digital photography, again
kingsnake
- Please followup to news:rec.photo.misc or news:rec.photo.digital -
Photography is, literally, "writing with light" .
It does not matter what the medium.
Still photography is still photography, despite the video market. :-)
Granted, digital still has a long way to go before it can match the
value (that is, image quality and camera features / vs. / price to the
consumer) , but it IS coming along in leaps and bounds. I give it
another 20 years, at least, however, before it rivals film.
Does that answer your question?
--
CFGR wrote:
>
> >Okay, I'll try again.
> >In what sense is digital photography still photography?
> >In what sense are the things being done with dp at this point any
> >different from older techniques of fiddling with photographys -- apart
> >from that fact that you can do it faster and perhaps cleaner?
> >How come that the main thing the new technology seems to bring forth in
> >abundance is visual jokes, some of them incredibly infantile?
> >Isn't the interest in dp predicated on an understanding of photography as
> >naive realism that has been obsolete for the longest time?
> Great! A new thread...
>
> Heeeeeeeeeeeeere we go:
> About your first question: what do you mean by still photography?
> Or should i read: still seen as photography..? :)
>
> ..in the way pictures are generated. In the 'ol days 'photography'
> was a kind of weird science where the 'phographer' at least must have
> a chemical degree to mix all the ingriedients....
>
> There is NO difference what so ever between 'shooting' a scene with
> a classic mechanical/optical camera or a optical/digital camera.
>
> It is only a lot faster as you stated yourself. :)
>
> About the infantile jokes: that's life!
>
> 'Not at all' is my personal view on your last question;
> Classic film based photography will last forever, as being
> still the favorite 'tool' for the 'real artist' producing
> Art on large surface prints.
>
> At this very moment a print from a performant digital source and
> reproduced on state-of-the-art printers at say a square meter
> format is still less impressive versus the same 'large' print on
> classic paperbased barite and far more costly!
>
> The moment the price tag will be the same and or the optical
> clarity and tonal range will be close to chemical processed
> film/paper 99,9% of all 'photographers' will switch over to
> digital, mostly due to the ease of working and the unlimited
> ways of processing, retouching, enhancing or manipulating
> the product 'picture'.
>
> c'mon folks...get down to it....reactions please!
--
-John S. Bond <kingsnake> WA6FRN/6
kingsnake photography; a division of Gyro Gearloose Productions
http://www.humboldt1.com/~gyrgrls/
ICQ uin:4604100
JGVP
Twenty years ? Good lord man when you consider that the computers we are using
to read these newsgroups didn't even exist twenty years ago and the distance
they have travelled in the intervening years, to say nothing of the
miniaturization and the acceleration of the microchips, tremendous advances can
be accomplished now in the span of twenty years. Why in twenty years they'll
have a digital recording device that will register everything you saw while you
had your eyes open during the day, and you'll be able to play it back at your
leisure and retain segments on the index that you wish to keep for posterity. It
will be no larger than a contact lense ( or lenses if you wish everything to be
in 3D,) and will be similarly worn not carried. Rival film, you say, teenagers
in 2018 will be asking what was "film", and will hold their sides unable to
contain their laughter when given the explanation. Twenty years, indeed. <s>
kingsnake
I said twenty years.
Digital Photography
Forget about those Anselm Adams dreamers. Digital Photography will be standard
in five years.
kingsnake
Digital Photography wrote:
>
> Forget about those Anselm Adams dreamers. Digital Photography will be standard
> in five years.
NO WAY.
Karl Meyer
In rec.photo.digital Digital Photography <rp1...@mail.online-club.de> wrote:
: Forget about those Anselm Adams dreamers. Digital Photography will be standard
: in five years.
I believe that ought to be Ansel Adams and you might be suprised to know
he wasn't against digital imagery. He basically left his negatives to the
University of Arizona with the understanding that the more advanced
students would have access to them. He talked about digital manipulation
of them in a tape I have of his life. I suspect it will be some time
before there is a digital camera able to capture the resolution and tonal
range he did with his conventional photographic methods.
Daniel Pead
In article <3505DCD3...@cgocable.net>, JGVP <jg...@cgocable.net>
writes
> Why in twenty years they'll
>have a digital recording device that will register everything you saw
>while you
>had your eyes open during the day, and you'll be able to play it back
>at your
>leisure and retain segments on the index that you wish to keep for
>posterity.
Well, just be very careful when you stick the jack plug for the serial
lead up your nose, and hope the batteries don't leak...
I'm uneasy when I hear such confident predictions for the future. OK -
if you've got 10 grand to spare you can now go out and buy those flat
screen hang-on-the-wall-like-a-picture TVs that they've been promising
us "real soon now" since the 70s, but we're still waiting for the
household robots and private atomic-powered helicopters promised in the
'50s.
However - the "chip density doubles every 18 months" prediction seems to
be one of the more reliable prophecies (look at the digicams you could
get for >1000 2 years ago), and image sensors with 35mm-equivalent or
better resolution in the shops for XMAS 2001 sounds feasible. Just
don't expect to take your Olympus D9000L on that PanAm flight to Tycho
crater - you'd never get it to focus on that featureless black slab!
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
Oleg Volk
Actually, for stationary objects, digital oofers a quaint sort of zone
system: bracket and then composite shadows from the light image with
highlights from the dark one...instant "extended range recording".
As for resolution...ought to be there soon enough.
Eugene A. Pallat
kingsnake <king...@dm.net> wrote in article <35065710...@dm.net>...
> Digital Photography wrote:
> >
> > Forget about those Anselm Adams dreamers. Digital Photography will be
standard
> > in five years.
>
When the pixel size is comparable to film grain size, the exposure time is
comparable to that of film, and is able to record the dynamic range of
film, then maybe.
Remove the '-glop-' for sending email to me.
Gene eapa...@orion-glop-data.com
Orion Data Systems
Solicitations to me must be pre-approved in writing
by me after soliciitor pays $1,000 US per incident.
Solicitations sent to me are proof you accept this
notice and will send a certified check forthwith.
Donald Farra
True, it is just a matter of time.
Since I am sure the resolution is already here, or at least in the black
military technology arena. The storage issue is also just on the edge, notice
the DVD storage capacity and the read write CD ROM technology, in time they
will provide the path to the idea digital photography storage medium. Maybe a
disk drive that fits in your front pocket or part of the camera itself.
Combine this with image enhancing software like that currently being used by
the government and it doesn't take a JPL rocket scientist to see the future of
digital photography.
It is driven by the market, if the consumer goes for digital cameras, the
manufacturers will continue to invest in the technology and improve the
product line over time, much like they are doing with personal computers.
Given that digital photography can directly tie into the personal computer
makes it even more appealling to the consumer.
Just look how far the home PC technology and cost of the product, has gone in
the last ten years and project that same level of advancement for the Digital
camera and where do you see digital cameras ten years from now?
Don
=========
Digital Photography
Have you ever seen the original file of an (actual) medium format camera? In
3-5 years, this quality will be standard for "35mm" digitals too.
Michael
Karl Meyer wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.digital Digital Photography <rp1...@mail.online-club.de> wrote:
> : Forget about those Anselm Adams dreamers. Digital Photography will be standard
> : in five years.
>
George Carlson
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:30:26 GMT, Oleg Volk <ol...@ddb.com> wrote:
>Actually, for stationary objects, digital oofers a quaint sort of zone
>system: bracket and then composite shadows from the light image with
>highlights from the dark one...instant "extended range recording".
>
>As for resolution...ought to be there soon enough.
>
One of the problems we have with digital imagery is that digital
storage formats do not allow for the extended tonal range we see in
silver based photography, especially B&W. Eight bits of data would
allow for about 8 zones, where actual film is able to record about 12
zones. The linear recording area of digital methods are probably
better than film, but digital methods do not allow for the Toe and
Shoulder that we see in silver based images. In the Toe and Shoulder
the curve flattens out, but real information does exist. This is what
gives a good B&W print the subtleties in both the shadows and
highlight areas. When we try this with digital methods, we tend to
get noise or a lack of detail. This is not do to a lack of
resolution, it is due to a lack of dynamic range.
George Carlson KC5RCC
Geotek Design Services
ke...@rjfm2.demon.co.uk
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:37:40 -0500, JGVP <jg...@cgocable.net> wrote:
>leisure and retain segments on the index that you wish to keep for posterity. It
>will be no larger than a contact lense ( or lenses if you wish everything to be
>in 3D,) and will be similarly worn not carried. Rival film, you say, teenagers
>in 2018 will be asking what was "film", and will hold their sides unable to
>contain their laughter when given the explanation. Twenty years, indeed. <s>
Of course if a dinokiller hits us or the ecosystem fails...then there
will be nobody to laugh...
Rob.
Hassel Weems
This is not meant to be argumentative, just a question.
If you took a digital image in 24bit color, then instead of converting it
to an 8-bit greyscale you desaturated it, actually leaving it a 24 bit
image. Wouldn't you retain the same detail as the original color shot?
Doug Burgess
Any shade of correctly scanned gray with have the same Red Green and
Blue values. There are 256 possible values for each I believe.
So, if each have the same value, how many shades of gray are there?
Bruce Lucas
Hassel Weems <has...@gabiz.com> wrote:
>This is not meant to be argumentative, just a question.
>
>If you took a digital image in 24bit color, then instead of converting it
>to an 8-bit greyscale you desaturated it, actually leaving it a 24 bit
>image. Wouldn't you retain the same detail as the original color shot?
By "detail" you of course mean tonal detail, not the more usual
meaning spatial detail (just in case anyone might misunderstand). By
this technique you could I suppose get about an extra two to three
bits per pixel of gray scale: between the gray value (r,g,b) and
(r+1,g+1,b+1) you would have various combinations producing
intermediate brightness values: (r,g,b+1), (r,g+1,b+1), etc. Since
IIRC the brightness or the g, r, b primaries are in a very rough
approximation to a 4:2:1 ratio, you would get eight rather unevenly
spaced brightness steps between (r,g,b) and (r+1,g+1,b+1). Each of
these brightness steps would of course be a very slightly different
color, but with a little dithering (often present naturally) and given
the eye's lower spatial color resolution, this might not be too
noticable. Interesting idea!
Bruce Lucas
Anthony
With 24-bit color, there are 256 shades of gray.
--
Anthony
Doug Burgess wrote in message <350A83C5...@home.com>...
>Any shade of correctly scanned gray with have the same Red Green and
>Blue values. There are 256 possible values for each I believe.
>
>So, if each have the same value, how many shades of gray are there?
>
>
>Hassel Weems wrote:
>>
>> This is not meant to be argumentative, just a question.
>>
>> If you took a digital image in 24bit color, then instead of converting it
>> to an 8-bit greyscale you desaturated it, actually leaving it a 24 bit
>> image. Wouldn't you retain the same detail as the original color shot?
>>
Anthony
If you completely desaturate an image, the RGB levels of each pixel are the
same; that is, if the green level is 15, so are the red and blue levels.
This is the same as grayscale, so no additional information is encoded in
this way. Desaturating always causes a loss of information, if the original
image is not black and white, but the loss is not always important.
--
Anthony
Bruce Lucas wrote in message <350ba947...@news3.ibm.net>...
>Hassel Weems <has...@gabiz.com> wrote:
>
>>This is not meant to be argumentative, just a question.
>>
>>If you took a digital image in 24bit color, then instead of converting it
>>to an 8-bit greyscale you desaturated it, actually leaving it a 24 bit
>>image. Wouldn't you retain the same detail as the original color shot?
>
jne...@eciad.bc.ca
Well, I think that depends on how you define digital photography. If
you define it as only those images that have been created with a
digital device then I would agree that the digital process is ten to
twenty years away from film.
However if one uses film as the collection device use the computer as
an inbetween then output it back to a paper or film, that technology
has been around since the mid to early 80's. Agreed at a higher price
but the price is going down.
The other question is whether the digital process, either way you
define it, is still photography. My answer is yes. Photography has
always been a technological artform. And with technology comes the
ability to obsess with the ability to do whatever that technology
enables regardless of merit. However, if these expiraments in the
technology weren't completed than the photographic comunity can't
evolve with the medium. It is very benificial that we can now look at
the digital photography that has been created until now and say that
alot of it showes a naive aproach to the medium, because it shows that
the community is evolving. One cannot discount dp because of work
created in the past 10 years just as we cannot discount photography as
a whole based upon some traditional photographers of the 1800's or
even the 1990's.
Maybe the answer is that we should look upon the emergance of digital
photography as we did the emergance of colour photography or even
photography itself. It is just another tool an artist can use to
create art.
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 22:31:48 -0800, kingsnake <king...@dm.net>
Hassel Weems
As a result of our discussion here, I started poking around in my image editor,
and found an option to convert to 16-bit greyscale. The difference between 8-bit
and 16-bit are pretty obvious when the images are side by side.
Bruce Lucas
Hassel Weems <has...@gabiz.com> wrote:
>As a result of our discussion here, I started poking around in my image editor,
>and found an option to convert to 16-bit greyscale. The difference between 8-bit
>and 16-bit are pretty obvious when the images are side by side.
Right, but this doesn't say anything about the effectiveness of the
posible procedure to get a couple of extra bits of grayscale that I
outlined.
Bruce Lucas
eric
digital is already becoming the standard in my studio, i just purchased the new
megavision T2 system and it has already replace 80% of the film jobs we
do.........and i have only had it up and running now for three weeks.........it is
just great and i love it.........
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
Anthony
Unless your original image contained at least nine bits per color, there
shouldn't be any difference at all. A 16-bit grayscale is useless when
converting from 24-bit color. If you have 48-bit color, though, it will
make a difference.
--
Anthony
Hassel Weems wrote in message <350B936A...@gabiz.com>...
>As a result of our discussion here, I started poking around in my image
editor,
>and found an option to convert to 16-bit greyscale. The difference between
8-bit
>and 16-bit are pretty obvious when the images are side by side.
>
Johnny B Good
Thanks, Daniel, for the reality check.
The poster below (JGVP) is more than likely a kid whose seen too many sci-fi
movies.
I will explain what all this below has do do with digital photography at the
bottom; don't worry:
I have been around since the sixties, when a four-function calculator took the
form of a desktop adding machine, and cost over $100.00. Then came the
"electronic" calculator, four functions (+ - * / ), plus a percent key and one
memory! Smith-Corona, $79.95 in 1972. Progress! Then the hand-held
calculators, followed by scientific calculators and programmable calculators
(by Hewelett-Packard) around 1975 or 76. Next, one of the first home
computers, the Altair 680, by Motorola. Yippee! 8-bit, machine languange
programmed by a row of toggle switches. The same microprocessor (The 6800) was
concurrently being widely implemented in Pinball games and Video games by
Bally electronics, in competetion with Atari, who had built the first
electronic pinball without microprocessors. By 1978, we had our first
(user-friendly) home computers, before the Macintosh-Amiga split; the
Commodore PET, Apple's "Lisa" and the "Apple II" . Then, circa 1981, the
IBM-PC came into being, and, well, you know the rest. It all started nearly 30
years ago, folks (from the standpoint of when consumer digital electronics hit
the general market).
Where was digital photography all this time? It was on the drawing board; it
just wasn't being pursued with the same intensity. The focus seemed to be on
=computers=.
Digital cameras began appearing on the market a few years ago ( A-HA!), but it
is still very expensive, and not widely implemented at the low end. It is just
more practical to scan a film or a print, because you then have both an analog
hard copy and a digital record. Digital photograpy is no match for analog
(film), as it stands today, and it won't be in five years, either. History
repeats itself.
Twenty or thirty years down the road, who knows???
Thanks again, Daniel.
In article <ZR87UIAu...@octpen.demon.co.uk>, Daniel Pead
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> did write:
>In article <3505DCD3...@cgocable.net>, JGVP <jg...@cgocable.net>
>writes
>> Why in twenty years they'll
>>have a digital recording device that will register everything you saw
>>while you
>>had your eyes open during the day, and you'll be able to play it back
>>at your
>>leisure and retain segments on the index that you wish to keep for
>>posterity.
>
Johnny B Good
In article <350C37A3...@dallas.net>, eric <er...@dallas.net> did write:
>digital is already becoming the standard in my studio, i just purchased the new
>megavision T2 system and it has already replace 80% of the film jobs we
>do.........and i have only had it up and running now for three weeks.........it
> is
>just great and i love it.........
You are really missing the point, Eric.
Who cares?
Do you want to buy me one for Christmas?
Do you like the computer animations you see on TV commercials?
Sure you do. From a technical POV, The Cray X-MP computer is standard, too,
but =I= sure as hell can't afford one ...
.. Please swallow you pride long enough to understand this. You will make
more friends this way.
And remember: always B Good!
Andreas Wickberg
In article <ewapj6K...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Anthony"
<nob...@nowhere.nil> wrote:
> Unless your original image contained at least nine bits per color, there
> shouldn't be any difference at all. A 16-bit grayscale is useless when
> converting from 24-bit color. If you have 48-bit color, though, it will
> make a difference.
Actually, if we use the formula:
gray = 0.3*R + 0.59*G + 0.11*B
and, for example, the values
R,G,B = 123,25,199
we get
gray = 0.3*123 + 0.59*25 + 0.11*199 = 36.9 + 14.75 + 21.89 = 73.54
This will round to 74 as an 8 bit value, and 18826 as a 16 bit value. If
we convert this back to a float we get 73.5390625, which is much closer to
73.54 than 74 is. Thus 16 bit gray will contain more information than 8
bit will.
However, since the orignal 24 bit value was most likely rounded (or
truncated) much of the gained precision is fluff, only a couple of the
bits are real (pun intended.) I'm convinced that five years from now, the
standard will be at least 12 bits per component for all but low end
digicams.
Andreas Wickberg
wick...@rbi.com
Eugene A. Pallat
Johnny B Good <johnny...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<6ejb2j$g9p$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>...
> In article <350C37A3...@dallas.net>, eric <er...@dallas.net> did
write:
> >digital is already becoming the standard in my studio, i just purchased
the new
> >megavision T2 system and it has already replace 80% of the film jobs we
> >do.........and i have only had it up and running now for three
weeks.........it
> > is
> >just great and i love it.........
>
> You are really missing the point, Eric.
> Who cares?
> Do you want to buy me one for Christmas?
I think you're missing the point. Eric only indicated that he's converted
much of his studio work to digital. Are you jealous?
> Do you like the computer animations you see on TV commercials?
> Sure you do. From a technical POV, The Cray X-MP computer is standard,
too,
> but =I= sure as hell can't afford one ...
You don't need a Cray to do it.
snip
JGVP
You're so off the mark, you should maybe change your nom de plume to Johnny
B. Bad <g> If this is any indication of your powers of deduction, then your
20-30 year prognosis might also be suspect.
Johnny B Good wrote in message <6ej8tu$4g$1...@usenet53.supernews.com>...
Johnny B Good
Quit sucking your thumb!
I love you, but you're WRONG! :-)
In article <OIkLC8Q...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "JGVP"
Daniel Pead
In article <6ej8tu$4g$1...@usenet53.supernews.com>, Johnny B Good
<johnny...@geocities.com> writes
>Thanks, Daniel, for the reality check.
>The poster below (JGVP) is more than likely a kid whose seen too many sci-fi
>movies.
>
> Digital photograpy is no match for analog
>(film), as it stands today, and it won't be in five years, either. History
>repeats itself.
Please don't drag me into the "anti digital" brigade just because I
question the likelihood of having digicams built into your contact
lenses - heck, even the Borg have trailing wires in the 25th century :-)
My point was that wild speculation like that tends to reflect badly on
people making more down-to-earth predictions. Cheap 35mm quality image
sensors in a few years time is a simple projection of the trends of the
last 10 years and doesn't require nasally-fitted-NiMHS.
The trouble with this debate is that on the one hand we've got the pro-
digital lobby exaggerating the capabilities of their cameras ane the
pro-silver-halide lobby talking them down or making inappropriate
comparisons.
>Where was digital photography all this time? It was on the drawing
>board; it just wasn't being pursued with the same intensity. The focus
>seemed to be on computers
Er - "electronic" cameras have existed since the early 70s and the
*original* Sony Mavica came out in 1981, with the Canon Ion a few years
later - ok, these were technically "still video" cameras, but the
principle is there & they were often bundled with capture cards for
computers. Expensive "digital camera backs" have been around for some
time, too.
I think the first time I encountered a low cost "digital camera" was
around 1985 - it was a kludge using a memory chip that just happened to
be light sensitive and produced excrutiatingly bad B&W pictures, but
cost about 150 quid and plugged into home computers like the BBC micro.
> Digital cameras began appearing on the market a few years ago
Well, digital and still video cameras have been appearing on and off for
the last 10 years - Apple and (I think) Logitech were producing low-ish
cost "true" digital cameras years before the current glut. Whats
happened in the last couple of years is that the market has "gone
critical" and a zero has fallen off the end of "megapixel" camera
prices - albeit knobbled models lacking professional features.
eric
Johnny B Good wrote:
> In article <350C37A3...@dallas.net>, eric <er...@dallas.net> did write:
> >digital is already becoming the standard in my studio, i just purchased the new
> >megavision T2 system and it has already replace 80% of the film jobs we
> >do.........and i have only had it up and running now for three weeks.........it
> > is
> >just great and i love it.........
>
> You are really missing the point, Eric.
> Who cares?
for your information you stupid damn idiot, i was talking to a group of people about
digital photography so i would assume they care........asshole............
> Do you want to buy me one for Christmas?
if you were a little nicer i would have offered for you to use our new
system..............but you obviously are a jerk so you are not allowed to use
it........
> Do you like the computer animations you see on TV commercials?
i do not watch tv...........
> Sure you do.
No i do not.......
> From a technical POV, The Cray X-MP computer is standard, too,
> but =I= sure as hell can't afford one ...
then get off your ass and work to make the money to purchase one if that is what you
want........that is what i did.........
> .. Please swallow you pride long enough to understand this. You will make
> more friends this way.
swallow what pride, again you idiot, i was talking to some people about digital
photography and the subject was if it would replace regular photography, and i
explained what we had purchased and how it had replaced it in our
studio...........so take your film and shove it up your ass..........
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
Johnny B Good
I was being a little bit facetious, Eugene.
Mister Scott, OTOH, has a severe attitude problem.
Jeez, no one has to go out of his way to offend him, obviously.
He has a lot to learn, Pro or not.
The discussion WAS INDEED about digital vs. analog.
I was merely using the Cray as in contrast to the IBM PC,
to drive home the point that the average consumer can't afford
state-of-the-art digital equipment, and is not likely to be able to do so
within the next ten or more years. I am sorry. Please forgive me.
All of my friends will concur with me. Mean people suck.
In article <01bd5108$db3f0310$32ba36cf@alpha>, "Eugene A. Pallat"
<eapa...@orion-glop-data.com> did write:
>Johnny B Good <johnny...@geocities.com> wrote in article
><6ejb2j$g9p$1...@usenet48.supernews.com>...
>> In article <350C37A3...@dallas.net>, eric <er...@dallas.net> did
>write:
>> >digital is already becoming the standard in my studio, i just purchased
>the new
>> >megavision T2 system and it has already replace 80% of the film jobs we
>> >do.........and i have only had it up and running now for three
>weeks.........it
>> > is
>> >just great and i love it.........
>>
>> You are really missing the point, Eric.
>> Who cares?
>> Do you want to buy me one for Christmas?
>
>I think you're missing the point. Eric only indicated that he's converted
>much of his studio work to digital. Are you jealous?
>
>> Do you like the computer animations you see on TV commercials?
>> Sure you do. From a technical POV, The Cray X-MP computer is standard,
>too,
>> but =I= sure as hell can't afford one ...
>
Daniel Pead
In article <wickberg-160...@rbi210.rbi.com>, Andreas Wickberg
<wick...@rbi.com> writes
>Actually, if we use the formula:
>
> gray = 0.3*R + 0.59*G + 0.11*B
>
>and, for example, the values
>
> R,G,B = 123,25,199
>
>we get
>
> gray = 0.3*123 + 0.59*25 + 0.11*199 = 36.9 + 14.75 + 21.89 = 73.54
Erm - you've ignored the fact that each of your R, G and B values are
only 8 bits and will therefore have something like a +/- 0.5 margin of
error, so your final answer also has a margin of error of approx.
(0.3*0.5 + 0.59*0.5 + 0.11*0.5) = 0.5. Whatever, those digits after the
decimal point are well iffy.
Actually, since this is a digital problem you'd probably have to use
information theory to prove or disprove the argument. I think its a
case of "garbage in, garbage out" though.
Its possible that you could apply some sort of interpolation method to
produce a 16-bit grayscale from a 24 bit colour image that would remove
any annoying "steps" in continuous tones, but its not going to bring out
any extra detail.
Graham Wills
Donald Farra wrote:
> Just look how far the home PC technology
> and cost of the product, has gone in
> the last ten years and project that same
> level of advancement for the Digital
> camera and where do you see digital cameras
> ten years from now?
OK. Let's look at the standard light-manipulation device on
the PC - the monitor.
Ten years ago I had a 1280 x 1000 pixel 72 dpi B&W monitor and
a 800 x 600 millions-of-colors monitor at 72 dpi, both connected
simulataneously to my standard mac II.
Now, I have one 1280 x 1000 72 dpi color monitor attached to my PC.
Wow. Big advance there. And the inflation adjusted price is
only down by a factor of two or so.
-Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Peter Chow
>Ten years ago I had a 1280 x 1000 pixel 72 dpi B&W monitor and
>a 800 x 600 millions-of-colors monitor at 72 dpi, both connected
>simulataneously to my standard mac II.
>
>Now, I have one 1280 x 1000 72 dpi color monitor attached to my PC.
>
>Wow. Big advance there. And the inflation adjusted price is
>only down by a factor of two or so.
>
> -Graham
That's because the cathode ray tube is still the same size and shape and
still crudely hewn from a lump of glass as it was 50 years ago.
Digital cameras are more like computers in that all of the components and
especially the CCDs are going through rapid development at the moment. The 1
million pixel CCD didn't exist 2 years ago, the video CCD didn't exist 15
years ago. The introduction of the CMOS fabricated image sensor later this
year will see the 5 million pixel image chip a commodity item. Once the same
fabrication technology used to produce 5+ million CMOS transistors on a CPU
is applied to the manufacturing of image sensors the cost/performance ratio
of digital cameras will swing the same way as CPUs.
As for your monitor, that will finally give way to LCD panels and plasma
panels.
Peter
Andreas Wickberg
In article <HAdsAAAj...@octpen.demon.co.uk>, Daniel Pead
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Erm - you've ignored the fact that each of your R, G and B values are
> only 8 bits and will therefore have something like a +/- 0.5 margin of
> error, so your final answer also has a margin of error of approx.
> (0.3*0.5 + 0.59*0.5 + 0.11*0.5) = 0.5. Whatever, those digits after the
> decimal point are well iffy.
Well, that was the intention of my comment about the original value beeing
rounded. I did say that only a couple of bits (since I was too lazy to
calculate how many) could be trusted. The margin of error is going to be
less at 16 bits than at 8. The point was perhaps that garbage-in,
garbage-out could be more or less garbage out, working in 16 bits should
improve things by one or two bits.
Andreas Wickberg
wick...@rbi.com
Dennis Deery
>Ten years ago I had a 1280 x 1000 pixel 72 dpi B&W monitor and
>a 800 x 600 millions-of-colors monitor at 72 dpi, both connected
>simulataneously to my standard mac II.
>
>Now, I have one 1280 x 1000 72 dpi color monitor attached to my PC.
Yes, but you can't use what you have now to what you had then. The fact that
you haven't upgraded at all skews the comparison terribly. Today you can get
some darn nice 15" active matrix LCD's, 1.5" thick, for only a couple grand.
Dennis Deery
Irish Rose Consulting
iris...@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/irishrose
obscur...@yahoo.com
In article <wickberg-170...@rbi210.rbi.com>,
Ansel Adems used toners on all his prints so they weren't really black and
white. (they had some color from the toner) To simulate this in photoshop you
can make a duo-tone image. If you've never made a duo-tone in photoshop give
it a try. You might be suprised at how nice it can be when compared to a
greyscale image.
Comments?
-Obscura!
http://www.obscurasite.com/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Graham Wills
Peter Chow wrote:
> As for your monitor, that will finally give way to LCD panels and plasma
> panels.
I've been hearing that for over a decade. Join the chorus.
Graham Wills
Dennis Deery wrote:
>
> >Ten years ago I had a 1280 x 1000 pixel 72 dpi B&W monitor and
> >a 800 x 600 millions-of-colors monitor at 72 dpi, both connected
> >simulataneously to my standard mac II.
> >
> >Now, I have one 1280 x 1000 72 dpi color monitor attached to my PC.
> Yes, but you can't use what you have now to what you had then. The fact that
> you haven't upgraded at all skews the comparison terribly.
Um. yes I have upgraded. And the Mac II *can* still use today's
monitors.
> Today you can get
> some darn nice 15" active matrix LCD's, 1.5" thick, for only a couple grand.
I don't want 15". I had 21" a decade ago and don't consider shrinking
screen size to be an improvement.
-Grahham
Dennis Deery
>I don't want 15". I had 21" a decade ago and don't consider shrinking
>screen size to be an improvement.
Then buy a 21". There's lots of them out there. Sure, they're quite
expensive. But, a decade ago there weren't, and there's been an order of
magnitude decrease in price in the last five years or so. You tried to make
the point that there have not been improvements in the technology because
you're still using the same _types_ of equipment you were using five years
ago. My point is that there HAVE been advances, which you have not taken
advantage of. For the record, neither have I, because I still can't justify
a $1500 LCD when I can get a $300 monitor. That doesn't mean there haven't
been advances though.
Denny
eric
for your information i am the average consumer..................i run a small
one man studio......it just turns out the my clients are requestion digital and
if i want to be in business in the next twenty years i had better be digital
within the next four.........so i decided to be a leader in the field in dallas
instead of a follower..........it will be a battle, maybe one less lunch out a
week or so, but in the long run it is worth it.......but i can assure you
mister i am the average person as well..........i have never been given
anything in this business, i have had to earn it all................so why are
you so down on me for owning a state of the art piece of equipment......hell if
you ever come to dallas let me know and i will set up some time for you to use
the system........hell to me it is just piece of equipment............you are
more then welcome to come over to my house and stare at the ceiling at night
and wonder how in the hell i am going to make the payments on those slow months
when nothing is coming in................
now tell me exactly what i have a lot to learn about pro or not...............
for your information i do not have or need a cray to do what i do, i have a top
of the line pc and a top of the line mac.........but i had to earn them, no one
gave em to me...........
so you are wrong about the average person not being able to afford state of the
art digital equipment before the next ten years because i got mine last week
and i am just average as well............
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
Sinar Bron
>>The 1 million pixel CCD didn't exist 2 years ago
Actually, 4.2 million pixel CCD's have been in commercial use in photography
for at least six years...
-Jeff
Robert Sneddon
In article <35102B...@research.bell-labs.com>
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com "Graham Wills" writes:
> Peter Chow wrote:
>
> > As for your monitor, that will finally give way to LCD panels and plasma
> > panels.
>
> I've been hearing that for over a decade. Join the chorus.
My PC has an LCD display - 1024x768 backlit TFT. Of course, it's a
laptop. However, I'm seeing more and more LCDs in retail outlets, banks
etc. where counter space is at a premium and customer information is
required at the sharp end.
--
To reply via email, remove the string "hormel" from my address.
Web pages at http://members.xoom.com/nojay/ - con reports and links
Robert (nojay) Sneddon
J Greely
Peter Chow wrote:
>As for your monitor, that will finally give way to LCD panels and plasma
>panels.
Hopefully not soon, since I haven't seen an LCD monitor that displays
color as well as my NEC P1150.
-j