smoother, and colors are more accurate, better
>differentiated, and less muddy than what I typically see on film
>images.
>
>Brian
>www.caldwellphotographic.com

Hi Brian:

Smoothness of tones is not the same as "tonality" (at least not as I mean it in
terms of being able to resolve many separate tones/hues between/within a range
of going from one tone to the other. For example, anybody can take a shot of a
scale of gradation from black through thousands/millions/whatever higher number
of grades lightening up to white (on digital or even scanned in from film),
"select all", then increase the contrast until only two tones remain (black and
white) and then apply Gaussian blur. This will result in an ultra smooth
transition, however no extra subtleties have been added by this "smoothing out"
of tones (black into white and vice versa). 

My point here, regardless of analogy is that, despite how smoothly the tones/colors appear 
to merge into one another, the actual "tonal resolution" (how many actual subtones are between
two tones or hues) can only be presented by whichever format is capable of
resolving those subtle/gradual tonal distinctions into distinct tones. Don't
mistake color purity and saturation or smoothness of tones for tonal/hue
separation of tones (tonal/hue resolution) ie. what I refer to as "tonality".

Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 

Rafe B. writes:
> A half-gigabyte CF card is less than $150 nowadays.

A half-gigabyte will hold exactly one MF image at 4000 dpi and 16 bits.

> Adequate resolution depends entirely on how large a
> print you're hoping to make and/or how much cropping
> will be done.

Unless you know in advance exactly what you'll be doing with an image
forever in the future, the higher the resolution you can get, the
better. I've been burned too many times by digital photos that looked
so nice that I wanted to make big enlargements, only to discover that
big enlargements of low-resolution images look horrible. That's one
reason why I shoot film now. I'd probably shoot everything MF, too, for
the same reason, if I could afford it and if it offered all the
flexibility of 35mm systems.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From: Rafe B. rafeb@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: inkjet vs wet prints was Re: Are used MF prices dropping?
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 

Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:

>Bob Monaghan wrote:
>
>>
>> quoting rafe: It will be market forces more than anything else that
>> determine the future of high- end digital capture. The cost of high-end
>> digital capture will always be high; there is absolutely no reason to
>> reduce it down to consumer price levels. end-quote
>>
>> Exactly my point, I call this the "sweet spot", and suggest it will be
>> around 16MP (based on Foveon's projections of cheap under $10 CMOS 16MP
>> chips). But if 11MP and 16MP is so great for prints and more than enough
>> for webwork etc., who is going to pay more for a 64 MP sensor?
>
>Same reasons 35mm is the "sweet spot" for most people. The quality is good
>enough for most uses (smallish prints of OK quality) and the film/cameras
>are cheap and small enough to carry. I can see digicams replacing 35mm for
>many people but there isn't enough of a market for something as good as
>medformat to make enough of them to get the costs reasonable.


Now you're talking some sense, Stacey.

You want "reasonable cost" for matching MF quality in
a digicam -- that's going to take some time, and may
never happen.

Basically, MF people are well outside of any mass market,
and so will be the last served. And when they are served,
there will be a hefty price tag. Because people using MF/LF
are either a) pros who can't live without it, or b) serious
amateurs with money to burn.

I saw this same principle at work when I was shopping for a
film scanner for my 120 film.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: inkjet vs wet prints was Re: Are used MF prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 

Rafe B. writes:

> OTOH, how many of those negatives will ever
> be scanned, or ever see light again?

Among private individuals, probably none. Among professionals, perhaps
nearly all. In certain organizations, 100% of all film will have to be
digitized eventually; that is a _lot_ of scanning. And as scanners get
better, some film will even be rescanned (I've done it).

> I mean, do you suppose there are people sitting
> on top of vast collections of transparencies (while
> they slowly degrade,) just waiting for the ultimate
> scanner to arrive?

No, they may already be scanning, but if a better scanner comes out,
they may rescan, as I have occasionally done. Some photos are worth a
better scan, some aren't. If drum-scanner equivalents are ever
available for the desktop at affordable prices, I can think of a great
many slides I'd like to scan yet again.

> True enough; I have not argued that the EOS-1Ds
> is an affordable solution or even a practical
> one, for most people.

The cheaper digital stuff just widens the gulf between film and digital.

The scanner and MF film kit was actually the _cheapest_ way to get
top-quality photos for me. It was many times less expensive than
digital, and that's true even with top-quality MF equipment. With
somewhat less expensive equipment, the price difference expands to
nearly an order of magnitude, and the quality of film barely diminishes
at all.

> As to the scanner, I really, truly wish there were
> a reasonably priced medium-format scanner at half
> the price, even if it were only half the resolution
> (but I would insist on a "real" 2000 dpi, or preferably
> 2700.)

The Epson 2450 (and its successors, as I seem to recall that it has been
replaced) are extremely good values for MF scanning, from what I've
heard.

> Having said that, I don't regret buying or owning
> the 8000 at all -- but it will be my last film
> scanner, I hope.

I'd like to believe that, too, but I suspect that better desktop
scanners will eventually be developed. Imacon makes nice scanners, but
I can afford those (they are only slightly better than the 8000,
however). Drum scanners are nicer, but very expensive and awkward to
use.

> And when is time not a factor -- particularly
> for working professionals?

When time is not a factor, film is a logical choice, because of the
higher quality.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




Subject: Re: inkjet vs wet prints was Re: Are used MF prices dropping?
From: Karen Nakamura karb.e.nakamura@spamgourmet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 

> One hope of CMOS over CCD manufacturer is lower cost. The latest full frame
> 35 mm Canon and Kodak both use CMOS, with a microlens layer of material over
> the chip. In medium format, the new Leaf C-Most is the only larger frame CMOS
> digital back that is on the market, though that might change.

The Kodak does not use a microlens on the CMOS (or a low-pass filter).
That's the putative cause of some of its problems.


KN




From: Jan Brittenson bson@rockgarden.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: only 6x8" prints from 645? Re: Are used MF...
Date: 12 Jun 2003

Lassi wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>>"Stacey" fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Rafe B. wrote:
> ...
>>>>Minolta's newest 35 mm film scanner, due out in a matter
>>>>of days, resolves 5400 dpi. It will be interesting to see
>>>>the output from that machine.
>>>
>>>Why would you be interested? You already said that 4000dpi is getting
>>>everything that is there, so minolta is making a higher rez one because???
>>
>>I'd like one (or an MF version) because it might make a better 2700 dpi
>>scanner.
>
> Hmmm... 5400 = 2*2700?!? Does that mean that it is just another 2700 dpi
> scanner, but this time it has two scan heads placed half a pixel out of
> line? True performance wouldn't be even close to 5400 dpi...

It would probably have an 6k CCD instead of a 3k. Obviously,
there's nothing to guarantee the optics will keep up with it.
(I wish someone would take scanner makers to task when they
claim an optical resolution this-or-that, when it's actually
the CCD resolution, while the _optics_ won't resolve it no
matter how loosely it's defined.)




From: "David Robinson" drobinson003@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 

I consider myself to be an amateur whoses hobby has gotten out of hand,
after 30 years as an avid medium format and 4x5
photgrpaher of both colur and black and white I have been seduced by the
technology of digital, it's immediacy and
simplicity. In my house sits a full colour darkroom, with a Chromega D5 XL
enlarger and a hope 32 inch RA4 colour processor
which hardly gets used anymore. While deciding to try and get rid of this
equipment while it still may have some value
I have been going through old prnts, portraits done with the 4x5 and RB67
blown up to 20x24 inches. Suddenly I realize that
I have forgotten just what a really good well printed picture is like. Yes
the average Joe can now turn out a much better
color corrected print from his digital camera and Ink Jet printer than he
probably ever got from Wal-mart so their new
found talent is flooding the net with worship of digital. For those of us
who know the quality of custom printed large format
prints, then digital ink jet prints do not really stack up. The problem is
most people who are now able to turn out their prints
have never even seen a life size colour portrait done by a master. They
don't really know what the standard is.

So perhaps I will hang on to my eqiuipmet and a few years from now I will
be a relic , who still knows how to do optical printing
and have the same kind of respect that someone who can still turn out a Dye
Transfer print now has.

David Robinson




From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003
"Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote
> Sadly, very very few scans are made to the point where they can beat the
> current scanner limits of 40-50+ lpmm for most prosumer scanners. So wet
> prints offer the main (low cost) way of getting such high quality absent
> access to a $100-300k+ photomultiplier scanner etc. Enlargers are being
> given away, with stellar lenses, for far less than what a good scanner in
> MF costs these days ;-)

The sad thing is that a high percentage of today's photographers, especially
those that fall into the category of amateurs, believe that digital imaging
has eclipsed film. (And, to be fair to digital, I believe that digital
probably has eclipsed film in the area of snapshots. This category
represents probably 75%+ of all the prints made by photofinishers today.
The consumers that take these photos don't give a hoot about resolution or
good color balance. They just want to "get a picture.")

Scan the posts in the digital newsgroups, and all you'll see is that "film
is dead." I suspect that the majority of posters have little, if any,
experience with a film camera, and are just repeating what they've heard
from others.

Sadly, perception becomes reality. If a high percentage of consumers will
not even consider buying a decent film camera, it will marginalize the
entire industry. Maybe not overnight, but over time.

If the next generation of photographers experiences only digital images and
homemade prints, how will they even be able to realize that, in some
respects, the film-based photo process is superior?




From: Chad Irby cirby@cfl.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 

"Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com wrote:

> The sad thing is that a high percentage of today's photographers, especially
> those that fall into the category of amateurs, believe that digital imaging
> has eclipsed film. (And, to be fair to digital, I believe that digital
> probably has eclipsed film in the area of snapshots. This category
> represents probably 75%+ of all the prints made by photofinishers today.
> The consumers that take these photos don't give a hoot about resolution or
> good color balance. They just want to "get a picture.")
>
> Scan the posts in the digital newsgroups, and all you'll see is that "film
> is dead." I suspect that the majority of posters have little, if any,
> experience with a film camera, and are just repeating what they've heard
> from others.

I've even heard it from people who are, technically, "pro" photographers.

I was in our local photo shop (Colonial Photo in Orlando, FL), and this
guy was standing at the counter, talking about his cool new digital
outfit. "I get better pictures with this camera than I ever did with my
medium formats!" Having just bought a used 645 Bronica, I was rather
interested in that comment. So I looked at his example.

The example was an 11x14 print of some kid. Standard portrait shot.

It was crap.

Muddy colors, no detail (his hair looked like a helmet), and his shirt
might as well have been made of molded plastic. 

I happened to have some of my photos with me, so I pulled out an 8x10. 
The difference was startling, even on a smaller print. He admitted that
my photo was better in pretty much every technical sense. Then I
pointed out that it was taken with 35mm, and my MF stuff was *way*
better than that...

--
cirby@cfl.rr.com





[Ed. note: Muench site, first I checked, is evidently not related to their LF print site?]
From: Rafe B. rafeb@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003

Chad Irby cirby@cfl.rr.com wrote:
>Exactly. Most of the "digital is as good" folks I've met have never
>even *seen* a really good photo print from a nice camera, much less a
>medium format.


This "observation" may be real but says nothing at all about 
the practices of real, working, professional photographers.

In the real world (as opposed to Chad's planet) I know dozens
of professional photographers who have been working in
"digital darkroom" for years, and I can assure you they are
not doing so out of ignorance. I'm talking about people that I
have met and conversed with and in some cases worked with.
I have seen their prints first hand and own a few of them.

I could find hundreds, or thousands more, with a web search.
So could you, Chad, if you weren't so busy deluding yourself.

Below are links to some of their web sites. Most are still
shooting with film, though a few are either dabbling in or
seriously moving to digital capture. Most print on wide
format Epsons, but a few print on LightJet or similar
high-end contone printers.

You'll find many more on the EpsonWideFormat list on
Yahoo.


Lou DeSerio, Sedona AZ
http://www.landscapephotoart.com/

Tom Narwid, Jerome AZ
http://www.landscapephoto.com/

Allen Maertz, Jersey City NY
http://www.allenmaertz.com

Jan Faul
http://www.artfaul.com/

Andrew Darlow
http://www.andydarlow.com/

Tony Karp
http://www.tlc-systems.com/tkres1.htm

Jerry Olson (deceased)
http://www.westernechoes.com

Barbara White
http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com/

John Nollendorfs
http://www.mercurypictures.com/pages/nollendorfs/pindex.htm

Nubar Alexanian
http://www.nubar.com/

Tony Sleep
http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/


Below are sites from two notables who aren't close friends, but
folks you would know if you hadn't been living on some other
planet all these years.

David and Marc Muench
http://www.mercurypictures.com/pages/nollendorfs/pindex.htm

Stephen Johnson
http://www.sjphoto.com

rafe b.




From: Rafe B. rafeb@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: inkjet vs wet prints was Re: Are used MF prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003
Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:

>David J. Littleboy writes:
>
>> On a per unit area basis, digital is _way_ ahead
>> of film ...
>
>Not really. More pixels can be put on a smooth sheet of plastic with a
>chemical coating than on a silicon surface containing active
>transistors.
>
>Both, however, can be made so small that the lens becomes the major
>limiting factor.
>
>> For a more recent example, print out a Sony F707 image
>> at 8x10. Now print out a film image from the same area of
>> film.
>
>The problem, though, is that electronic image sensors have very small
>areas, and film can be made with any desired area. So film still wins.
>Putting a hundred thousand pixels on a square millimeter doesn't help
>much if you can put ten billion pixels on 10 square centimeters.


Yes, film can always be made larger (much more easily than silicon
sensors) but there are practical limits to both technologies.

Lenses need to cover that imaging area, and the larger the area,
the larger, heavier, and more costly the lens. So the weight of the
gear goes up as dramatically as the image area goes up, and
of course the max. aperture of the lens goes down with larger
focal lengths. For many real-world (esp. outdoor) situations,
size and weight are critical.

There is no question that film is, at present, quite cost-effective
compared to high-end digital, particularly for those who don't
require the "instant turnaround" of digital capture.

I recently returned from a trip to Arizona with about 180 exposures
from the Grand Canyon and Sedona (and a similar number of
exposures of the same subjects on my G2.)

It took about two weeks of evenings to scan all those frames
on the LS-8000. Not many people are willing to put in that kind
of time. (Normally I don't scan every frame, but in this case
the images seemed worth it.)

Prints from the G2 images were available much sooner, of
course...

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com






From: Chad Irby cirby@cfl.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: inkjet vs wet prints was Re: Are used MF prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003

Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
> Rafe B. writes:
>
> > Yes, film can always be made larger (much more easily
> > than silicon sensors) but there are practical limits
> > to both technologies.
>
> Film reaches much higher resolutions before it reaches any practical  limits.
>
> > Lenses need to cover that imaging area, and the larger
> > the area, the larger, heavier, and more costly the lens.
>
> LF lenses are no larger than 35mm and MF lenses, nor do they seem to
> cost any more.

The limiter we're seeing with digital acquisition is light sensitivity. 
Even "fast" sensors are still running at an effective 400 ASA, and when
you run them at higher speeds, you get unfortunate artifacts (on most
cameras - some of the newer models are getting better at this).

Once we start seeing some real high speed digital models (effective ASA
of 24,000 or so at high pixel area and density), that could change.

I'll be really interested when the digital sensors reach 645 size and
3200 ASA (at sub-NASA prices)...
--
cirby@cfl.rr.com




From: fcarello@tiscalinet.it (Fernando)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: inkjet vs wet prints was Re: Are used MF prices dropping?
Date: 10 Jun 2003

Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote 

> The Epson 2450 (and its successors, as I seem to recall that it has been
> replaced) are extremely good values for MF scanning, from what I've
> heard.

I'm very sad in saying it's not the case (I own one).
Even with the maximum possible care, it can barely reach 30 lp/mm, and
even with very low MTF at that frequency.
Me too would like to see some decent MF scanner for about $1200-1300!!
Minolta, Canon, Nikon, come on!!!!

Fer






From: bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 08 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: natl geo - film 400% > Nikon D1X.. Re: Are used MF...

>From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)

>National Geographic, per Erwin Puts publication, is
>still using film to meet their quality standards for full page and double
>page layouts, while the Nikon D1X and similar DSLRs are limited to 1/2
>page images. Again, that's a 400% quality factor in favor of film

This is apparently no longer "operative", check the June 2003 issue with the
Jim Brandenburg feature on the Boundary Waters, all in digital. One of the
images was printed as a fold-out three pages wide. All taken with a relatively
pixel-starved 5.47 Mpix body. This is the first article in NG done competely
with digital, I believe.

They like the digital look so much that they're bringing out their first large
sized book of entirely digital photos as well, also by Brandenburg.

Looks like they finally figured out how to use digital effectively, a couple
years after the rest of the magazine publishing industry :)

>So it may be that many images don't need to be high quality, so digital
>can meet those requirements, as in newspaper and catalog work and web use.
>But where it does count, as in quality conscious publications like
>National Geographic, film is still seen as delivering a higher quality
>image (source Erwin Puts PN014 of his APEMC newsletter (dated 18 Aug
>2002))

Apparently no longer true. I'd bet that in 2 years digital will be half the
magazine and in 4-5 years film will be a rarity at NG, if they follow the same
trend as other mags.

NG pays for 30,000 - 40,000 rolls of film per year for assignments, plus the
costs of scans and separations for printing. If they follow the same curve as
other mags then soon a light bulb will turn on in some accountant's brain and
they'll say "Hey, we could save half a million bucks a year by switching to
digital!" and the execs will give themselves bonuses for figuring this out
(grin). Compare to Sports Illustrated, where several years ago it was a big
deal that one of the dozen guys shooting the Super Bowl for them used a digital
camera, then a couple years ago half the shooters chose digital, then this past
year the magazine *required* digital for all 12 photographers assigned to the
Super Bowl. And they were using a relatively wimpy 4 Mpix Canon dSLR ...

Bill




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital 6x7 - Oh Good Grief!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 

lstev@lstev.com wrote
> > I doubt 28MP would make sense in a 24x36 sensor,
> >and we'll all be long dead before MF digital is affordable.
>
> Oh good grief.
>
> Three years ago a several-megapixel Kodak Nikon was $15k using a
> less-than-full-frame sensor.
>
> Now an amazingly good full-frame(24x36)sensor 20+-megapixel Nikon is $5k,

Amazingly bad is more like it: completely non-funtional in low light, and
it's images are a mass of aliasing artifacts.

> and the very-low light performance of the comparable Canon is breathtaking
> at around the same price.

The 10D is quite a bit better in low light than the 1Ds at a much more
reasonable price point.

First of all, there's a large market for 35mm based digital, so prices come
down. There won't be a similar market for MF digital. It's a high end
market. And getting more so: Fuji has cancelled all their reasonably priced
MF stuff. The silicon is 2.5 times larger, and big is _hard_ for silicon.
Even antialasing filters are seriously expensive in those sizes.

Second of all, 28MP is a 4300x6450 pixel sensor. Those are consumer digital
sized pixels, which have serious noise problems, and you won't be able to
find lenses that can cough up the resolution. The very few users who need
that resolution can use 6x9, and 4x5 and 8x10 are still required for 30x50
posters that you want to remain sharp for the grain sniffers. (Lots of the
posters I see every day are 30x50 and stand up to grain sniffing.)

35mm types like available light, and smaller pixels are simply not going to

> I predict that in 5-7 years there will be a 6x7-sensor 100megapixel
> medium-format camera for $5k, and its overall image quality will be as good
> or better than film.

I'll bet you there won't be. It makes no sense, economically or
technologically.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital 6x7 - Oh Good Grief!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx-man writes:
> I predict that in 5-7 years there will be a
> 6x7-sensor 100megapixel medium-format camera
> for $5k, and its overall image quality will
> be as good or better than film.

Unlikely. The cost and problems with sensors increase superpolynomially
with size. A 6x7-cm sensor would be very difficult to produce indeed.

Additionally, a 6x7 spot of film can record some 242 megapixels without
any trouble.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From leica user mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 
From: Rolfe Tessem rolfe@ldp.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Current specs won't change? And what's the Moire switch?

caliguri@rcn.com wrote:
> Simon-
> I can still hope :-) BTW - I know there is no anti aliasing filter (I
> suppose to not loose any sharpness) but there was a Moire switch on
> the back -- is that a 'software' version that can be switched on and off?
> Ed

According to Imacon at the news conference, yes, that is exactly what it
is. If there is no moire issue, then you can enjoy the full sharpness of
the sensor.

- --
Rolfe Tessem
Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
rolfe@ldp.com 





From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stick with film or move over to digital...?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 

David J. Littleboy writes:

> Nope. Images from digital cameras are significantly
> sharper than 4000 dpi scans.

I haven't seen any 24 megapixel digital images, so I can't say. Which
cameras provide those?

> Print a digital camera image at 300 dpi and print
> a crop from a 4000 dpi scan at 300 dpi.
> The digital will be worlds better.

Print a digital camera image at 300 dpi and then downsample a film scan
to the same size and print that. The film scan will be worlds better.

Or, conversely, upsample a digital image until it contains the same
number of pixels as a film scan, and then look at it at 100%
magnification, and see how "sharp" it looks.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From: Pete Lawrence pete.lawrencenospam@pbl33.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stick with film or move over to digital...?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 
...
Yeah right, they'll never take off...
http://www.capv.com/home/Press/2003/6.25.03.html
http://www.techtv.com/products/story/0,23008,3419982,00.html

Oh do it yourself - search for phrases like "sales of digital cameras"
into Google...

Seems like Joe and Jane Doe don't share your thoughts.
--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy




From: Rafe B. rafeb@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital 6x7 - Oh Good Grief!!!!
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 

"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote:
>"Rafe B." rafeb@adelphia.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes, there are. Pure digital technologies require far less stringent
>> >> tolerances in design and manufacture; "on" and "off" are sufficient.
>> >> This means that pure digital devices can obey Moore's law, doubling in
>> >> performance every 18 to 24 months. Analog devices, however, have
>> >> extremely tight tolerances, and cannot be pushed forward in this way.
>> >> And since image sensors are analog devices, they are subject to the
>> >> constraints of analog technology.
>>
>>
>> Feh. Back in the 1980s, a bright fellow named Bernie Gordon
>> (founder and CEO of Analogic) boldly announced that there
>> would never be a monolithic 12-bit A/D converter.
>>
>> He was dead wrong, though (like you) I'm not sure he ever
>> owned up to his false prophecy. Too big an ego for that.
>>
>> ref: http://www.eetimes.com/news/98/993news/analog.html
>
>But maniac does have a point here even if he hasn't got it stated quite
>right: a full-frame sensor has to be 24x36mm. You may come up with new
>technologies for fabricating them, but it's always got to be 24x36mm. The
>interface between the real world and the electronics is contstrained by the
>real world. Since the electronics doesn't have that constraint, there's much
>more room for human ingenuity to create heretofore unthinkable things.
>
>Five years after that conference, I'm seeing a lot of consumer product ICs
>that integrate both analog and digital circuits in ways that were
>unthinkable in those bad old days days.


maniac is not worth arguing with. You and I know better,
I think.

What's been remarkable about the "digital revolution" is
that processing power has been used (with a vengeance) to
make up for poor sensors, and to get the best mileage out of
existing sensors. You can integrate data, convolve it, FIR it,
FFT it, DCT it, etc and ad nauseum.

Back in the dark ages, Corning glass built a 200 inch mirror
for the Mt. Palomar observatory. Old hat. Nowadays you
get more light and better resolving power using a multitude
of small mirrors, each controlled by its own position servo
and a system of processors to keep them all aimed and
focused. Processsing power allows new ways of attacking
old problems.

Anyone who's worked with CCDs knows that they're really
very lousy devices. Uniformity is all over the map, and
there are charge dissipation effects. Sensitivity varies from
chip to chip and from color channel to color channel. The
data is taken from a high-speed analog waveform, so gain-
bandwidth limitations are very much at play.

So why does it work at all? Because there's no end to the
processing power we can apply to the data, once it's in the
digital domain. Maniac has obviously never seen raw
image data coming off a CCD chip. It's not a pretty sight.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com




From: friend me.at.home@universe.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stick with film or move over to digital...?
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003

Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote:
>David J. Littleboy writes:
>
>> ... look at the demo shots Canon, Epson, HP
>> are using for their A4 and 13x19 inkjets: they're
>> all digital and they're all gorgeous.
>
>Demo shots are always gorgeous. I've seen beautiful demo prints off of
>ancient, cheap HP ink-jet printers, and yet actually getting prints like
>that with those printers was rather like getting a camel through the eye
>of a needle.

Those gorgeous pics are usually a con. I tried various companies at
Photokina asking them to take and print my portrait at the stand. NONE
was anywhere close to the ones freely dispensed to visitors. Agfa,
Nikon and Canon - they spent up to two hours each mucking with
Photoshop, the end results was always a garbage.
When people are asking me - which printer to buy, to get photo-quality
prints, I tell them to create a file with a prefered motif and get it
printed in a shop. No prize for guessing the result.





From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why haven't you gone digital yet?
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 

J.D. Parker writes:
> Quantity does not equal quality (though it could
> increase the chances of quality)

Quantity improves quality only to the extent that quality depends on
random chance. The less random you are in your shooting, the less
quantity will matter. If your shooting is completely random, quality
will track quantity precisely.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly




From: "T Rittenhouse" gray_wolf@charter.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Myth of best dpi for image printing on inkjets
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003

Well, actually, the recommendation is for 1-1/2 to 2 times the halftone
(software dithering) screen (not the dpi which is something else) of the
printer. That has been increasing with each new generation of printers.
Current printers seem to have somewhere around 360 lpi. That would mean
using an image of between 480 and 720 ppi for the best possible output.

--
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


"Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net wrote 
> I have just posted some research on image dpi that gives
> the sharpest print on my inkjet printer. The prevailing
> view of 300 ppi was found to be incorrect. I obtained
> sharper images at 600 dpi. Results at:




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Myth of best dpi for image printing on inkjets
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 

"Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I think you two have the logic backwards. Wouldn't it be
> > demonstrating the Qimage's interpolation is _losing_
> > information at higher dpis {g}? If the
> > 250 dpi file looks as good as the 500 dpi file, the extra info in the 500
> > dpi file didn't make it to the printer.
>
> Ah, but then you are underestimating the interpolation quality on the lower
> ppi image, and post-resizing sharpening that Qimage does on-the-fly. The
> program does some nifty things...

Sure, but it still means that 250 ppi is enough _information_ to drive the
printer. The whole point of my downsampling game was that it guarantees that
each of those files has the most information per pixel possible. (But I
guess I should compare Qimage at 250 dpi with Photoshop at higher dpis to
see if Photoshop can do better than Qimage.)

Minor rant. What drives the printer isn't the pixels but the information
represented by those pixels. So a soft scan (say an Epson 2450 scan) printed
at 600 dpi looks worlds better than that same scan printed at 300 dpi. This
says nothing about the printer, only about the lack of higher frequencies in
the original image.

My current results (YMMV) results are that the required dpi for maximum
printer image quality are as follows. (This is always with Qimage, which I
find convenient. (I haven't tried Irfanview or any others, so I'm _not_
claiming Qimage is the world's best image/printer management software
around.))

Downsampled Nikon 8000 scans: 250 ppi
Digital camera originals: 300 ppi
Undownsampled Nikon 8000 scans: 450 to 500 dpi
Undownsampled Epson 2450 scans: 600 to 800 dpi

For example, I find that downsampled Nikon 8000 scans printed at 250 dpi
look a tad better than 1Ds sample images printed at 250 dpi, but that at 300
dpi, nothing looks noticeably better than digital camera originals. (Which
is why I'm holding out for 9MP: that's 300 dpi at A4.)

Note: I doubt that Roger is making the mistake of using images with less
than the full 300 dpi of information, so I don't think that lower
information density of his lower dpi images is the reason for his results.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Myth of best dpi for image printing on inkjets
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003

I have just posted some research on image dpi that gives
the sharpest print on my inkjet printer. The prevailing
view of 300 ppi was found to be incorrect. I obtained
sharper images at 600 dpi. Results at:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi

I show scans of prints made at different ppi. Of course,
I needed very sharp images, even at 8x10 size to see the
difference between 300 ppi and 600ppi. 35mm velvia film
showed only a small difference. Large format images showed
a larger difference (even at 8x10 size).

Comments welcome.

Roger Clark
Photography, digital info at:
http://clarkvision.com




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Myth of best dpi for image printing on inkjets
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 

"Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net wrote:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi

Nicely done!

Now my problem is that I got almost the opposite result. :(

I took a 4000 dpi scan of a sharp 645 Provia slide and downsampled it to
various sizes, and asked Qimage to print them on my Epson 950.

What I got was a bunch of A4 prints that, except for the really radically
downsampled, all looked exactly the same.

I started at 750 dpi (6100 x 8600), went to 500 dpi (4125 x 5830), etc. Down
to 250 dpi (2060 x 2910). It wasn't until I got to 200 dpi (1650 x 2350)
that I got a print I could tell the difference on....

So, am I blind, or is there some way of making sense of this. (I.e., maybe
the HP is a better printer than the Epson, something I vaguely recall
someone saying {g}.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Myth of best dpi for image printing on inkjets
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003

"Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net wrote in message
> I have just posted some research on image dpi that gives
> the sharpest print on my inkjet printer. The prevailing
> view of 300 ppi was found to be incorrect. I obtained
> sharper images at 600 dpi.
SNIP
> Comments welcome.

Thanks for another informative webpage.

Your observations seem in line with the claim made by the author of Qimage
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/ and
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/), and with my personal
observations.
A higher resolution sent to the printer's blackbox AKA printer driver, will
give more control over interpolation method (the driver will interpolate if
you don't) and final print sharpening.
Also, todays inkjets are capable of creating many different shades of color
in a very small positioning matrix, so color accuracy should not be too much
of an issue. HP claims with their RET IV technology 38 droplets per dot,
giving 289 levels of shades of color, which results in over 1.2 million
colors without halftoning
(http://www.hp.com/cposupport/multifunction/support_doc/bpu02182.html
59).

Bart




From: "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Myth of best dpi for image printing on inkjets
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 

Flycaster wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark" rnclark@qwest.net wrote
> > I have just posted some research on image dpi that gives
> > the sharpest print on my inkjet printer. The prevailing
> > view of 300 ppi was found to be incorrect. I obtained
> > sharper images at 600 dpi. Results at:
> >
> > http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi
> >
> > I show scans of prints made at different ppi. Of course,
> > I needed very sharp images, even at 8x10 size to see the
> > difference between 300 ppi and 600ppi. 35mm velvia film
> > showed only a small difference. Large format images showed
> > a larger difference (even at 8x10 size).
>
> My results from Epson (1280 and 2200) printers do not match this. I print
> directly from Photoshop, use custom profiles, with both the Epson driver and
> RIP as well. I wonder if your results are related to an HP driver
> interpolation issue. What was the specific image-print workflow?

Simply declare the ppi in photoshop and print using the installed
HP driver. HP uses a photo-RET technology where they lay down
drops of ink on top of each other while wet, thus blending the ink to
produce different colors without having to dither as much. This
may give HP printers a resolution advantage.

> Irrespective, for you to say "The prevailing view of 300 ppi was found to be
> incorrect" is somewhat presumptuous since you simply ran a single test on
> one printer model. (I'm not saying that your results are wrong, rather that
> your deduction does not square with dozens of other similar tests using
> different hardware.)

Yes, you are in a sense correct.
However, if I only went by the prevailing
dogma and never tried higher resolution I would never have found out
that some printers do have higher resolution capability AND that
the human eye can see the difference, so yes the myth is untrue.
It may be that some manufacturers have decided that you don't need
more than 300 dpi, and have limited their products and software to
that limit. But that doesn't mean the prevailing 300 dpi story is
actually true. There has been a lot of "authoritative" proclamations
in the photo newsgroups that you don't need more than 300 dpi in a
print, and if you go higher you are wasting time, space, and your
driver may screw up and produce a horrible print. In my striving
to produce razor sharp prints, I find that dogma to be untrue. I'm
just lucky I went with an HP and it has the added resolution I want.
(I went with HP for two reasons: I like the greens better than Epson,
and if the heads clog, I just pop in a new print head.) The general
crop of HP photo printers all have this similar technology, so should all
be capable of this high resolution. In fact, my printer is a couple
of years old; newer printers may do even better.

Note, a while back film scanners were no better than 2400 dpi.
The manufacturers said you don't need any more. A while back
they also said you don't need more than 640 kbytes of RAM
in your computer. If no one ever pushed the limits, we won't
know what the limits are. Maybe Epson will see this and
produce an even better printer (I hope they do).

Finally, I added a test chart to the web page. Download it and
run some tests. I included instructions on what setting to use.

Roger




From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format convert. You can be lucky...
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 
J Stafford writes:
> I have a system that gives me a 5,760,000 pixel
> 6x6cm images ...

Is that all? I get 80,353,296 pixels from 6x6. What kind of scanner
are you using?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.




From: "Mark M" mjmorgan2@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Serious Digital Still Photography's days numbered?
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 

"Lisa Horton" Lisa@lisahorton.net wrote
> Ah, but you'll still need to keep buying ever larger hard drives, and
> backup media, CD, DVD, whatever. Lots of backup media...
>
> Lisa

This part is true.
I just spent about $600 adding various storage media--after buying my
10D...and discovering just how quickly the GBs add up.
...




From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 03 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison

>Subject: Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison
>From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
>Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2003
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>Hello Lewis,
>> >Lewis:
>> >About the "tonality" thing: doesn't this refer to a smooth transition
>> >from one tone to another? I would think that it is directly related
>> >to noise/grain. If you have grain then you obviously disrupt the
>> >smooth transition from one tone to another. For this reason I
>> >consider high quality digital images to have far superior tonality to
>> >film images. Differences due to the shape of the exposure/density
>> >curves are another matter altogether.
>> >
>> >Brian
>> >www.caldwellphotographic.com
>>
>> Brian:
>>
>> There's more to it than just the transition being smooth, though this helps/is
>> pleasant to the eye, tonaility is (at least to me, anyways) about how many
>> subtle tones are resolved w/i that smooth transition that gives an image
>> richness/clarity. Tonality has more to it than just whether grain interferes w/
>> tonal transitions or not, its about the amount of semi-tones (or semi-hues)
>> recorded going from one tone (or one hue) to another and for this (more
>> tonality) you need more info, regardless of graininess, though graininess can
>> cause the eye to lock onto it rather than whatever degree of tonality is there
>> in a picture.
>
>Basically, I agree with how you stated this. I do find that colour quality, and
>tonality are more important issues for my imagery.
>
>> To broach what I believe is an almost taboo subject here (the
>> superiority of most Leica lenses over most other brands ;-)), what gives Leica
>> lenses their larger format look (despite whatever grain is or isn't in a 35mm
>> image) is the fact that they tend to discriminate fine shadings of hues (my
>> main experience is using them for color though I've done some B&W Leica images
>> too) better than most lenses which gives them an openess and clearness (tied
>> also w/ beautiful gradual bokeh transitions from in focus areas to out of focus
>> areas that still retain detail) most lenses lack.
>
>I will also broach this subject a bit too. Older Leica lenses of the early M era
>had a smooth look to their resulting images. This was noticeably different than
>Nikon lenses of the same era, and some other japanese brands. The difference
>seemed to be that Nikon (et al) biased towards contrast, with the intention of
>gaining some sharpness increase when images were printed in new or magazine form.
>Leica on the other hand tended towards getting nicer chemical prints, with a less
>harsh look. Considering that both types of lenses were often used for hand held
>photography, it is not worth to compare resolution. Anyway, these are aspects that
>I have heard quite often about the Leica "look".
>
>It also seems that changes have occurred, even at Leica. Around the time of the M6
>introduction, that family of lenses started to take on a higher contrast
>appearance in the final images. I am not sure why that direction was taken, but
>many examples that I have seen from newer Leica lenses show less of the smooth
>tonality of the older lenses. The few designs that have not changed give largely
>the same results as older gear. I prefer the look created with the older lenses,
>though some consider the results to be softer.
>
>The old bias of Nikon and others was directed at the printed image, not chemical
>photo prints. While there were some designs that gave a smoother result, many of
>the designs were contrast biased. My comments are based upon observation of actual
>printed pieces. With the Nikon gear, I tend to prefer that contrasty look of the
>older prime lenses. Much of the newer gear gives softer renditions, especially the
>zoom choices, and it seems that there is a little less contrast, though perhaps
>not so intentional.
>
>To further this taboo aspect, I feel that there are some lens design that cross
>the boundary of contrast or smooth tonality. It has been possible to fool many
>people into believing a 35 mm image was actually medium format, or to have people
>thinking the camera used was a Leica. I think this is largely because newer films
>are so good, that they greatly compliment many different lenses.
>Ciao!
>Gordon Moat

Hi Gordon:

Glad to see I'm not on everyone's kill filters ;-) :-)

I basically agree w/ all your points above. My main experience w/ Leica gear
(both M and R is from the mid eighties to the early nineties, probably all w/
older designs. I can't comment on the newer Nikon zooms (which may or may not
have less contrast) but its important to note that a lens having less contrast
doesn't necessarily give it a "Leica look", what counts is not so much having
lower overall contrast but greater micro contrast/separation of tones/hues.
Lower contrast lenses can look muddy w/o having the advantage of better tonal
separation. Some classic, though extreme examples of this might be older
designs w/ poor mutli-coating, or single coated or non-coated lenses when
internal flare plays a factor in lowering overall scene contrast but w/o
improving the seaparation of tones, lesnes w/ fungus/mildew and/or some other
kind of growth that decreases overall contrast while not improving
micro-contrast, and lens designs having many elements (like zooms) which
sometimes (though not always) tends to increase flare (despite how well coated)
as well as overall brilliance/clarity (probably one of the many reasons
"primes" kick most zooms "asses" in their overall clarity/brilliance of image,
despite sharpness/resolution concerns). Strangely enough some older Nikkor
lenses like the 50/1.4 (perhaps stoppoed down a little) had a more gentler look
than the Nikkor zooms of the '80's which had punchier overall contrast if not
micro-contrast (my main experiences are w/ the exceptional 70-150/3.5 Series E,
25-50 AIS and the 28-50/3.5 AIS lenses. I also own (and use the 50/1.8 Series E
prime lens, which despite having a somewhat lackluster performance in the
flare deaprtment (it may be either single coated or have less than Nikon's full
anti-reflective coating) has not only superior sharpness and bokeh but a
three-dimensionality to it that is perhaps equal to a Leica lens but in a
different way, whereas the Leica lenses tend to separate subtle tonality/hues,
this Nikon lens tends to separate entire planes more from each other though
lacking in the micro-tonality department (where the Leica excels). I used to
have the 35/1.4 Leica M Summilux which was softish wide open but sharper and
more three dimensional than almost any lens on the planet when stopped down to
about f/5.6 or so (using K25 also didn't hurt), the 35 Summicron M is probably
its equal in sharpness/three dimensionality when stopped down and probably
quite a bit better towards wide open - wish I still owned them both. The asphs
Ms are supposed to be sharper wide open but at the expense of some slightly
harsher bokeh (from what I've read at Putz's site). I have heard/suppose it is
mainly the Leica asph lenses which have a slightly harsher bokeh than their
previous designs, though if someone wanted to give me one I surely wouldn't
reject it because of its less than perfect bokeh ;-).

Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm





From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 04 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison

...
>Hi Bob:
>I think you've way-overtheorized things here - to the point that what
>you are saying simply doesn't fit with reality. The only way to show
>that film has better tonality than digital is the compare actual
>images. In my experience, digital has better tonality than film:
>transitions are much smoother, and colors are more accurate, better
>differentiated, and less muddy than what I typically see on film
>images.
>
>Brian
>www.caldwellphotographic.com

Hi Brian:

Smoothness of tones is not the same as "tonality" (at least not as I mean it in
terms of being able to resolve many separate tones/hues between/within a range
of going from one tone to the other. For example, anybody can take a shot of a
scale of gradation from black through thousands/millions/whatever higher number
of grades lightening up to white (on digital or even scanned in from film),
"select all", then increase the contrast until only two tones remain (black and
white) and then apply Gaussian blur. This will result in an ultra smooth
transition, however no extra subtleties have been added by this "smoothing out"
of tones (black into white and vice versa). My point here, regardless of
analogy is that, despite how smoothly the tones/colors appear to merge into one
another, the actual "tonal resolution" (how many actual subtones are between
two tones or hues) can only be presented by whichever format is capable of
resolving those subtle/gradual tonal distinctions into distinct tones. Don't
mistake color purity and saturation or smoothness of tones for tonal/hue
separation of tones (tonal/hue resolution) ie. what I refer to as "tonality".

Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm




From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 

Lewis Lang contaxman@aol.comnospam wrote:
> Wouldn't downsampling (w/ digital files) reduce resolution since you are
> converting to even less pixel info/a smaller size and/or resolution than
> before?

Yes, but most consumer digicams (at least ones we've used) produce images
that really need to be downsized 50% to eliminate noise and artifacting.
Whereas most film scans look better scaled 75% to reduce the appearance
of grain. So it's just my experience that a film scan has about 150%
more content than a digital image.

Of course this is not true with D30/D60/10D images, nor does it appear to
be true of 1Ds images. It's a mystery to me why these cameras are so much
better than consumer digicams, considering the 10D costs not much more.




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: 5 Jun 2003 

Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com wrote 
> Of course this is not true with D30/D60/10D images, nor does it appear to
> be true of 1Ds images. It's a mystery to me why these cameras are so much
> better than consumer digicams, considering the 10D costs not much more.

Its simple. Even the best consumer digicams use sensors that are at
least 6 times smaller than the sensors used in Canon and Nikon DSLRs.
Small size means small pixels and more noise because each photosite
collects fewer photons per exposure.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: Chris Quayle lightwork@aerosys.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 

brian wrote:
> Digital images *must* be post processed in order to achieve the best
> quality. To not do so seems absurd to me. The truth is that digital
> files are much better suited to post processing due to the lack of
> noise, and this is a critical factor in evaluating the relative merits
> of film and digital mediums.

Ok, so do you have figures for attainable dynamic range for film /
scanner and a high end digital cameras ?. What dmax do you get from a
high end digital vs a hi end drum scanner, for example ?. I don't have
figures, but would guess that you have looked into this in depth.

A 35mm frame at 2700 dpi gives me ~10Mpixel scan and the limiting factor
is definately the scanner, since the image starts to appear pixelated
long before the film gives up on detail. There may be some grain
effects, but the detail is still recognisable when the slide is
projected, so the film is not the limiting factor.

If you think about it, a scanner could be viewed from an engineering
point of view as a specialised and optimised version of a digital
camera, right ?, so the same measurement criteria (dynamic range,
linearity, spectral balance etc, should be applicable and measureable.

What i'm really saying is: Can we be more scientific about this?.
Everthing else is just subjective opinion...

Chris




From: Christoph Breitkopf chris@chr-breitkopf.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sharpness of slide vs. print film
Date: 03 Jun 2003

Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com writes:
> Christoph Breitkopf chris@chr-breitkopf.de wrote:
> > I think it is really rather hard to compare slide and print films.
>
> Why? Just scan them both.
>
> Back in the bad old days before Portra 400UC and New NPH, I got
> sharper results from Supra 800 on my old Photosmart S10 scanner
> than my friend got from Provia 100F on his Nikon LS-30 scanner,
> at the expense of blue sky grain, easily fixed by Gaussian Blur.

So what? None of these scanners get anywhere near the
film limits. If you say that low-end scanners are better
at scanning negatives with little density that slides,
I'm in full agreement. In the original discussion we were
talking about the limits of film resolution (vs. D60),
and to get that you need at least the LS4000, preferably
better. Performance at the resolution limit is certainly
different from 'what is easier to get good scans from in
the more common medium resolution case'. (I fully admit
that the latter may be more relevant - after all, if
you need big enlargments, do it the easy way and use
medium or large format).

> The only slide film with finer grain than Reala is Provia 100F,
> but Reala is sharper, both in scans on manufacturer datasheets.
> See here for a summary of film resolution and sharpness:
>
> http://creekin.net/films.htm

Interesting table. I have some doubts about the sharpness column,
though. On the Superia 100 data sheet I just downloaded from Fuji,
the MTF goes below 100% at 13-14 lp/mm, not at 20. Also, again, for
high resolutions we might be more interested in below 50%, for example.
Still, you can't have everything in one table.

Regards,
Chris




From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 

Chris Quayle lightwork@aerosys.co.uk wrote:
>
> "pioe[rmv]" wrote:
>>
>> brian wrote:
>>
>> > Digital images *must* be post processed in order to achieve the best
>> > quality. To not do so seems absurd to me.
>>
>> You are correct.
>>
> No one would argue that post processing is essential, either using
> digital or scanned film. However, to tag a whole load of post processing
> (much of which depends on human judgement and skill) onto a basic
> technology, then use the final result as a basis to argue that one
> technology is superior to the other, is pure tosh.

I haven't worked (Photoshop) with 10D images yet, but have a fair amount
of experience with consumer digicam images.

What has surprised me is the amount of work necessary to make these images
look good. I digitize film with an old scanner that cost me $300 years ago,
and it's not much trouble to get all my scans color balanced, matched, and
resized. Whereas when friends give me a set of digicam images, I end up
spending hours correcting exposure errors and color balance differences.
Also most lack detail and require 50% downsampling.

Why should digital be harder than film?





From: Chris Quayle lightwork@aerosys.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 6mp digital vs. film: a closer look
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:
>

> As a matter of fact, I chose negative film because it has greater
> sharpness.

You're kidding right ?. Have never seen a neg scan that even approached
the performance of good slide film, either in terms of sharpness, or
dynamic range. You can theorise all you like, but just compare the
difference. Something like 400asa print film has typically lousy
performance (grainy) whan scanned IMNSHO, though negative film typically
scans more easily precisely because it has less dynamic range. Many
desktop scanners have real problems getting the range (esp shadow
detail) from good quality slide film, which tips the balance to start
with. If you think print film produces better results than slide when
properly scanned, then I would suggest you need a better scanner, or
better match of scanner setup to film characteristics.

>
> Why not? Post processing is an integral and indeed indispensable part
> of digital imagery. Without it, it will be difficult to judge images.

Yes, but it's not a scientific test for resolution or dynamic range
since you are introducing more variables into the equation which will
affect the result. If we are objectively *measuring* the performance,
rather than just artistic / subjective evaluation, then you need to
eliminate as many variables as possible from the equation to get a true
answer.

As I said, the correct way to judge resolution and dynamic range would
be a raw scan from the best scanner you can find vs the raw output from
the camera. In essence, to eliminate the scanner variable, you need a
scanner that is much better than the film's performance to minimise any
artifacts / degradation introduced by it, otherwise you don't know what
you are measuring - the film or the scanner's performance.

If we are just doing a subjective artistic assessment ("I think that
looks nice, etc") then fair enough, but let's not pretend it's real
science. If you are talking absolutes, first ask yourself what are you
trying to measure ?, then set up the experiment to get the required
evidence. Organising or preloading the question to fit the answer, or
postprocessing the evidence, is hardly the way to do it :-).

Chris




From: "T Rittenhouse" gray_wolf@charter.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 

I find your comments interesting. However, I have seen very large prints of
8x10 transparencies done both digitally (the big Epson), and chemically
(Ilfochromes) with the photographer pointing out the subtle differences.
Ilfochromes were better, but you would have to be an expert to notice it.
Chemical still wins in the highlight details. Also, tonality was better and
quite noticeable in side by side comparisons. In B&W from my experience
chemical still wins, hands down.

So, my conclusion, is digital can be "good enough", but chemical is still
better.

--
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


"Rafe B." rafeb@adelphia.net wrote
> Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> However, you could very well compare a print derived from a digicam's
> >> image, to a pure analog print.
> >>
> > Bingo yet they aren't doing that, they have to cripple the film camera by
> >adding a scan/print to it first.
>
> I don't see how that's crippling anything or anyone. Whether
> you enlarge it on your Durst or Beseler, or scan it -- it has to
> go through some optics. Some information on the film will be
> compromised in either case, to some degree.
>
> As has been explained to you -- the film scan is far better suited
> to extracting that list bit of data from the film than your Durst or
> Beseler. If you don't trust a CCD scanner to do the job, spend
> a few bucks on a drum scan.
>
> But in any case, that 2nd optical step (be it in a "wet darkroom"
> enlarger or a film scanner) is why digicams and/or digital
> backs will eventually replace both. That 2nd optical step will
> become superfluous.
>
> Like I say -- I'm not interested in "converting" anyone. But I'm
> guessing you simply haven't seen digital photography (or
> "digital darkroom") done well, much less tried it yourself.
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com




From: Rafe B. rafeb@adelphia.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 

Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
>Rafe B. wrote:
>
>> "T Rittenhouse" gray_wolf@charter.net wrote:
>>
>>>Well, looks to me like you are comparing digital to digital. A scanner to
>>>a digicam. Compare first generation prints from both MF and the digicam,
>>>then get back to us with your results.
>>
>> Can't do that, as I ditched my wet darkroom gear years
>> ago. For me anyway, there's no comparison. I could
>> never get prints from my enlarger as consistently sharp
>> as those that which I print routinely from scanned film.
>
> So because you couldn't figure out how to get consistant results it's no
>good? LOL! Like the guy said, compare an analog print to a digicam instead
>of a scan to a digicam. I've never seen a digiprinted B&W that looked worth
>a damn. There is more to a photograph than "sharpness" but many people
>don't get that.

That's metaphysically absurd (to use an old Firesign phrase.)

How do you compare an analog print with a digicam? Not possible.

However, you could very well compare a print derived from a digicam's
image, to a pure analog print.

Digital BW doesn't have quite the "strength in numbers" as digital
color printing, but is being done and done well, nonetheless. 
Piezography (Jon Cone) is one way, but by no means the only way.
Several vendors sell quadtone and hextone inksets, and there are
well known curves (eg., from Paul Roarke) to utilize these inksets.

And yes I do understand that sharpness isn't the end-all, that
tonality is equally important.

> Then again maybe you're happy with them, that's all that matters. I do have
>to wonder why digi-users have to PUSH their ideas in every newsgroup like
>this?

I'm not pushing anything -- use whatever works for you and have a
ball. I entered this thread by reminding folks that they could do
their own comparisons, though I should have been more explicit;
the comparisons I refered to were digital camera vs. scanned film.

For those printing digitally (ie. via Epson, Lightjet, Lambda, etc)
this is certainly a valid comparison.

Maybe analog users keep arguing against digital because they're
too stubborn or timid to try something new? Or maybe too heavily
invested to accept the notion of change?

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com




From: fcarello@tiscalinet.it (Fernando)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: only 6x8" prints from 645? Re: Are used MF...
Date: 6 Jun 2003 

rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote 
> So you are saying that a medium format 645 camera is only delivering 25.7
> lpmm on film at best? You think this has to be the film, not your scanner?

Bob, you're stretching math to your goals here. ;)

Let's talk seriously, let's talk MTF.

We all have access to a good bunch of MTF charts (photodo etc.).
So let's compare EOS 1Ds with a normal lens (Canon 50/1.4 USM), and a
Contax 645 with a normal lens (Zeiss Planar 80/2).
The 645 will shoot on Provia 100F, and its slides will be acquired by
a Nikon 8000ED.

Let's see what happens at 40 lp/mm.

MTF of the DSLR system:

Lens = 0.63
CCD = 0.90 (assumed as a worst-case figure, given that at 55 lp/mm,
the Nyquist frequency for the 1Ds, strong Moiré occurs if you remove
the anti-aliasing filter)

Final MTF at 40 lp/mm = 0.63*0.9 = 0.57


MTF of the 645 + scanner system:

Lens = 0.51
Film = 0.60 (from http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/Provia100f.pdf)
Scanner = 0.80 (maybe optimistic: from various published tests, scans
of targets reveal a good bunch of contrast loss even at lower target
resolutions. Let's say we carefully USM here)

Final MTF at 40lp/mm = 0.51*0.6*0.8 = 0.24

So, while it's true that for example I can go as far as 78 lp/mm with
645 gear + a good film scanner (which I cannot with a 1Ds), pratically
I get very little *actually useable* details there. Unless you like to
enlarge/print grain, that is.

While, digital shots will retain very strong details and clariness up
to the Nyquist frequency. :)

Actually, I found that in practical real-world shots, my 645 gear
(w/Provia 100F) is capable of about 14 MP of actually-useable
resolution.

Please note, that I'm very actively using 645 and 6x6 film-only gears,
and don't plan switching to DSLRs until a 20MP camera would drop under
$1000 (two-three years from now?), so I'm not a "digiuser". :)
I'm a (very happy, for instance) traditional and, I think, quite
unbiased amateur photographer.

Greetings!

Fernando





From: Bob Monaghan [rmonagha@engr.smu.edu] 
Sent: Fri 5/30/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: film tonality Re: Good 35mm and 6x7 film vs. digital comparison


David, you aren't thinking this out right ;-) Film is not limited to one
sensor or grain being on/off in a 2-dimensional plane, as you suggest...

Each grain is submicron in area and maybe a cubic micron in volume, right?
The film emulsion layer is at least 20+ microns thick for a thin emulsion
film. Thick emulsion films can have lots more depth, so this is a minimal
case. That means you can potentially have at least 20 grains stacked up,
one atop another, in a silver rich emulsion. You don't get that always in
practice, but you do get a lot of grains floating around in the emulsion,
overlapping and stacking many grains deep at every point in the emulsion.

This varying degree of overlap of exposed grains, at 20+ levels in the
emulsion, simulates a much wider range of tonality values than the binary
on/off value of a single grain per site that you seem to infer in your
argument. It is also bigger than 20 stacked grains in range, because
you can have _any_ fractional value of grain overlap impacting the
range of tonality. So it isn't binary, but an infinite range analog setup

That's why an analog system like film has a huge tonality response range.
Film is NOT a planar sensor, like a DSLR, which is a key to one of its
(many) superiorities over a planar DSLR sensor ;-)

Now consider you have 3 or 4 emulsions in typical color film. Makes it
even worse, huh? Moreover, the range of colors which are encoded are
hugely greater than anything a DSLR can do today, or even a 36+ bit color
scanner can get out of film. Your analysis would suggest 100 times less..

On top of this, film grains are typically submicron in size, while the
typical (bayer or X3) sensor is more like 25 or 36 square microns in area
for the DSLR sensors. So again, there is a huge advantage to film grains.

Finally, the range in sizes of grains is significant, and their random
distribution by size is significant, as both of these eliminate the
problems with aliasing seen with planar and regular sensors as in DSLRs
;-)

How do I know this analysis is right? Because film preserves much more
fine contrast and high resolution details than a 6 MP DSLR (estimated by
Kodak at 24 MP for mid-speed films, more like 100 MP for fine grain films
in 35mm format). That requires that film have a better tonality and range
response than digital sensors per unit area. It does, because film is
three dimensional, while DSLR sensors are planar. This higher contrast and
tonality range is readily apparent on high quality enlargements compared
to ink jet digital prints (with good quality lenses, film, technique..).

How big an error is this? The DSLR has 2^8 to 2^12 tonality ranges, per
your analysis (256 to 4,096 levels), versus say 0-36 micron sized grains
in the same area per your analysis (ignoring film is 3-D and not planar,
as noted above). That's 4,096 vs. 36, or a factor of 100+ fold bias
against film by reducing it to a 2-D medium. But as I've shown, film has
far _more_ tonality range than 6 MP DSLR sensors, and more color bit depth
etc. So once again, circa 99% of the quality benefits from using film are
being ignored or dismissed in pro-digital "analyses" ;-)

grins bobm




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Agonizing decision: which 6x7 camera to buy?????
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 


"Rick Rieger" rrieger@wideopenwest.com wrote:
> Food for thought: on Michael Richmann's website luminous-landscape.com, he
> has a remarkable article titled "The Ultimate Shootout" in which he compares
> a P67 with the new full-frame Canon D1s 11mp digital camera. He shot Velvia
> with the P67 and had the chrome drum scanned.

Careful there: his "comparison" was between _his_ 12x16" inkjet prints from
_his_ Imacon scans. He was careful to avoid comparing drum scans printed by
someone who knew what they were doing to his 1Ds prints.

If you read very carefully, it sounds more that he simply messed up in his
MF workflow and failed to get decent prints from 6x7. The one actual
comparison he shows from a drum scan and the 1Ds, shows the drum scan having
far better resolution.

> His conclusion was that the
> digital camera beat the 6x7 in terms of sharpness and lack of grain.

And that's simply nuts.

First, Nikon 8000 scans of Provia are grain free printed at 300 dpi. That's
a mere 20x28 from 645. (Note that Velvia is grainier than Provia 100F, and
he was careful to use Velvia not Provia.)

Second, if you download a 1Ds sample, print it borderless on your A4 inkjet
printer (8.25 x 11.75), and then crop out 1/2 the pixels and print that at
borderless A4 and compare them, you'll see that the cropped (equivalent to
an A3 11.75 x 16.5) version _shows no additional detail_. (That's not to say
1Ds images don't look lovely printed at 12x16, it's just that an Epson 950
can render everything the 1Ds has to give at A4.)

Now scan a sharp Provia 645 frame on your Nikon 8000 and play the same game.
The cropped version shows detail that the inkjet couldn't render when you
blasted it with the original 6100 x 8600 pixel image.

> I have
> also seen some 13x19 prints from the Kodak DCS Pro14n. The quality of these
> studio shots is absolutely stunning.

Most people will find 13x19 prints (for at least some subject matter) from
even the Canon 10D "absolutely stunning". The 10D resolves 1400 lines in the
short direction. That's 700 line pairs, or all of 2 lp/mm. (The 1Ds ups that
to 3 lp/mm at 13x19). These are a long way from "photographic quality" (4 to
8 lp/mm), but still enough to show an impressive amount of detail. But it
ain't MF.

One thing to be careful of, though, is the excessive claims for film
resolution. Film _is_ quite noisy when you try to get much more than 50
lp/mm out of it. When you multiply the resolved lp/mm by the number of
pixels you need to resolve that much detail, you get enourmous numbers, but
those numbers are for extremely noisy pixels. So the actual _information_
content is only one bit per pixel. If you want a quality image with 8 bits
of valid data per color, you can't get that from film at the MP counts Kodak
(or bobm) tells you film is equivalent to.

You should be able to get 50 lp/mm of reasonable quality color information
from film, though, and that leaves MF miles ahead of the dSLRs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: I bought a Stigma...
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 

T. P. tp@noemailthanks.com wrote:
>
>>I purchased a Sigma 15-30 three days ago, and after shooting a few hundred
>>test shots (ain't digital grand?) around the city i've got absolutely
>>nothing bad to say about the lens at all. I've noticed no softness in any of
>>the corners or edges, the lens fits the mount perfectly, and the build
>>quality is great.
>
> Try this lens on a film camera, and then you will see the truth, if
> you care to look. 
>
> You can use almost any junk lens on a 6 megapixel APS-sized CCD or
> CMOS sensor and get results that are indistinguishable from a good lens.

This article by Bob Atkins conclusively disproves this assertion.
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/

Compare the 10D images taken with Canon 75-300 zoom versus 300/4 L
(second image in the article).




From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Going digital
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003

"Brandon Smith" redwoodtwig@yahoo.com wrote 
> I've also been told that the best way to go is to continue using my
> film equipment and scanning the negatives. But film does keep going
> up in price, as does processing.

If you are thinking that going digital will save you money, you are probably
wrong. Unless you shoot tons of images, the total cost of digital will be
higher--sometimes MUCH higher--than film.

Have a look at the Williams Photographic site for more details. It is
written primarily for amateurs, but he raises important points about the
quality and the cost of digital--points that you should consider. It is
hardly the last word on the subject, but it makes for an excellent starting
point for you to begin evaluation the various options:

http://www.williamsphotographic.com/digital.html





[Ed. note: re: Foveon sensor's depths in wells]
From: Q.G. de Bakker [qnu@tiscali.nl] 
Sent: Tue 7/15/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Ixpress ?

Austin Franklin wrote:

> I'm not sure the well depth of the Foveon sensor has ever been
> published...so I'd like to know what you base your conclusion on. Do you
> have further information on this?

Blue well's "top" is at 0.2 micrometer depth, Green well's top lies 0.6
micrometer deep, and red well begins at 2 micrometer deep.

Postscript:
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> Blue well's "top" is at 0.2 micrometer depth, Green well's top lies 0.6
> micrometer deep, and red well begins at 2 micrometer deep.

Wrong figures. I do apologize.

Blue well: 0.1 - 0.4 micrometer
Green well: 0.8 - 1.2 micrometer
Red well: 1.5 - 3.5 micrometer




From nikon manual mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 
From: Maximiliano Fernandez Mendoza maska45@yahoo.com.ar
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Subject: [Nikon] Dark Current vs. Dark Current Noise (was: Noise in CCD's for deep space shots?)


--- I wrote:
> Rob is right. Dark current is to certain extent deterministic, not random.
> Perhaps the term noise is a bit misleading in this context.

Some clarification:

*Dark Current* is the background current that flows in a charge-coupled device.
It is a flow of thermally generated charge, which accumulates within a well in
the absence of light. Each high-performance CCD carries a dark current
specification in e/p/s (electrons per pixel per second)

*Dark Current Noise* is the statistical variation of that specification.

Example: A CCD has a dark current specification of 1.0 e/p/s. For a 4-second
exposure, a total of 4 e/p are generated. Since dark current noise has a
Poisson distribution, the rms dark current noise is the square root of the dark
current or, in this case, 2 e/p.

The thing is Dark Current specification is an ensemble, because each pixel has
its own different dark current level. During long exposures that differences
arises as a kind of *noise*, an expurious signal, which can be substracted.

Remember: Dark current can be subtracted from an image, while dark noise always
remains there.






From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
Subject: Re: cds for archiving.... digital musings and well wishes Ted and Tina


Duane Birkey wrote:
>I bought a large stash of the Kodak Gold Ultima CDRs back when I heard Kodak
>was gonig to stop making them...
>
>According to Kodak.... Those Gold Ultima cd's last 6 times longer than the
>silver/gold ones they replaced them with...
>
>Kodak licensed the technology for the Gold Ultima cd's from Mitsui. The
>next time I buy cd's they will be the Mitsui Gold ones....
>
...

Hi Duane,

The Kodak Pro literature on CD's, back when they sold them, said that the
Gold Ultima life was not substantially longer than any other good quality
CD unless the very strict burning, handling, and storage conditions were
adhered to. Which was; burn at a very slow speed, don't write on it or
stick any labels on it (the ink/glue migrates into the chemical layers and
reeks havoc,) keep it in the dark (light also deteriorates the chemistry in
a laser burned CD,) 50°F and no more than 40% humidity. Oh yeah... don't
use them unless you are copying them for a backup...

One thing about silver photographs, you can see when they start to fade or
otherwise give-up. You can then retouch them if necessary and then copy
them to new silver media. Funny, The same media (silver) and method
(photography) is available today as what made many of the images which are
a hundred or two years old. This certainly is not true in the digital
world. Technology rarely lasts five years much less a century or two.

In reality, I believe that CD/DVD's will probably last long enough for some
sort of permanent digital storage to come along. And then you can copy all
of the hundreds (maybe thousands for some folks) CD/DVD's onto this
permanent media.

For me, until some sort of *permanent* digital storage, one that won't be
made 100% obsolete and unrecoverable in fifty or a hundred years, comes
along, I'm not interested in storing any of my work digitally.

:-)

Jim




From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 
From: "Alex Karasev" alexander.karasev@gs.com
Subject: Re: CMOS vs CCD, Minolta D-SLR's (was: Minolta 70-200/2.8 G D SSM)

--- In Minolta@yahoogroups.com, BillB800si@a... wrote:
> Now I'm not up on the latest & greatest (digital) but I've read that CMOS is
> much better than CCD technology. If so, why would Minolta release a "new"
> camera with "older" technology??
> Comments?

Bill,

CMOS is by far inferior to CCD in dynamic range (i.e. the range of
light intensities from highlight to shadow that a sensor could
distinguish), signal to noise ratio, etc. It is not a new technology
contrary to what many thing - in fact it was used for image capture
for about as long as CCD. It is just only recently engineering
developments in software and manufacture occurred that allowed its
use for general photography as opposed to low-end special-purpose
sensors and cheap mini cameras and such.

CMOS is MUCH cheaper than CCD per area, consumes less electricity,
could be manufactured on the same process that simultaneously could
make the image processing circuitry associated with image capture and
processing (i.e. on the same chip), and is easier than CCD to make
into higher resolution sensors with the same are (smaller individual
pixels), so manufacturers were tempted to persist improving it to
where it could be used for photography applications.

CMOS is definitely a compromise, albeit one that continues to benefit
from a lot of research dedicated to improving it. CMOS vs. CCD is a
bit like with digital vs. film - if they stop investing in further
CCD technology refinement, one day, CMOS could gradually come close
and even surpass the CCD. But that day is not today.

So, pay close attention to low light performance and especially
actual (not just claimed) capture dynamic range when considering
anything CMOS-based, lest you end up with images where you end up
with solid black instead of any shadow detail, and solid white
instead of a blue clowdy sky.

Alex





From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 
From: Bob Fowler crazybob2525@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Death of film?

One thing that hasn't been touched on is the lack of
dynamic range of digital cameras. If you over-expose a
color negative by a stop or so, you can still make a
print with highlight detail by adjusting the exposure
at print time or burning. Over-expose a digital image
and your highlights are GONE. Shooting digital with a
high-end camera is like shooting slide film, and most
casual snap-shooters don't understand (or even want to
understand) exposure enough to get excellent results
with those cameras. The P&S models which the
snap-shooters buy tend to err on the side of
underexposure to keep the highlights from blowing out,
but that makes the shadows muddy (or noisy).

Bob Fowler
crazybob2525@yahoo.com




From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Death of film?

You are right that once you blow out the highlights on a digital image you
can't recover detail. In this respect they do resemble slide film. However
they have great latitude in the other direction. You can pull up detail in
even the darkest shadows. For this reason most professionals set their
digital camera meters to underexpose by 1/3 stop or more. Then a simple
Photoshop action pulls up the shadows, pegs the highlights at the right
place on the curve, and puts midtones in the right place. Working in this
way gives the digital files much more dynamic range than slide films.

Bob
...




From: Jim Brick [jbrick@elesys.net] 
Sent: Mon 7/14/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Ixpress ?

Austin is correct. Foveon has a whole host of problems that other
(regular) sensors do not have, well... do not have as badly as Foveon.
Anyway, Olympus is solving some of the major problems with a whole new set
of "digital" lenses that incorporate a collimator which presents a
straight-on image to the sensor. No oblique ray problems.

Hasselblad uses a fiber optic collimator in their Polaroid backs because
the film is back inside the Polaroid back and the image has to get to the
surface of the film, from what was the Hasselblad film plane to a new film
plane, intact.

But Olympus' collimator is part of their optical design and is a lens
system that make up the rear lens elements.

Jim

Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Patrick Wrote:
> > My money's on the Foveon sensor. Too bad
> > only the Sigma camera has it.
>
>That is a good thing...(that only the Sigma has it) IMO. The Foveon has far
>worse problems than any Bayer pattern sensor does, at this point in time.
>It does not do well in low light, and it has horrible color fidelity.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin




From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: Camera obscura focal formula???

Hi

One easy thing to remember, the aperture size will be the resolution of the
image. So a 1/4 inch aperture will result in 4 dots per inch resolution at the
image.

A 1 inch aperture will be 1 dot per inch.

Another thing is to remember is that the f-stop will be the distance over
aperture. So 1 inch aperture with a camera size of 100 ft or 1200 inches would
be f-1200 with a resolution of 1 dot per inch.

You can graph this out to fit any aperture and distance and resolution
required.

Last is diffraction. If you understand the first two points, I will go into
the last point.

Larry




From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,comp.periphs.scanners
Subject: Re: Relation of bit depth to dynamic range
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 

Fernando fcarello@tiscalinet.it writes
>Kennedy McEwen rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote 
>
>> years and has, in the main, been propagated in this thread. Also note,
>> as few here appear to have, that noise is not the minimum signal, but
>> the minimum discernible difference between signals according to well
>> defined mathematical and physical criteria - and the CCD just happens to
>> have some very complex noise characteristics, being a combination of
>> constant, linear and exceedingly non-linear terms. CCD signal may well
>> be linear, noise certainly is not, and that can be very significant when
>> comparing slide and negative scanner performance.
>
>Very interesting as always.
>Could you clarify a bit this aspect (CCD noise characteristics and
>their relationships with actual neg and slide scans)?

The main noise sources on a CCD are:
Readout noise : constant for a fixed readout rate

Shot noise : proportional to the square root of the accumulated signal

Dark current : both noise and false signal component - signal
proportional to exposure time, noise proportional to square root of that

The effect is straight forward for slides, because the "noise floor",
ie. the noise present in the absence of any signal, is just the Readout
noise, the dark current and its associated noise. That effectively
determines the Dmax that the device can achieve since increasing
exposure merely increases the dark current linearly. As more signal is
integrated, this increases the shot noise, which is just a statistical
effect on the number of accumulated electrons stored by each CCD
element. However, since the shot noise increases non-linearly in
proportion to the square root of signal, more signal also means better
signal to noise. This is no different from what you get with your own
eyes, althou

For a negative it is more complex, because the entire output is
inverted. This means that the darkest parts of the image produce the
highest signal on the CCD and consequently the highest noise
and the shot noise is what dominates. As the density of the negative
increases, the noise reduces, but this produce the minimum noise at the
highlights of the image - quite the opposite of what is produced on
slides and what your eye expects to see. In fact, when scanning
negatives, the combination of shot noise and the limited storage
capacity of the CCD element can mean that actual dynamic range of the
best 14 and 16 bit scanners are only marginally better than that of 8 to
10 bit scanners.

For example, the CCDs used in scanners probably have around 10^5
electrons of storage capacity at each pixel. The readout noise may only
be around 10 electrons rms, some of which might be dark current noise
for the exposures used. This gives a peak signal to background noise of
the CCD when scanning positives of around 10^4. Obviously the noise
limits the Dmax to 4 if Dmin is zero. However, when scanning a
negative, the noise floor is produced at peak CCD signal where the shot
noise is sqrt(10^5), or a total noise of around 316 electrons rms. In
this instance the peak signal to background noise, on the final image
ie. after reversal, is only 316 too - not much better than is possible
with an 8-bit range! The only way around this is to increase the
storage capacity of the CCD, which is limited by silicon design rules
and diffusion depths etc. A synthetic increase in the CCD storage is
therefore simulated by multisampling the image - taking several reads of
the CCD for each image pixel. Hence 16x multisampling will result in an
effective storage capacity of 1.6x10^6 electrons and, whilst dark
current may increase 16 fold, the signal to noise increases by a factor
of 4, to around 1264, or just over 10-bit equivalent performance. So
multisampling makes a huge difference scanning negatives in almost every
case, but is often of little value for positives - especially if the
rest of the system noise is low.
--
Kennedy




From: Chris Quayle lightwork@aerosys.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon's new toys.
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003

bmoag wrote:
> The holy grail of digital SLR is a full frame sensor at the D100 price point.

Not necessarily, just what you have been led to believe by marketing
hype (the old saw of bigger is better) and the rollercoaster of new
digicam slr introductions in the past year or two. Just because the 35mm
format happens to be the most common format for film, doesn't mean that
it's optimum for digital sensor size with present state of the art. In
fact, there is evidence to suggest otherwise, in that both the Contax
digital and the Kodak DCS have sortcomings at high iso ratings. Also, a
full frame sensor is a big chunk of silicon, so there are very good
reasons to push development towards smaller sensor sizes from a
cost/yield per wafer point of view, to drive product cost down. The
Olympus 4/3rd's system uses a smaller format and it looks like Nikon are
also staying with a smaller sensor size. I would think that there are
very good reasons for this.

IMO, the 35mm format sensor size is a bridge between the old and new to
allow economic development using old shutter, lens and film camera
technology...

Chris




From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 
From: "Roman J. Rohleder" rjrohleder@web.de
Subject: Re: Re: [Russiancamera] OT Leicas Digital/Film Hybrid
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com

Jay,

it wouldn´t work. At least for the moment.

Leica ran a chat on the announcement day and the question of a digital back
for the Leica M has been raise. Njet - physically impossible with current
sensor chips. They can´t deal with light coming in at low angles, like it
would be with rf-lenses. It would result in heavy aberrations, distortion,
problems.




From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 
From: "Sonny Carter" sonc@sonc.com
Subject: High iso on Leica digital cameras


Peter Klein and I (on another list) have been discussing the issue of 400
iso and the Panasonic LC5 / Digilux 1. I thought it valuable and of
interest to enough people to cross-post a segment of our conversation.

Peter said: There was one other angle to the high ISO noise that I didn't
(talk about) because I only heard about it from one person. He said that
the LCD display created bad noise in the image, and he got much better
pictures with the LCD off. IF true, that could be a result of bad
shielding design, or a QC problem with his particular camera.

(Back to Sonny) So I set up my camera and took a couple shots of the same
location at ISO 400 with the LCD and without. The file is quite a bit
better as regards noise with the LCD turned off. I can see that some
software cleaning might make it better still.
Here's a section of the image, but it still is quite sizable,
http://www.sonc.com/lcd_check.jpg

so if you dialup use this link
http://www.sonc.com/lcd_check_sm.jpg
Regards,

SonC
http://www.sonc.com





From British Journal of Photography Equipment News of 22 August 2003:

Phase one now has a new H25 back for hasselblad and mamiya RZ (others with an adapter) digital backs
which features 22 megapixel capacity and up to 1.8 images per second. The 22 MP sensor produces
raw files up to 130 megabytes using 48 bit RGB formats.






From: "Martin Lee" aabc@iinet.net.au
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Cost-Effectiveness going Digital
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 

Thanx for your thorough calculation... I don't think it would be a problem
for a Pro with these costs if he makes money from his work!


"k" felaffel@PINGme.com
> "Martin Lee" aabc@iinet.net.au wrote 
> > Wonder if anyone actaully calculated the money saved for going DSLR from
> > SLR? (without the cost of buying a digital body).
> > For example, the cost of films and development.
> >
> > I'm using EOS 5 at the moment. The 300D price tag seems to be very
> > attractive and reasonable. I'm thinking of using a DSLR for everyday photos
> > and the 5 for creative or when wide angle is needed. Any suggestions?
>
> lets see - to get started from scratch for a pro it's be (ballpark) -
>
> camera:
> cost of camera bod, spare & backup (for pro's) around $9G
> cost to upgrade camera set due to redundancy - probably another$9G every 2-3
> years.. although this will probably go down as the consumer cameras eat further
> into the pro market.
>
> other crap needed to make it all work:
> cost of half decent PC with good 2D card (dual Matrox) - probably around $2G+
> cost of fast, large SCSI HDD's - between $1G and $3G
> cost of Photoshop (one legal copy, don't want to get busted for piracy!) $1G
> (ish)
> cost of upgrades to PS (probably $1G per 2-3 years)
> cost to maintain Photoshop license as per adobe's newly proposed 'pay as you
> use' licensing system - god knows $$?
> cost of decent UPS $500 - $1G (I'm running a 4.5kW)
> cost of printer - between $300 - $6G depending on output
> cost of X'S Drive (30G) - $300
> cost of decent 35mm scanner $1G
> cost of decent MF scanner $4G
> cost of decent LF scanner - up to $30G
> oops! Scrap the last two. No-one shoots those old formats anymore..
>
> Consumables:
> cost of batteries ?? - proprietry cost a lot more than prosumer model camera
> AA's
> cost of memory cards ?? whatever..
>
> Output:
> $1 per 8x10 on the inkjet (& ink costs)
> whatever the pegasus/frontier prints cost you.. (basically the same as an
> RA4/Cibachrome)
>
> Labour - cost to pratt around for hours? - hopefully chargeable to customers..
> but that depends on how much longer the 'quick and cheap' digital phenomenon
> supports photographers. In time consumers will come to realise that the
> manufacturer driven camera range so eagerly adopted by PJ' and their ilk can be
> bought just as easiy by them (the consumer) as by photographers, and with the
> benefit of being able to edit, delete and reshoot on the hop - the skills of a
> photographer to get the shot right may be bypassed altogether.. :-(
>
> Vs.  reliable mechanical manual cameras, film costs + D&P
>
> hmmmm.
>
> Christ, I really hope digital is a fad!
>
> Ok, ok.. I rant again! In amoung all the film cameras I have, there is a
> digital to allow me to 'snap and send' via email or for ebay.
>
> convenient? yes, digital is that.
> k




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format "backend" -- can't get there from here?
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 

"Rafe B." rafe.bustin@verizon.net wrote:
> >
> >But that's a question of how much you enlarge. At 5x7, 6MP digital has
> >plenty of resolution, and 8x10, you'd like more.
>
> At 8x10, it's still every bit as good as scanned film, at least
> on my printer (Canon 9000). You're still getting around 300
> dpi, which is quite enough for any digital print technology
> that I know of (inkjet, LightJet, Frontier, etc.)

Huh? 6MP digital is 250 dpi at 8x10, and I find digital looks noticeably
better at well over 300 dpi than at 250 dpi on every inkjet I've ever tried
it on.

If you've got panorama stitching set up, set up your 6MP digital on a tripod
_vertically_, take three shots panoramically, and stitch them to make a 3000
x {whatever} image. Print at 375 dpi (or 360 dpi if you've got A4) and see
if you can see a difference. I think you'll be surprised. (Take the same
shot zoomed out to compare.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format "backend" -- can't get there from here?
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 


"Stuart B."  wrote:
>
> I know it won't be a like comparison. But at the money I'm willing to
> spend, that really is the comparison. If you had suffered through my
> entire long winded post, you would see that this thought experiment is
> specific to me and my situation.

Here's the answer {g}:

The reaction of people I showed my 2450-scanned 645 prints compared to my
Sony F707 prints (all A4) was uniformly that the the 2450/645 prints were
real photographs and the F707 prints were not.

> For others, I recommend less expensive hobbies or a greater
> willingness to spend more on your hobbies. The inbetween spot of
> having expensive tastes in hobbies but being too cheap to pursue them
> whole heartedly is a killer. ;-)

The way I got back into MF was with a Fuji GS645S and an Epson 2450. The
amount of money invovled wasn't that gross, under US$1,000. And the results
were a lot better than digital.

It appears to me that 645 + 3200 should be roughly equivalent to 35mm + best
scanning.But it has the advantage that you can get your film scanned and/or
printed professionally to far better quality. If you want better than that
on the 3200, 6x7 or 6x9 will edge out 35mm.

The problem with MF is that it is a lot less convenient than 35mm, and you
have to accept that as being the cost of the bigger frame. It's physics,
mother nature, and you can't get around it.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format "backend" -- can't get there from here?
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 

"Stacey" fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
> Have you used a 3ccd digital camera? I've used single chip and 3 chip video
> cameras and the 3 chip camera with 1/2 the "megapixels" make 3 times better
> video. All sorts of weirdness disappear when you get away from a single
> chip. I can't see why a still camera would be any different but I could be
> wrong.

Video's a different game: it's only half the nominal resolution, since it's
alternating fields. At that low resolution, there's improvement to be had by
going to 3 ccds. Also, color infelicities that shifted position from field
to field should drive you nuts. (Although I'd think that downsampling a
high-res one CCD Bayer captured image would do just fine.)

Color rendition in digital cameras isn't perfect*, but it's not Bayer that's
the problem, it's the individual
color filters. (I wonder if Sony's new RGBE (E = emerald, a narrower band
than cyan) sensor will be interesting. Fuji claims to be doing 4-layer
things with their latest films (fixing reds in slide films and being less
problematic with odd light sources in negative films).)

* Many color films are a mess too, but people make features out of the
problems, using dizzy films in places where the dizziness can be called art.
(In case anyone didn't get it that was a cheap shot at landscape types
liking Velvia.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





From Kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 
From: Robert Svensson term@chl.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: Excellent Article on digital vs film ..

That article was really good. Especially on the technical side. I also use
digital, but since you find me here on the Kiev list You all understand that I
am NOT accepting digi as the ultimate universal imaging system. No, I agree
with with Libby that filmis still absolutely the best medium. Especially I
have noticed the limited grey scale range as she says in the article. If
trying to make B&W from digi I really see the deficiencies of digi (3MPix).
I agree that using film as the basic archive medium is excellent and just scan
what you need. If a hi-Q copy is needed then just make it chemicaly!
However, as I mentioned, I use digi also. For technical use as for web
publishing and pictures for my college documents like pics of instruments, lab
setups etc. which NEVER will end up in Times Magazine or National Geographics
the digi system is excellent!! The time it takes to shoot i.e. an electric
motor and then smash it into the document takes 6--8 minutes totaly.
I also take "party pics" with digi. Fast on the Web and in most cases I do not
wanna make hi-Q copies from them.

I have also tried the printing service the mail order photo labs offer. Using
an Olympus C3000 set to give a 750kB .JPG (medium quality) pic I ordered a
10x12 in. print. Just a normal color print of a friend with his cat sitting on
his shoulder shot in good light outdoors. You can see all the structures in
the cat´s eyes and virtually every strand of the whiskers of my friend and the
cat! If I should see the pic without knowing the source I would say it was
shot with a mid-range 35mm camera. Note! The print is NOT inkjet or laser! A
kind of machine which "writes with light" on real photo paper.
The conclusion is that there is room for a digi as well as for hi-Q film
equipment as the Kiev systems or top class 35mm.

Citeren mank_s mank_s@yahoo.com
> http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html
>
> Dante's web site has many other good articles.
> -Mandar





From bronica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 
From: "Ted Browne" photo@thefinancedepartment.com
Subject: Re: Digital Backs

"Which is the resolution in pixels ?"

One caution: Be careful on "mega pixel" and the equation that non-techies or
sales reps place on chip resolution. There is a HUGE difference in the
quality and type (CMOS vs. CCD) of the chip and the resulting image. There
is also a huge difference in the software that creates the images. Dynamic
range, size of each pixel, and signal-to-noise ratios are extremely
revealing when researching these backs versus both each other and the Digi
SLR equivalents. So is software workflow and image rendering. Think of the
chip as the film negative, and the software as the lab processing the negs.
Both are important in the end product, right?

Pixels only refer to the *number* of the pixels on the chip, *not* the size
or sensitivity of each pixel. These two factors have more to do with why
medium format digital backs outperform the 35mm-equivalent in overall image
quality. As an example, the Phillips and Kodak chips most digi back
manufacturers use have a pixel size of either 9 or 12 microns per pixel, and
a very high signal-to-noise ratio. This means that the chips are larger for
the same number of pixels, and give better dynamic range than the chips used
by the digi SLR mfgs, which typically use chips of lower quality and smaller
pixel sizes (3 to 6 microns). As an example, a 3x2 (6 MP) Phillips chip is
about the size of a 35 mm neg; the same number of mega pixels on a typical
pro digi SLR is about the size of a dime and of lower quality - in film
terms, think 35 mm vs. 110 mm.

Without getting to technical, this results in the smaller sized chips being
less responsive to light, and results in a poorer image quality, even though
the pixel count and "digital film grain" is equal. More recent MF chipped
backs are even larger and some are even as big as the 4x5 frame in the MF
film back.

MegaVision, like the other digi back manufacturers (Phase One, Kodak,
Jenoptic, Leaf, etc.), have several different models, all the way up to
those using a 24 mega pixel chip. Each manufacturer seems to claim
different niches. IMO, however, bigger is not necessarily better. The
larger chipped models are actually overkill, unless you routinely blow up
shots to more than 40" x 50".

In my case, I like the MV S3 Pro at 6 mega pixels because it's very flexible
and gives very compelling images. It takes more than 1 shot per second at
it's highest possible resolution (that's not a "burst rate", that's the time
it takes for each picture to be cycled), is ISO hardware switchable
on-the-fly from shot-to-shot (100, 200, 400 ISO), and shoots as fast as the
lens speed/DOF for each camera allows. And the MV software offers better
control and color rendering than any of the other packages I've seen. That
said, ANY of the digi backs offer superior images - IMO, about the quality
of 2x2 film (older backs) or better (newer models).

Call me off-list if you want the more technical discussions. I've been
involved in both using and financing digital imaging for 7 years and own
both MF digital systems and 35mm digi Pro SLR cameras (there are some
awesome deals to be had on E-Bay if you want to buy used). Each has their
place, but for overall image quality, MF digi backs give you the best images
with the highest degree of end use utility.

Ted Browne
digital photo hack and number cruncher extraordinaire





Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 
From: Tom Wightman wightman@bmts.com
Subject: Re: Waist level sunshade/ magnifier 
John 
I had the same trouble with a Canon digital camera. Before finding out 
that there were commercial devices designed to help with the problem, I 
started experimenting with shades and tubes, made from construction paper, 
to try and come up with something that would alleviate the problem. I 
found that a simple "bellows like" device didn't really help, as all I got 
was a reflection of my face in the LCD screen, which was acting as a 
mirror. If I tried to put my face close enough to the end of the "bellows" 
to cut out the reflection, I was too close to focus on the screen - unless, 
of course, I made the "bellows" about 10" long! So I came up with a design 
using a cheap ($1.50) plastic jewellers loupe, a small "bellows" (box) made 
from 1/32" plywood, a small piece of felt to protect the back of the 
camera, and an elastic shoe lace to attach it to the camera. As you can 
imagine, the total cost as pretty minimal. Looks a bit strange, but I 
think no more so than the commercial doo dads, and works very well. Of 
course it's not "waist level"; it's used at eye level. 
Regards 
Tom W. 
 John Odom wrote: 
>I just got a Nikon Cookpix 4500 and fins the LCD hard to see except in 
>a dark room! 
> 
>I would like to find a colapseable hood/sunshade with magnifier from 
>some old waist level SLR finder. The Nikon has a 1.5" LCD. I fi Can't 
>use the hood It will help in desigining one to make. 






End of Page