Searching \ for '[OT]: Poptronics no more :-(' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=
Search entire site for: 'Poptronics no more :-('.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Poptronics no more :-('
2003\02\27@041237 by Alex Holden

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 04:51, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> The only other missing piece is battery life, and I bet you could get 4-6
> hours of life out of many current laptops if the power-consumption was
> re-optimized for eBook style usage patterns...  Now that CPU GHz advances
> have slowed down due to lack of people buying, I expect battery life to
> catch up within 5 years (probably using fuel cell technology.)

This is an interesting portable generator technology:
http://tinyurl.com/6j4l

I changed the topic to OT BTW.

--
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.linuxhacker.org ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@051217 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Changed to OT:



> Wow, you are rambling...

Why thank you, you don't ramble so badly yourself :-)

> Thus, a  5 Mpix camera will actually rival a 35mm film.  Only in the hands
of a
> really pro photographer and a very good lab, in conjunction with a good
> negative-film to begin with, does the 35mm still hold some advantages.

Alas, I think not. I've recently been examining in minute detail test images
produced by the current top "prosumer" 5 MP cameras. (Nikon 5700, Minolt
Diamge 7HI, Fuji S602, Sony F717 and a few others with a view to buying
one.. I'm disappointed in the results compared to my expectations of 35mm
film technology.
Which probably says that the 5 MP cameras are ALMOST there.

> If you have a 100x150mm card made out of a 35mm negative, you won't have
> more than 300 dpi across that card.

OK. Lets see what megapixels that is equal to

   100 x 150 x 300^2 x (1/25.4)^2 = 2 MP

I think not! :-)
I consider that even a glance at the result from a 2MP camera printed (or
otherwise viewed) at 150mm x 100mm size would tell most viewers that it had
been taken with something inferior to a good 35mm film camera.
But maybe you don't see it that way?

As an uncontrolled test with sample size of one I just went to my loose
photo drawer and took the first good looking 6" x 4" picture that came to
hand. This was a colour portrait taken about 20 years ago on (probably) a
Minolta SRT303b, film unknown but nothing flash and printed by a typical
photolab of the day. I scanned this at 600 dpi  on an HPG85 to give 8.6
effective MP. This gave a  TIF of 16 MB and a JPG of 490k converting with
Irfanview. Viewing the jpg I am impressed - if ANY of the 5 MP cameras that
I have been looking at gave an effective resolution anywhere near as good as
this it would go instantly to the top of my list. None does.

But maybe you see things differently :-)



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@060329 by Kyrre Aalerud

flavicon
face
Only think I can think of that will give you such bad results is poor light.

If you have a chance, go see/test/play with the EOS 1DS and you will be in
love.
In fact, why not try the Canon D60 too ?  It's only 5-6 M but it's SLR and a
nice one at that...

   KreAture

{Original Message removed}

2003\02\27@061725 by Jinx

face picon face
> produced by the current top "prosumer" 5 MP cameras. (Nikon 5700,
> Minolt Diamge 7HI, Fuji S602,

The Fuji in the list above is one my neighbour has just bought. It's
not a 5MP - it's 3.1MP. "There's a quantum leap in image quality
between 3MP and 5MP (and a leap in price!)" - his words

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@062146 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Only think I can think of that will give you such bad results is poor
light.

The "test images" that I mentioned were just that. These are the best shots
obtainable by top professional testers who regularly review cameras of all
types and publish the results on the net. Their level of expertise is
evident from their reports. eg
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html and others.

> If you have a chance, go see/test/play with the EOS 1DS and you will be in
> love. In fact, why not try the Canon D60 too ?  It's only 5-6 M but it's
SLR and a
> nice one at that...

Nice devices and I'm sure I would absolutely adore them but above the spec I
want or can justfy for my purposes. They are aiming at feeling like 35mm
SLRs to professional photographers and I don't need this capability. Just
raw horsepower :-) - here = MP and a quality lense. I'm targetting so called
"prosumer"rather than full professional.



       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@064223 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > produced by the current top "prosumer" 5 MP cameras. (Nikon 5700,
> > Minolt Diamge 7HI, Fuji S602,
>
> The Fuji in the list above is one my neighbour has just bought. It's
> not a 5MP - it's 3.1MP. "There's a quantum leap in image quality
> between 3MP and 5MP (and a leap in price!)" - his words

The S602 is a very special case. It indeed has Fuji's "super sensor" but
they do some clever image processing and interpolate between sets of 4
adjacent sensor elements (which are arranged diagonally) and CLAIM to get
6MP equivalent performance and output a suitably sized file accordingly.
There was a great hullabaloo when they first started doing this as it
certainly seems to be cheating but now there has been time to assess. the
results it is generally now accepted that the results are well up towards
what they claim. Opinions will continue to differ on this.

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@072513 by Jinx

face picon face
> > the results it is generally now accepted that the results are well up
> > towards what they claim. Opinions will continue to differ on this.
>
> IMHO the result is NOT equivalent to a 6MP camera image (assuming
> good lenses on both cameras). In fact I have seen images from some
> 2.1MP cameras which rival that of the S602. The S602 is capable of
> generating large files (17MB uncompressed TIFF file) which are 6MP
> images (?) but they arrive at that by interpolating from 3.1MP effective
> pixels. There ARE some advantages to their system but it is not = 6MP.
>
> In practice the images suffer from noise in at least one of 3 channels
> and users have reported occasional spectral highlights/artifacts from
> the CCD. Check...
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis602z/
>
> Paul Green

My neighbour, (professional graphic artist)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@120928 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> With the Canon EOS 1ds this debate is dead.  It has 11 Mpix and is a SLR
> camera.  Only problem now is price, and that will be solved in time.  The
> more they sell, the cheaper :-)

       The only problems I still see with digital cameras (and I own one, haven't
used my SLR in years) is dynamic range and long exposure noise. The dynamic
range of film is still better than most digital cameras out there, and if
you've ever tried to take more than a 60 second exposure with a digital
camera you'll know what I mean by noise. Of course the thousands of benefits
of digital photography outweigh these two minor things so much I haven't
bought a role of film for over two years, still they bug me. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@121811 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> This has to do with experience of the man behind the camera, not the
> film/camera...

       Not really. I consider myself an "average" photographer, yet since going
digital the sheer NUMBER of photographs I take has increased tenfold. I used
to take maybe 24 pictures during a short trip, now I take nearly 200. Why?
Cost, I have a 340MB microdrive so 200 pictures is nothing. When I get time
I weed out the bad ones and am left with what I consider the good ones. Are
they all as "good" as the pictures I would have taken with my SLR? No, of
course not, but who cares, it's just space on a CDR, costs cents. Digital
photography has released people to do what they like: take pictures. I for
one will NEVER go back to film. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@122018 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

       You know this whole debate is starting to sound like a "tube amp" vs.
"solid state amp", or "vinyl" vs. "CD" argument, lots of deja vu going on
here. Suffice it to say: of course film will continue to exist, but mostly
everyone will be using digital most of the time. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@123323 by Ian McLean

flavicon
face
I realise this is a vinyl vs. CD type of argument, but I love photogtaphy
and just can't help putting my two cents worth in ;)

I agree that the quality of camera shots has more to do with the man behind
the camera - shot placement, framing, timing, and getting the right
exposure.

But I also remember a good adage provided on this list just recently.  With
optics, never go cheap unless you have to.

I am not convinced about digital's yet, although I would like to see the
quality of Canon EOS1ds shots.  I always liked the Canon EOS1n SLR - a
trully professional camera, and takes fantastic pictures.  Big money though.
I paid more than A$8000 for mine with just one professional quality lens !

The main problem is lens interchangeability.  I like to use a macro 100mm,
and a large telescopic lens in addition to a fast (1.2-2.8) normal lens.  I
also like the superfast, super quite ultrasonic zoom lenses provided by
Canon.  The SLR versions of digital cameras are still way too expensive, and
the quality of digital pic's just does not come close to good films such as
Kodak Ektachrome.

{Original Message removed}

2003\02\27@160855 by michael brown

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <.....mailinglistKILLspamspam@spam@FARCITE.NET>


{Quote hidden}

that
> > will likely never be done with digital cameras.  This aside from the
> > fact that film and print paper have an entirely different contrast
level
> > than does the digital method.  I can't imagine that film will ever
fully
> > disappear.  I can imagine a cheap, self-contained (perhaps even pic
> > controlled) film developer and print processor.  ;-)
> >
> > When it comes to the arts, newer technology is not necessarily
better.
> > IMO, double exposure just ain't the same as alpha blending.  ;-)
>
>         You know this whole debate is starting to sound like a "tube
amp" vs.
> "solid state amp", or "vinyl" vs. "CD" argument, lots of deja vu going
on
> here. Suffice it to say: of course film will continue to exist, but
mostly
> everyone will be using digital most of the time. TTYL

That's the difference between a casual user and an aficionado.  ;-)

michael brown (sticking with film for my important stuff  ;-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@172458 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   I also like the superfast, super quite ultrasonic zoom lenses
   provided by Canon.

Oh.  You're one of THOSE.  WE don't take anyone seriously who uses
autofocus lenses, yet still claims to be a "serious" photographer.
 :-)  :-)  :-)


   The SLR versions of digital cameras are still way too expensive,

Well of course.  They have (nearly) all the complexity of a film-based
SLR, plus a significant amount of expensive electronics.

Personally, I pretty much gave up my "serious" SLR in favor of a
Point-and-shoot when I had kids, but the impermanance of digital media
pretty much terrifies me.  I have negatives and prints from 35+ years ago
that are still usable, even if they are in rather obsolete fromats (not to
mention my father's slide collection.)  Meanwhile, in less than 25 years as
a "computer professsional", I've amassed quite a collection of digital
media that is already completely unreadable (or readable only at great
expense.)  DECTape.  Half-inch tape.  8-inch floppies.  5.25 inch floppies.
Assorted hard drives.  Sure, an advantage of digital media is that (in
theory) these could all have been copied onto newer media before their
format became obsolete, but that requires ATTENTION.  I suspect if my
grandchildren come across a box of CDs in the attic 50 years from now,
they'll be good for nothing but shiny frisbees (even if the media is
technically undamaged...)

So I'm now taking digital AND film pictures, when I really care...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@173522 by Vern Jones

flavicon
face
How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
permanent format....called film...

Vern

William Chops Westfield wrote:
{Quote hidden}

snip
>
> So I'm now taking digital AND film pictures, when I really care...
>
> BillW
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
> (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@173946 by Neil Bradley

flavicon
face
> How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
> permanent format....called film...

Which yellows, distorts, and disintegrates over time.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley            In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is not
Synthcom Systems, Inc.  king - he's a prisoner.
ICQ #29402898

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@180252 by Vern Jones

flavicon
face
I have some nice 22 surface hard disk media that might be used to store
them, all you have to do is find a disk drive that can write to them.
(DEC RP06) style media...Still have my old trusty copy of UNIX on them
too...just try to copy it...

Vern

Neil Bradley wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@183158 by Jinx

face picon face
> > How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
> > permanent format....called film...
>
> Which yellows, distorts, and disintegrates over time.

Digital needs care too, just one article about preservation

abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/preservation_efforts010710.
html

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@193936 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
   permanent format....called film...

Historically, "film printers" are very expensive.

A standardized format for including digital information on film would be a
useful idea, IMO.  You could store your "uncorruptable" digital image right
alongside your "native" analog image.  If your digital format goes out of
favor, you still have the native image.  If it doesn't, you still have a
version with error-correcting, non-deteriorating BITS...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@210330 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> You know this whole debate is starting to sound like a "tube amp" vs.
> "solid state amp", or "vinyl" vs. "CD" argument, lots of deja vu going on
> here.

There are some such arguments BUT the main issue is quite different. A tube
amp and solid state amp both amplify analogue signals analogously :-). They
differ in ways which can be identified and measured. The argument is over
the significance of the differences. Aspects like slew rate, TID, group
delay, filament hum, shot noise, need for or use of stage by stage and
overall feedback and many many more factors come into play.

In the case of film versus electronic image sensing it is the analogue
versus digital difference. And this difference is a fundamental one.
Analogue with its indefinite resolution which can be extended by suitable
manipulation and skill down into the ever variable noise level versus
digital with its quantised & finite resolution but potential 100% freedom
from errors or change once captured.

Analogue also has larger dynamic range than most manufacturers seem willing
to put into their digital products to date - typically "only" 10 bits on
most 5 MP cameras - 12 bits on the Dimage 7HI - which is not to say that the
sensors necessarily match the A2D range - but they may exceed them.

Even the comment that a 11 MP camera is definitely beyond 35mm film quality
is open to question. (It must be, I'm questioning it :-) ). 11MP is only 2
pixels for one at 5MP (OK 2.2 then) or in lineal measure am extra 48%
resolution. Nice but not the quantum leap needed to remedy with certainty
any resolution defects that 5MP MAY have.

I'm intending to buy a 5MP camera in the next few months but have no
illusions that my best quality photos ever will still have been shot on 35mm
film many years ago.


               Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@223645 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
> permanent format....called film...
>

Or just print them out? That's what you would have had with film anyways.
TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

2003\02\27@230417 by Ian McLean

flavicon
face
Ouch!  I never said I was a professional photographer.  But I am quite
serious.  I usually use manual focus, except for fast action shots, where
the superfast, super quiet autofocus on the ultrasonic lenses is a real
bonus.  I have some super crisp fast actions shots from using these lenses
with Canon's predictive autofocus, which would be very hard to get with
manual focus or with the usual buzz,whirr type of autofocus lenses.  I
always use manual exposure settings.  Best of both worlds ;)  I am not one
of "THOSE" .. I have take shots in Africa which have been published.  I use
a manual Leica I lot of the time as well.

How often have you missed a fast action shot because you werent quick enough
to set your camera manually ???


{Original Message removed}

2003\02\28@070717 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Vern Jones wrote:
>
> How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
> permanent format....called film...


Hmmm, more permanent than digital? I've got a
feeling those 1's and 0's may still contain the
same data in a million years. How many analogue
formats can possibly claim that?
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@070721 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
>     I also like the superfast, super quite ultrasonic zoom lenses
>     provided by Canon.
>
> Oh.  You're one of THOSE.  WE don't take anyone seriously who uses
> autofocus lenses, yet still claims to be a "serious" photographer.
>   :-)  :-)  :-)


Yeah. And anyone who doesn't use a mechanical
typewriter is not a serious writer.
chicka chicka chicka chicka DING! ;o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@102245 by michael brown

picon face
Ian McLean wrote:
> Ouch!  I never said I was a professional photographer.  But I am quite
> serious.  I usually use manual focus, except for fast action shots,
> where the superfast, super quiet autofocus on the ultrasonic lenses
> is a real bonus.  I have some super crisp fast actions shots from
> using these lenses with Canon's predictive autofocus, which would be
> very hard to get with manual focus or with the usual buzz,whirr type
> of autofocus lenses.  I always use manual exposure settings.  Best of
> both worlds ;)  I am not one of "THOSE" .. I have take shots in
> Africa which have been published.  I use a manual Leica I lot of the
> time as well.

Manual focus is fine if you happen to have 20/20 vision.  Otherwise, you
will focus till it looks good to your eye, and that won't look good on
film.  ;-)  I'm a little near-sited, but not enough to really warant
wearing corrective lenses, so I love my USM autofocus.  Corrective
diopters for the eyepiece are helpful, but my eyesite varies thruout the
day, and from day to day.  Plus it takes real skill to get the
auto-focus to lock on to the right thing.  ;-D

> How often have you missed a fast action shot because you werent quick
> enough to set your camera manually ???
>
>
> {Original Message removed}

2003\02\28@141459 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   Manual focus is fine if you happen to have 20/20 vision.  Otherwise, you
   will focus till it looks good to your eye, and that won't look good on
   film.  ;-)  I'm a little near-sited...

Eyepiece optics always prject the image at some particular "equivilent
distance."  If you're nearsighted, it NEVER looks good, but should still
look "best" at the correct focus setting.  Plus the assorted focus aids
whose names I forget, which aren't dependent on your eye's optics at all.

I think.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@143157 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 09:14 AM 2/28/03 -0600, michael brown wrote:

>Manual focus is fine if you happen to have 20/20 vision.  Otherwise, you
>will focus till it looks good to your eye, and that won't look good on
>film.  ;-)

Are we talking digital or film here?  If film, you are correct.  But this
is not the case with the low end Prosumer digital cameras that I've played
with: you are viewing the image after it has been digitized.  Adjust for
the sharpest focus you can get - that's as good as it gets.

Interestingly enough, the eye viewfinder on my camera (Sony Mavica CD-1000)
has a focus adjustment that allows you to compensate for not wearing your
eyeglasses.

dwayne


--
Dwayne Reid   <.....dwaynerKILLspamspam.....planet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax

Celebrating 19 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2003)
 .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-.   .-
    `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'   `-'
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@144823 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Roman Black wrote:

*>Vern Jones wrote:
*>>
*>> How about a novel approach, transfer the digital photos to a more
*>> permanent format....called film...
*>
*>
*>Hmmm, more permanent than digital? I've got a
*>feeling those 1's and 0's may still contain the
*>same data in a million years. How many analogue
*>formats can possibly claim that?

Well, lesse. There are pitchers 6000 years old that contain very usable
data, and require no computing equipment for reading.  Very low tech, and
the figure in years may be on the low side. There are photo negatives 100+
years old (mostly on glass but not only), oil paintings (with anorganic
pigments), mosaics (digital!) and technical drawings 2000+ years old.

There are floppy disks that are unreadable 1 year after printing,
polycarbonate CDs that crack or become opaque by exposure to water or
moisture (!) after some length of time, there are disk packs worth their
weight in scrap aluminium, there are hard drives that fail before warranty
etc. I am not saying that digital storage is worse, it's just different.
For example if you would burn your data with a CO2 laser into a large
granite boulder and cover it with 3-4 feet of clay in a sheltered area I
believe that you could try to match the 6000 years figure (assuming you
put some redundant data in).

In general, if it's on organic support, give it 10-20 years in the average
storage conditions you can provide, then forget it. CD-RWs are very
organic (more so than film).

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@151804 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
Of course you know that this has no effect on a SLR focus since it uses
either a ground glass or a split prism or both, and your eye is looking at
that and not at the subject. When you have best focus on the gruond glass
the subject is also in best focus. Also, you should find and use a proper
diopter compensator for your camera, unless you wear your glasses all the
time. These are available for certain kinds of cameras. Normally it works
like a rubber eyepiece, but it has a compensating lens in it, fixed or
adjustable. This is for cameras that have no diopter compensation built
in.

Peter

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, michael brown wrote:

*>Manual focus is fine if you happen to have 20/20 vision.  Otherwise, you
*>will focus till it looks good to your eye, and that won't look good on
*>film.  ;-)  I'm a little near-sited, but not enough to really warant
*>wearing corrective lenses, so I love my USM autofocus.  Corrective
*>diopters for the eyepiece are helpful, but my eyesite varies thruout the
*>day, and from day to day.  Plus it takes real skill to get the
*>auto-focus to lock on to the right thing.  ;-D

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@162120 by michael brown

picon face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Good points.  I was going to say that fossils probably have the lowest
degradation per year of anything I can think of.  Another point is that
"photographs" created on inkjet printers have the poorest life span of
any photo-imaging technique that I've ever seen.  I have a friend that
has inkjet "photo's" only 3 years old that are deteriorating very
rapidly.

michael brown


"In the land of the blind, he who has one eye is king"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@162750 by michael brown

picon face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
> Of course you know that this has no effect on a SLR focus since it
> uses either a ground glass or a split prism or both, and your eye is
> looking at that and not at the subject. When you have best focus on
> the gruond glass the subject is also in best focus. Also, you should

I really didn't know that, and I've taken allot of pictures using my
SLR.  If that's really true, then I'll do allot more manual focusing.
I've done allot of macro shots and really thought that the slightly out
of focus problems I've had were due to my light nearsightedness.

> find and use a proper diopter compensator for your camera, unless you
> wear your glasses all the time. These are available for certain kinds
> of cameras. Normally it works like a rubber eyepiece, but it has a
> compensating lens in it, fixed or adjustable. This is for cameras
> that have no diopter compensation built in.

Yeah, my camera doesn't have any built in compensation ability, and I've
been leary to pick a fixed diopter because my eyesight changes
regularly.

michael brown

"In the land of the blind, he who has one eye is king"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@164252 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, michael brown wrote:

*>Peter L. Peres wrote:
*>> Of course you know that this has no effect on a SLR focus since it
*>> uses either a ground glass or a split prism or both, and your eye is
*>> looking at that and not at the subject. When you have best focus on
*>> the gruond glass the subject is also in best focus. Also, you should
*>
*>I really didn't know that, and I've taken allot of pictures using my
*>SLR.  If that's really true, then I'll do allot more manual focusing.
*>I've done allot of macro shots and really thought that the slightly out
*>of focus problems I've had were due to my light nearsightedness.

Macro shooting is a chapter by itself. I always used distance rings
(tubes) for this, not the macro setting on the lens. Also the depth of
field tends to be very shallow unless you use lots of light, which you can
only get using a macro lighting unit or a circular flash (fits around the
lens). With 1:1 mag you need f/8 or more closed to even begin to think of
shooting without a solid stand with remote trigger imho. The only way to
check if the focus is as good as it can be is to have blurring in both
directions away from the optimal position. If you have it only one way you
are probably out of focus all the time. This is where the distance rings
help (you pick those that put the focus ring in a middle position for your
subject distance).

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2003\02\28@233411 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> My advise is to leave the gimmicky red eye reduction alone.  It works by
> attempting to reduce the size of your pupil before the real flash.
>
> The only way to remove red eye completely is to have the flash off to the
> side of the camera.  Normal flash - no catatonic seizures.

       One way I've had good success with is aiming the flash at the ceiling
(assuming a white ceiling of course). If done right the picture looks like
it was shot under natural light. Obviously you have to adjust for the
reduced flash intensity, both because of the diffusion and because of the
extra distance. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


'[OT]: Poptronics no more :-('
2003\03\01@034413 by Peter L. Peres
picon face
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Russell McMahon wrote:

*>> blinding (not on that lens).  Canon also had a model of 8mm video camera
*>> with eye tracking of the metering 'hotspot' area and a few effects
*>> switched with the eye (blink on blink off). It was a nice trick.
*>
*>Minolta Dimage 7xx turns on viewfinder and LCD panel off when you put your
*>eye to the viewfinder.

That's not what I meant. There are several models of camcorders that do
that. They also turn off the vf completely if no-one is looking to save
power (ir reflective diode+led). The item I described has proper eye
tracking, or gaze tracking. A little rectangle follows your gaze on the vf
screen. It has a training setting where it 'learns' about your eye if it's
too uneven. If you look at the text in the corner of the vf that says
'backlight' f.ex. and blink it turns on backlight.  Meanwhile af and
metering function for whatever you're looking at (the metering area is in
the box that follows your gaze).

Imagine your subject is someone walking towards you into a
columns-and-pergola type of entrance. Outside: sunset inside: artificial
lights. You want a long shot to cover this entry (say, wedding ?). The
subject passes from very bright backlight to interior lights and you
really really want the faces to be shot well. Whith this eye-control thing
you can do that, given some practice. Not that it was a pro camera.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\01@043718 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Herbert Graf wrote:

*>> My advise is to leave the gimmicky red eye reduction alone.  It works by
*>> attempting to reduce the size of your pupil before the real flash.
*>>
*>> The only way to remove red eye completely is to have the flash off to the
*>> side of the camera.  Normal flash - no catatonic seizures.
*>
*>        One way I've had good success with is aiming the flash at the ceiling
*>(assuming a white ceiling of course). If done right the picture looks like
*>it was shot under natural light. Obviously you have to adjust for the
*>reduced flash intensity, both because of the diffusion and because of the
*>extra distance. TTYL

You also need a slaved fill flash from below also diffuse, or else the
subject will have no detail under the nose, eyebrows, etc.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\01@094723 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
On the subject of magazines, the Aussie mag
Silicon Chip still seem to be coming up with the
goods. I particularly enjoyed the "serviceman"
column this month with the "big bang theory" and
the "all blecks". <grin>

Many of the other magazines do seem to be losing
it, I suppose it IS much easier to scour the 'net
for a quick easy article these days than to design,
build and publish a project from scratch. I hope
SC keep up the projects, and I wish them the best
of luck. I've even noticed John C. publishing a
few pic-based projects recently. :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\01@100013 by Ian McLean

flavicon
face
Hi Roman.  The list is alive !  Jeez it's been quiet.  Yours is the first
post in 5 hours. I thought the server might be down.

Rgs
Ian

{Original Message removed}

2003\03\01@103156 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 01:30 AM 3/2/2003 +1100, you wrote:
>On the subject of magazines, the Aussie mag
>Silicon Chip still seem to be coming up with the
>goods. I particularly enjoyed the "serviceman"
>column this month with the "big bang theory" and
>the "all blecks". <grin>

Too bad they don't offer an overseas surface mail for those of us who
might have some interest, but not AUD125 worth.

Some of the descriptions require translation into English:

"..install it in a 6-pack Esky and to keep your tinnies cool"

(a Peltier beer cooler?)

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
KILLspamspeffKILLspamspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\01@112425 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> *>> My advise is to leave the gimmicky red eye reduction alone.
> It works by
> *>> attempting to reduce the size of your pupil before the real flash.
> *>>
> *>> The only way to remove red eye completely is to have the
> flash off to the
> *>> side of the camera.  Normal flash - no catatonic seizures.
> *>
> *>        One way I've had good success with is aiming the flash
> at the ceiling
> *>(assuming a white ceiling of course). If done right the picture
> looks like
> *>it was shot under natural light. Obviously you have to adjust for the
> *>reduced flash intensity, both because of the diffusion and
> because of the
> *>extra distance. TTYL
>
> You also need a slaved fill flash from below also diffuse, or else the
> subject will have no detail under the nose, eyebrows, etc.

       True, usually instead of that I just use enough "other" light to fill in
properly. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\01@165906 by Dave King

flavicon
face
>*>        One way I've had good success with is aiming the flash at the
>ceiling
>*>(assuming a white ceiling of course). If done right the picture looks like
>*>it was shot under natural light. Obviously you have to adjust for the
>*>reduced flash intensity, both because of the diffusion and because of the
>*>extra distance. TTYL
>
>You also need a slaved fill flash from below also diffuse, or else the
>subject will have no detail under the nose, eyebrows, etc.
>
>Peter

You can also cheat take a rubber band and a few pieces of tissue and band them
loosely over the flash so they diffuse the light and you don't get the
bride of Frankenstein look.

Dave

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email TakeThisOuTlistservEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\01@200112 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   [Red-eye reduction post processing] Most photo processing places
   can do the same thing for film based photographs as well.

Um.  Not unless they go digital in between the negative and the print.
Which they might, although most of the processing machines look like
standard optical setups to me.

Of course, my favorite photographic innovation recently is those "make your
own print setups", where you scan in your negative, print, or "digital
film", crop and adjust to suit, and print out on high-quality photoprinter
in your choice of sizes.  Truth be told, the major advantages of "serious
darkroom work" that I used to to was mostly the ability to crop...

[I'll try again to move this to [OT].  It's BEEN done, and there are now
about two threads going on, because it seems that half the people
participating here aren't READING the [OT] messages.  If you're going to
POST OT, you ought to READ OT.  IMNSHO.]

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2003\03\03@044520 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>How about a 2048x2048 visualizer that can be duct taped to
>your eyeglasses frame, and is about the size and weight of
>a cigarillo, and runs on 100mW ?

Ahh, built in head warmer as well :)))

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2003 , 2004 only
- Today
- New search...