Resolution - when is Enough ENOUGH? (a personal view)
VT
5 Megapixels Compared to Velvia, Kodachrome, Portra and 200 Gold
(see reference posts quoted below)
posed some interesting scenarios.
Many people here hold that 200PPI is good enough for photo quality
prints.
I regard about 10x8 as the largest print that one is likely to go
nose-to-paper or want close scrutiny.
Anything larger would (hopefully) be viewed at more "normal" distances
and not engender such demanding scrutiny
If that is the case then we had reached "Enough" quality at the 3Mp
level since the average 2048x1536 will produce 10.1"x7.7" prints at
200ppi.
I am not arguing 200ppi produces very satisfactory prints
(afterall I have produced 10x7.5" prints from 2Mp and even 0.8Mp that
although not exactly "sterling" were nothing to be ashamed of - and
are actually currently exhibited)
However with the reference thread I had re-visted printing out crops
to the equivalent of 10x7.5 from sample test images from
imaging-resource.com and inspecting for quality. I used the 11.4Mp
Canon EOS 1Ds as a benchmark and looked at highly rated 3Mp, 4Mp, 5Mp
and 6Mp digicams/DSLRs.
Just using visual inspection and with the aid of a regular (~2.5x
linear) magnifying glass - I can see -
3Mp (200ppi) just starting to show some image breakdown on finer
details - but I can see this only really with the magnifying glass.
4Mp (227ppi) does not have the image breakdown.
5Mp (259ppi) gains some visual crispness - but I cannot quantify it.
11+Mp (406ppi) I could detect enough improvement over the 5Mp image -
there were obviously characteristic differences that make comparisons
difficult (for example much less in-camera "sharpening" for the EOS
1Ds)
Just from this ad-hoc comparison I would hazard that somewhere between
227ppi and 259ppi - we have hit the point of diminishing returns at
least for the Photo printer I was using (Epson Photo Stylus 780 using
Epson Matte Heavyweight paper at 1440dpi).
200ppi was good - but for me still somewhat marginal.
[an aside: I found that current 3Mp digicams like the "budget" but
popular Canon A70 produces better prints to my eyes than say the once
top 3Mp resolution king of the Sony S75 or even the previous 4Mp
resolution king -Sony S85]
So is a current 5Mp "good enough"?
In a word YES.....
But some may argue that one needs some margin for cropping imperfectly
framed shots - or being able to use a smaller area to enlarge.
Some (and that includes me) used to argue that 300ppi was really
needed for true photo quality - and
Please Remember - my comparisons are self-limited by the quality of
the output from my home photo printer/paper combination - commercial
digital photo printing can produce higher technical quality prints.
If we use 300ppi as a yardstick for 10x8 - then that's
3000x2400 pixels = 7.2Mp
Allowing for the typical 4:3 aspct ratio of digicams -
3200x2400 = 7.7Mp
With 3200x2400 (7.7Mp) one can produce a
13.3"x10" print at 240ppi
16x12 print at 200ppi
21"x16" print at 150ppi
So for me the peg in the ground - or to replace all my photo gear
would be somewhere around 7.7Mp
With the prosumer Sony F828 we have already reached that level - it's
probably not too long before compact digicams will use 8Mp......
Your thoughts?
--
Vincent
remove CLOTHES for e-mail
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:54:53 GMT, Tony Whitaker <to...@whitaker.com>
wrote in the opening post of thread:
5 Megapixels Compared to Velvia, Kodachrome, Portra and 200 Gold
>I just put up some pictures I took to compare the image quality of my Nikon
>Coolpix 5000 to Fuji Velvia ISO 50, Kodachrome 64, Kodak Portra 160NC, and
>Kodak Gold 200 films:
>http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Films-vs-Coolpix.html
>
>There's no question about it - the slow slide films outperform 5
>megapixels.
<snip>
>You can't tell it in the
>4"x6" prints I had made from these negatives, though.
>
>And it was not fun working with the 64 megabyte .tif files from the
>scanner. My 667mhz Pentium 3 with 128mb RAM choked hard on them. It took
>forever to do the simplest things, like adjust the contrast and brightness
>for the 2 slide scans. 45 seconds for the command to prepare itself for
>use. 45 seconds to change the brightness value (you want to get it right
>the first time). 45 seconds to change the contrast value. 45 seconds to
>apply the changes, etc. etc.
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:20:30 -0700, David Chien <chi...@uci.edu>
wrote in thread
Re: 5 Megapixels Compared to Velvia, Kodachrome, Portra and 200 Gold:
>Most already know that 8MP approximates a standard P&S camera with a
>good lens (eg. Olympus Stylus Epic) with around 50lp/mm of resolution.
>
>Kodak film scientist has already said that film contains around 25MP max
>(standard films, not TechPan); which corresponds to the agreement by
>professional digital camera makers such as www.betterlight.com and
>www.phaseone.com (makers of up to 100MP+ digital cameras for many, many
>years, and have already done the comparison for us).
>
>www.deja.com for past posts on this and similar subjects from years ago.
and
--
Vincent
remove CLOTHES for e-mail
VT
<vtVi...@CLOTHESaccess4less.net> wrote:
>
>11+Mp (406ppi) I could detect enough improvement over the 5Mp image -
>there were obviously characteristic differences that make comparisons
>difficult (for example much less in-camera "sharpening" for the EOS
>1Ds)
>
That should have been -
could NOT detect enough improvement
I'm very sorry for that mistake/carelessness.
Roland Karlsson
news:ss4slv8c4k2cbrs79...@4ax.com:
> Your thoughts?
Agree!
But there are reasons for more Mpixels than 5-6-7 or so.
1. You want bigger prints that still are sharp.
Then you really also want bigger sensors as it is difficult
to make lenses that are sharp enough otherwise. You can of
course use stitching instead if you want bigger pictures
(or wider angles).
2. You want to avoid aliasing with a stronger anti alias filter.
If you want to remove almost any trace of aliasing, you need more
pixels and a stronger anti alias filter. You could also use
a Foveon sensor, which is much more insensitive to aliasing.
Roland
Eolake Stobblehouse
(Ooh, named after my favorite painter, are you?...)
Right you are.
I would say that for holiday snapshots, 3 megapixels are quite enough.
(They are mostly printed in just small hand-sized prints.)
For most professional work, about 6 megapixels does fine.
(A good 6-megapixel image can easily be printed in a double-spread
magazine size. And really, I don't see that size used too often
anyway.)
(What I make with my D100 is better than anything I ever managed with a
35mm camera. And I did rather better than most on such.)
Beyond 6 megapixels is only needed for rarified professional uses, and
for art freak Ansel-Adams wannabes like me, who get all wet thinking
about huge pictures with pinsharp details and tones. :)
Eolake Stobblehouse
--
- Eolake
--
em...@maccreator.com
http://MacCreator.com
Stephen G. Giannoni
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 14:46:39 -0400, VT
<vtVi...@CLOTHESaccess4less.net> wrote:
VT
<casagi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>How very right you are, EXCEPT for cropping ....
>
You may well be right on that -
However I think at 240ppi for 10x8 for me probably is good enough
(that's about 5Mp) - so 7.7Mp would give quite a "healthy" margin for
cropping and using a smaller area for enlargement.
For me, the most I have cropped under normal circumstances was to
about 80% (linearly) of the orignal image - but I'll also admit to
probably being influenced (subconsciously?) by a lack of quality
beyond that.
So an 80% scaled (linearly) image from the 3200x2400 (7.7Mp) image
would be one of 2560x1920 - which is close to 5Mp.......
that will allow a 10x8 print to be made at 240ppi......
(neat how the numbers seem to just fall into place :) )
Thanks for the input.
--
Vincent
remove CLOTHES for e-mail
Stanley Krute
Myself, I like 300 to 400 ppi for printing.
I want to be able to print 12" x 18" images
without upsizing.
For this calculation, I'll use 360 ppi.
12 x 360 = 4,320
18 x 360 = 6,480
4,320 * 6,480 = 27,993,600
So I'll be momentarily happy when we get 28 MB sensors.
When will we get such a sensor in a 35-mm frame
size in a sub-$2000 body ?
Perhaps never. Perhaps by 2010. I'm guessing the latter.
Amazing little revolution we're getting to enjoy.
As noted by many, 6 MP in a DSLR is Very Good,
and things are only getting better.
Stan
Mike Graham
> If that is the case then we had reached "Enough" quality at the 3Mp
> level since the average 2048x1536 will produce 10.1"x7.7" prints at
> 200ppi.
That doesn't leave you any slack for cropping, though.
4MP would give you that little bit extra.
> 5Mp (259ppi) gains some visual crispness - but I cannot quantify it.
7.2 is the point where you hit 300dpi on a 8x10 print, so 8MP might be
the magic - to give some cropping room and still have the snob-appeal of
300dpi. 8-)
> If we use 300ppi as a yardstick for 10x8 - then that's
> 3000x2400 pixels = 7.2Mp
I should have kept reading. You're covering everything I've said. 8-)
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
mike 'at' metalmangler.com |
<http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
<http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
Mike Graham
> Beyond 6 megapixels is only needed for rarified professional uses, and
> for art freak Ansel-Adams wannabes like me, who get all wet thinking
> about huge pictures with pinsharp details and tones. :)
I'm not expert on Ansel Adams, but I expect he'd rather hop naked on a
pogo stick through a feminist picnic than have to use a 35mm camera to do
his landscapes... I thought he was a dyed-in-the-wool medium-format
photographer. But I could be wrong...
Jason O'Rourke
>Yep, this is a personal view kind of issue.
>
>Myself, I like 300 to 400 ppi for printing.
>
>I want to be able to print 12" x 18" images
>without upsizing.
His initial conditions included the assumption that at sizes over 8x10,
viewing distance will also increase and thus no increase in resolution
is necessary. This is a common stance, but obviously for some applications
may not be ideal.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
mcgyverjones
"Mike Graham" <mi...@metalmangler.com> wrote in message
news:slrnblsn8...@zippy.metalmangler.com...snip
> I'm not expert on Ansel Adams, but I expect he'd rather hop naked on a
> pogo stick through a feminist picnic than have to use a 35mm camera to do
> his landscapes... I thought he was a dyed-in-the-wool medium-format
> photographer. But I could be wrong...
Sorta. Medium format to Ansel was 4X5, while 35mm he called miniature
format. He was more of an 8X10 kinda guy. It would be interesting to know
though what he would/could do with digital, although I think he would rather
go with the pogo action mentioned above before taking pictures with a
computer.
MJ
David J. Littleboy
"mcgyverjones" <mcgyverjones(spamout)@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Mike Graham" <mi...@metalmangler.com> wrote:
> > In article <090920032058409580%eol...@maccreator.spamremove.net>, Eolake
> Stobblehouse wrote:
> snip
> > I'm not expert on Ansel Adams, but I expect he'd rather hop naked on a
> > pogo stick through a feminist picnic than have to use a 35mm camera to
do
> > his landscapes... I thought he was a dyed-in-the-wool medium-format
> > photographer. But I could be wrong...
>
> Sorta. Medium format to Ansel was 4X5, while 35mm he called miniature
> format. He was more of an 8X10 kinda guy. It would be interesting to know
> though what he would/could do with digital, although I think he would
rather
> go with the pogo action mentioned above before taking pictures with a
> computer.
Much of his most famous (later) work was done with a Hasselblad, and much of
his for fun work in his later years was done with a Hasselblad. He used a
Zeiss Contax as early as 1936, and a Leica R4 (SLR) in his later years. It
sounds to me that he liked photography, whatever the equipment.
From reading his autobiography, it sounds to me as though he was a
died-in-the-wool technotronic weenie; he was a great fan of Polaroid as it
first appeared (and worked as a consultant for Land), and did some
absolutely gorgeous work with the SX-70. I suspect he would love digital
photography.
Both his autobiography and the biography by his assistant (Mary Alinder) are
worth reading but both are abysmally badly written. I prefer the
autobiography: with the biography, I wonder how her attitudes and axes to
grind are affecting what she's saying, but in the biography it's his
opinion. And the reproductions are better. But the biography has more
details about his early life, so you need to read it.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
MarkH
> In article <ss4slv8c4k2cbrs79...@4ax.com>, VT wrote:
>
>> If that is the case then we had reached "Enough" quality at the 3Mp
>> level since the average 2048x1536 will produce 10.1"x7.7" prints at
>> 200ppi.
>
> That doesn't leave you any slack for cropping, though.
>
> 4MP would give you that little bit extra.
>
>> 5Mp (259ppi) gains some visual crispness - but I cannot quantify it.
>
> 7.2 is the point where you hit 300dpi on a 8x10 print, so 8MP might be
> the magic - to give some cropping room and still have the snob-appeal of
> 300dpi. 8-)
I can already see very high quality, low noise 16MP full sized sensors
looming on the horizon.
Logic:
My 10D has 6MPix and excellent low noise, high quality images. If the
sensor had the same pitch, but bigger, it would make a 16MPix full frame
sensor. This MUST be currently possible, even if at an expensive price.
It wouldn’t take too much development to use a finer pitch (sensels closer
together) and make a 24MPix full frame sensor. This would give the ability
to crop half the width and half the height to give a 6MPix image which
would print to a decent size without pixelisation. That’s some pretty nice
cropping ability.
With film, how big could you print a picture that is cropped to ½ x ½ and
still have a clean and sharp picture?
I am sure that digital will be good enough for 99.9% of photographers soon
enough. It may not happen within the next 2 years, but by 2020 it will
have happened!
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Marty West
shots (dramatic clouds) and put them over otherwise boring shots of
western mountains and deserts. he used his hands. Maybe he would have
done the same thing with a computer today. Or ... maybe not?
Marty
FOR7b
>format. He was more of an 8X10 kinda guy. It would be interesting to know
>though what he would/could do with digital, although I think he would rather
>go with the pogo action mentioned above before taking pictures with a
>computer.
>
>MJ
He did use a Hasselblad later in his life.
David J. Littleboy
"FOR7b" <fo...@aol.comnxnxnxnx> wrote in message
news:20030909230813...@mb-m17.aol.com...
He used them from the day they came out. From his autobiography:
"The Hasselblad has been my camera of choice for the past 20 years. ... I
met Dr. Victor Hasselblad in New York in 1950. On my return to SF, I found
one of his first cameras awaiting me: the 1600F model, ...
The next model, the Hasselblad 1000F was much more satisfactory in all
respects."
...
"I have made many of my well-known photographs with the Hasselblad, but to
single one out, a favorite is Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite National Park,
1960."
Ozymandius
in Portland, OR of Adams work. One of the pictures they had was "Moonrise,
Hernandez, NM", which I looked at quite closely. I was surprised to note the
lack of detail when you got within a few inches, and remember thinking that
my Sony F717 could have gotten more detail.
Now if only I could find a store to purchase a hundredth of his talent!
Ozymandius
"Mike Graham" <mi...@metalmangler.com> wrote in message
news:slrnblsn8...@zippy.metalmangler.com...
Mike Graham
> With film, how big could you print a picture that is cropped to ½ x ½ and
> still have a clean and sharp picture?
35mm? I'd say you'd be doing quite well to get a 5x7 out of such a heavy
crop.
> I am sure that digital will be good enough for 99.9% of photographers soon
> enough. It may not happen within the next 2 years, but by 2020 it will
> have happened!
I suspect you're right, however film has a huge amount of inertia, and
film makes sense for the holiday-snaps crowd that only uses their camera on
special occasions a few times per year.
Mike Graham
> Now if only I could find a store to purchase a hundredth of his talent!
I have thought about this, and I suspect that a lot of the talent of
high-end nature photographers is patience.
Eolake Stobblehouse
Before Ansel Adams died, digital photography was in its infancy, and he
is reported to have been very very interested in it.
I think we often make erroneous assumptions when we look at famous
people who reached a high mastery of one form, we might think that they
would look down on other forms.
Witheld
Eolake Stobblehouse <eol...@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote:
> Before Ansel Adams died, digital photography was in its infancy, and he
> is reported to have been very very interested in it.
> I think we often make erroneous assumptions when we look at famous
> people who reached a high mastery of one form, we might think that they
> would look down on other forms.
> - Eolake
While this holds very true, the issue to me (and many other photographers)
is that digital is not being sold as a seperate and valid media on its own
which it is and should be,but as a replacement of and therefore "better than"
photography using tradional films, cameras, chemicals and "vision".
--
When you live next to the graveyard, you can't cry at every funeral.
JackD
"Witheld" <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote in message
news:EIEIO-80E7AD....@news.verizon.net...
> While this holds very true, the issue to me (and many other
photographers)
> is that digital is not being sold as a seperate and valid media on its own
> which it is and should be,but as a replacement of and therefore "better
than"
> photography using tradional films, cameras, chemicals and "vision".
Actually it is sold as a replacement for film and chemicals. Not as a
replacement for vision or for cameras, though it does allow some new and
interesting formats (just as new films allowed new formats - roll film and
35mm for example)
Who cares whether it is a "valid media"? What does that mean anyway?
-Jack
Don Stauffer
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
JackD
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:3F5F6403...@usfamily.net...
> This implies never needing to crop an image.
>
Isn't using the correct lens and getting in the right position a cure to
that problem?
This limitation has existed since the beginning of photography.
I'm not aware of two many photographers who shoot 8x10 so they can crop to
35mm.
-Jack
VT
<stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>This implies never needing to crop an image.
>
>VT wrote:
>>
>> But some may argue that one needs some margin for cropping imperfectly
>> framed shots - or being able to use a smaller area to enlarge.
>>
>> Some (and that includes me) used to argue that 300ppi was really
>> needed for true photo quality - and
>> Please Remember - my comparisons are self-limited by the quality of
>> the output from my home photo printer/paper combination - commercial
>> digital photo printing can produce higher technical quality prints.
>>
>> If we use 300ppi as a yardstick for 10x8 - then that's
>> 3000x2400 pixels = 7.2Mp
>>
>> Allowing for the typical 4:3 aspct ratio of digicams -
>> 3200x2400 = 7.7Mp
>>
>> With 3200x2400 (7.7Mp) one can produce a
>> 13.3"x10" print at 240ppi
>> 16x12 print at 200ppi
>> 21"x16" print at 150ppi
>>
>> So for me the peg in the ground - or to replace all my photo gear
>> would be somewhere around 7.7Mp
>>
>> With the prosumer Sony F828 we have already reached that level - it's
>> probably not too long before compact digicams will use 8Mp......
>>
>> Your thoughts?
I did address cropping (as the quote above)
and in another post in this thread I said this as an
explanation/clarification -
Ron Hunter
It is likely that in 5 years film will be relegated to niche markets,
and special function use, but we have had automobiles for 100 years and
people STILL ride horses, and enjoy it. Owning, or using a car doesn't
make it impossible to saddle up the old roan and ride off across the
prairie. I don't understand why so many people consider this an 'either
or' choice.
Ron Hunter
While I rarely find it necessary to crop, it does add the a picture in
some cases, but mostly I retain the cropped size. I don't consider
cropping as a serious consideration for the way I take pictures, but
others may find it more useful. What resolution one needs has a lot
more to do with his/her personal USE for the images than any artificial
standard for how many pixels are needed.
Figure out your needs, apply a bit of 'fudge factor' and buy what you
will use.
MarkH
> In article <bjm48a$i4f$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, MarkH wrote:
>
>> With film, how big could you print a picture that is cropped to ½ x ½
>> and still have a clean and sharp picture?
>
> 35mm? I'd say you'd be doing quite well to get a 5x7 out of such a
> heavy
> crop.
>
>> I am sure that digital will be good enough for 99.9% of photographers
>> soon enough. It may not happen within the next 2 years, but by 2020
>> it will have happened!
>
> I suspect you're right, however film has a huge amount of inertia,
> and
> film makes sense for the holiday-snaps crowd that only uses their
> camera on special occasions a few times per year.
Yes, now!
Film will become less and less popular over time. In ten year you will
find the majority of new cameras (excluding disposables) will be digital.
Film will fade away, but as you say film has a huge amount of inertia, film
will still be available in ten year time. You can’t be certain that film
will still exist in 50 years or 100 years, it will probably be quite rare
in 20 years.
We all know that we wont wake up tomorrow to find film no longer available,
the disappearance of film will be a long slow process.
I know this for sure:
Digital will get cheaper!
Digital will improve in quality!
Digital will become more convenient!
Digital will eventually take over all markets but disposable!
As Digitals get cheaper the disposable market will shrink!
Time will prove me right.
For today, many will still use film, I have no problem with that.
Witheld
college over 17 years ago,.......we'll just have to see about the
five year plan.
In article <vlv5kv3...@corp.supernews.com>,
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> It is likely that in 5 years film will be relegated to niche markets,
> and special function use, but we have had automobiles for 100 years and
> people STILL ride horses, and enjoy it. Owning, or using a car doesn't
> make it impossible to saddle up the old roan and ride off across the
> prairie. I don't understand why so many people consider this an 'either
> or' choice.
>
JackD
consumer use were a long way off back then. The "first electric still
camera" was the Canon RC-701 in that very year with a whole 220k pixels.
Price ~3,000USD
It would be two more years until the first consumer still camera, the Sony
MVC-C1 which had 228k pixels would come out. At that rate there was no
expectation that film would be dead by 1991.
(you can buy one here for $1.00: -
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2950899821&category=31388)
At that time no one I knew, even serious photographers, were predicting that
film would be surpassed in 5 years. It took ten more years until we even hit
1 megapixel in consumer cameras. You must have been hanging around with real
optimists. Obviously such exposure has turned you into a pessimist.
Today there are a huge number of professionals who no longer shoot film at
all and consumer digicams are widespread and cheap. I fail to see how film
can survive.
-Jack
"Witheld" <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote in message
news:EIEIO-5D2788....@news.verizon.net...
Jason O'Rourke
>Today there are a huge number of professionals who no longer shoot film at
>all and consumer digicams are widespread and cheap. I fail to see how film
>can survive.
You have 100M Americans (alone) with film cameras and no reason to switch
so long as you can get film processed in an hour. Nevermind the disposables.
Film will be just fine in 5 years. 20 is a different matter. Maybe by
then it really will be possible to take your CF to the store and have
them make prints, without thinking about aspect ratios, cropping, or color
spaces.
Ozymandius
in Portland, OR of Adams work. One of the pictures they had was "Moonrise,
Hernandez, NM", which I looked at quite closely. I was surprised to note the
lack of detail when you got within a few inches, and remember thinking that
my Sony F717 could have gotten more detail.
Now if only I could find a store to purchase a hundredth of his talent!
Ozymandius
"Eolake Stobblehouse" <eol...@maccreator.spamremove.net> wrote in message
news:090920032058409580%eol...@maccreator.spamremove.net...
> Vincent,
> (Ooh, named after my favorite painter, are you?...)
>
> Right you are.
> I would say that for holiday snapshots, 3 megapixels are quite enough.
> (They are mostly printed in just small hand-sized prints.)
>
> For most professional work, about 6 megapixels does fine.
> (A good 6-megapixel image can easily be printed in a double-spread
> magazine size. And really, I don't see that size used too often
> anyway.)
> (What I make with my D100 is better than anything I ever managed with a
> 35mm camera. And I did rather better than most on such.)
>
> Beyond 6 megapixels is only needed for rarified professional uses, and
> for art freak Ansel-Adams wannabes like me, who get all wet thinking
> about huge pictures with pinsharp details and tones. :)
>
> Eolake Stobblehouse
Ms. Jaime
(Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>You have 100M Americans (alone) with film cameras and no reason to switch
>so long as you can get film processed in an hour. Nevermind the disposables.
I use the underwater film disposables for taking pics at the YWCA
swimming pool when I go there with my kids. I would *never* want to
subject my 750 to the pool area.
Ms.Jaime
"This, is an ex-parrot"
JackD
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bjoe85$5qi$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
I can take my CF to costco and have them make prints without thinging about
aspect ratios, cropping or color spaces and get prints in an hour.
No need to wait 20 years for that.
I'm not hooked on that 5 year figure. Film has it's uses. I just never buy
it anymore...
-Jack
Ron Hunter
and that is even at a $300 entry price. What will happen to film with a
good 2mp digital is under $100?
Witheld
> I can take my CF to costco and have them make prints without thinging about
> aspect ratios, cropping or color spaces and get prints in an hour.
> No need to wait 20 years for that.
>
> I'm not hooked on that 5 year figure. Film has it's uses. I just never buy
> it anymore...
> -Jack
Your an amature. And less aware of those issues.
Witheld
is available in research. Or on the current drawing board.
In article <bjocp4$ne4$1...@news01.intel.com>, "JackD" <J...@no.com> wrote:
> Really? That would be 1986. As I recall digital cameras to replace film for
> consumer use were a long way off back then. The "first electric still
> camera" was the Canon RC-701 in that very year with a whole 220k pixels.
> Price ~3,000USD
>
> It would be two more years until the first consumer still camera, the Sony
> MVC-C1 which had 228k pixels would come out. At that rate there was no
> expectation that film would be dead by 1991.
> (you can buy one here for $1.00: -
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2950899821&category=31388)
>
> At that time no one I knew, even serious photographers, were predicting that
> film would be surpassed in 5 years. It took ten more years until we even hit
> 1 megapixel in consumer cameras. You must have been hanging around with real
> optimists. Obviously such exposure has turned you into a pessimist.
>
> Today there are a huge number of professionals who no longer shoot film at
> all and consumer digicams are widespread and cheap. I fail to see how film
> can survive.
>
> -Jack
Witheld
"Ozymandius" <ctyn...@removethisteleport.com> wrote:
> FWIW- Recently there was an exhibition at the Western Forestry Center here
> in Portland, OR of Adams work. One of the pictures they had was "Moonrise,
> Hernandez, NM", which I looked at quite closely. I was surprised to note the
> lack of detail when you got within a few inches, and remember thinking that
> my Sony F717 could have gotten more detail.
> Now if only I could find a store to purchase a hundredth of his talent!
> Ozymandius
Are you serious or just seriously that clueless?
JackD
"Witheld" <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote in message
> In article <bjoho7$pl5$1...@news01.intel.com>, "JackD" <J...@no.com> wrote:
> > I can take my CF to costco and have them make prints without thinging
about
> > aspect ratios, cropping or color spaces and get prints in an hour.
> > No need to wait 20 years for that.
> >
> > I'm not hooked on that 5 year figure. Film has it's uses. I just never
buy
> > it anymore...
> > -Jack
>
> Your an amature. And less aware of those issues.
Yeah, sure. You know a lot about me don't you? I said I CAN do that. For
many people that is enough.
-Jack
JackD
laughable wouldn't it? So would be making a blanket statement that research
is twenty years ahead of reaching the public. In many high tech industries
the difference between research and production is just a few years. Not 20.
-Jack
"Witheld" <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote in message
news:EIEIO-0E3C9D....@news.verizon.net...
Witheld
> If that is a fact then the 5 year figure that was quoted in 1986 would be
> laughable wouldn't it? So would be making a blanket statement that research
> is twenty years ahead of reaching the public. In many high tech industries
> the difference between research and production is just a few years. Not 20.
> -Jack
There is a decided interest in protracting the product to the consumer for as long as
possible provided of course a profit can be made in the mid term.
Witheld
> Yeah, sure. You know a lot about me don't you? I said I CAN do that. For
> many people that is enough.
> -Jack
I was specifically refering to color space when using files for offset printing
that was the direction my mind was traveling. I really don't care too much who,
or what you can do at Costco.
JackD
"Witheld" <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote in message
> In article <bjq7vb$g1g$1...@news01.intel.com>, "JackD" <J...@no.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, sure. You know a lot about me don't you? I said I CAN do that. For
> > many people that is enough.
> > -Jack
>
> I was specifically refering to color space when using files for offset
printing
> that was the direction my mind was traveling. I really don't care too much
who,
> or what you can do at Costco.
That is OK. Thursday is non-sequitur day. Let your mind wander untethered
making random comments.
The comment I made was in direct response to this one.
>Film will be just fine in 5 years. 20 is a different matter. Maybe by
>then it really will be possible to take your CF to the store and have
>them make prints, without thinking about aspect ratios, cropping, or color
>spaces.
Perhaps even with a wandering mind you can start to make sense of this. If
not, then good luck. Let me know when you see Elvis.
-Jack
JackD
"Witheld" <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote in message
> In article <bjq851$g7d$1...@news01.intel.com>, "JackD" <J...@no.com> wrote:
>
> > If that is a fact then the 5 year figure that was quoted in 1986 would
be
> > laughable wouldn't it? So would be making a blanket statement that
research
> > is twenty years ahead of reaching the public. In many high tech
industries
> > the difference between research and production is just a few years. Not
20.
> > -Jack
>
> There is a decided interest in protracting the product to the consumer for
as long as
> possible provided of course a profit can be made in the mid term.
Can you give a concrete example of where this is happening? Fuel line
magnets? Energy from the ether machines? Come on, be specific.
-Jack
Charlie D
Witheld <EI...@McDeesFarm.com> wrote:
> In article <bjq851$g7d$1...@news01.intel.com>, "JackD" <J...@no.com> wrote:
>
> > If that is a fact then the 5 year figure that was quoted in 1986 would be
> > laughable wouldn't it? So would be making a blanket statement that research
> > is twenty years ahead of reaching the public. In many high tech industries
> > the difference between research and production is just a few years. Not 20.
> > -Jack
> There is a decided interest in protracting the product to the consumer for as
> long as possible provided of course a profit can be made in the mid term.
That's impossible. With competition as it is products are rushed to the
consumer as quickly as possible. This is evidenced especially in
electronics/computers/digicams.
We can see this by the software and firmware upgrades that are necessary
to make the products work properly.
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> Medium format to Ansel was 4X5, while 35mm he called
> miniature format. He was more of an 8X10 kinda guy. It would be
> interesting to know though what he would/could do with digital,
> although I think he would rather go with the pogo action mentioned
> above before taking pictures with a computer.
Just as an aside, as a mark of how much people take whatever is current
to be the standard: I've found it comes as a surprise to many people
when you point out that a lot -- most? -- reproductions that one sees
of images made on 8x10 glass negative prints *aren't* "enlargements".
(....I've done a lot of work with archival photographs printed from
8x10, and have had to explain why the resolution is so remarkable.
Reduction of size does wonders......)
--
Cheers, Harvey
VT
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Just as an aside, as a mark of how much people take whatever is current
>to be the standard:
I think a lot of people (including myself) are waiting for something
"better" - but are willing to work with whatever is available.
Many are reasonably happy with 2-3Mp level since the majority of
prints are to 6x4 or sometimes 7x5 - with the occassional 10x8.
The generally accepted level of 200ppi came as a good compromise for
the time when 3Mp were the tops - and as many have noticed a 3Mp image
just manages 10x8 at 200ppi.
Although 200ppi is satisfactory - there are some subjects that could
do with a bit more.
The publishing industry has a long held standard of 300dpi for
_scanned_ images - which some have translated directly to 300ppi for
any submitted digitally originated image. This may save any hassle or
debate with the publishers - but a 300ppi 10x8 image is 7.2Mp - beyond
most currently affordable consumer digicams.
Also some have observed that perhaps a native 300ppi digitially
originated image may be a bit of an overkill for what even quality
magazines can actually reproduce (and that includes National
Geographic).
Form my ad-hoc and admittedly UNscientific experiments I feel
somewhere between 227 to 260ppi is probably adequate and optimum for
the current top photo inkjet printers - I've just used 240ppi as a
sort of marker.
So if we use 240ppi (with all my caveats/disclaimers) 3Mp and 4Mp
aren't quite there for "sterling" 10x8's
Whereas a 5Mp has arrived - or at least "enough" for me -
NB - that is NOT saying 3Mp and 4Mp can't produce 10x8 prints that
are "sterling" - but it is more likely there will be some shots (that
are otherwise technically correct) that are not quite "beyond
reproach".
With 300ppi (ie: 7.7Mp) images are likely to be beyond reproach - at
least in terms of pixel count. Of course we can always do with more
"resolution" but we're starting to reach a point of diminishing
returns once 240ppi-300ppi has been reached for 10x8 sized prints.
Note: for cropping a 7.7Mp image will give 10.7"x8" at 300ppi,
and allows cropping down to about 80% (linearly) of the original and
still get 240ppi for a 10x8.
gr
>
> I use the underwater film disposables for taking pics at the YWCA
> swimming pool when I go there with my kids. I would *never* want to
> subject my 750 to the pool area.
Olympus sells waterproof cases than are good down to something like 40
metres. They're not cheap, but still a fraction of the price of the camera.
It might be a good idea to get one, if you use your camera around water a
lot. I've been tempted to get one for my c5050, but I don't think I'd use it
enough.
gr
> Not true. Digital cameras already account for more than half of sales,
> and that is even at a $300 entry price.
Really? Where did you get that information? Is it referring to the numbers
of units sold, or the total price of units sold? Total price maybe I can
believe, but I really can't believe that statistic if it's referring to the
number of cameras.
> What will happen to film with a
> good 2mp digital is under $100?
I don't think you'll ever find a "good" digital under $100, regardless of
how many pixels it has. Even if CCDs cost $0.01, the rest of the camera (if
it's good quality) costs more than $100 to produce.
How many good film cameras are there under $100?
I guess it depends on your definition of "good". Mine doesn't include the
HP, Fuji, and Kodak crap digitals on the market, and certainly not the
no-names.
gr
>
> With 300ppi (ie: 7.7Mp) images are likely to be beyond reproach - at
> least in terms of pixel count. Of course we can always do with more
> "resolution" but we're starting to reach a point of diminishing
> returns once 240ppi-300ppi has been reached for 10x8 sized prints.
I think once you're up into the 5-10mp range, you simply don't need any more
resolution, regardless of how big an image you print. Large prints will be
viewed farther away, and so 100-200ppi is fine for them. You'd only want
really high resolution if the print is meant to be viewed from both far away
and up close.
JC Dill
<grSPAMimr...@playground.net> wrote:
>I think once you're up into the 5-10mp range, you simply don't need any more
>resolution, regardless of how big an image you print. Large prints will be
>viewed farther away, and so 100-200ppi is fine for them. You'd only want
>really high resolution if the print is meant to be viewed from both far away
>and up close.
I was lucky to be a neighbor of Ansel Adams when I was a teenager. (I
was taking photography courses at Carmel high school and living in
Carmel Highlands, about a mile from Adams' house.) My father
encouraged me to go visit our neighbor and introduce myself. I
screwed up my courage and walked up to the door and knocked. His
assistant Alan Ross answered, and then Ansel himself came to the door,
invited me in, and showed me around. [1]
On the wall a few feet inside the front door (just past the darkroom
door, and before the gallery which went off to the right), there was
an enlargement of Monolith, the Face of Half Dome. I recall it being
4 feet wide, 5 feet tall. Being placed in the entry (a space about 12
feet wide and 15 feet deep, opening into the dining and living rooms),
you stood much closer to this print than you normally would stand when
viewing such a large photograph. I'm sure it must have had some
visible grain but somehow I never noticed any. :-)
Given that he had plenty of space to hang any photo he wanted anywhere
in his house, he must have had a special reason to hang this
particular enlargement in such a confined area and create a situation
where you viewed it from such a close distance. So, sometime you too
may want to produce a very large enlargement meant to be viewed from a
close distance.
jc
[1] He had very large darkroom with work areas/enlargers/developing
facilities on each side and on tables down the center, perhaps 40 feet
deep and 16 feet wide? There is a description at
<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/brower.htm>
and a photo of Ansel Adams and his assistant Alan Ross in this
darkroom in 1977 (taken by Glenn Fye) is in this collection:
<http://www.library.arizona.edu/branches/ccp/collection/webbooks/adamscol.pdf>[2]
Adjacent to the darkroom was a large photo gallery (with a grand piano
in the middle of it, he was also an accomplished pianist) with dozens
of 16/20 prints mounted and framed, hanging on the walls at optimal
viewing height. Here, you were encouraged (by the layout of the room)
to view these prints from about 5-10 feet away.
[2] Arizona was not his first choice for where he wanted his
collection to reside. :-( Ansel first offered his collection to UC
Santa Cruz which turned down the opportunity to keep these images in
California.
Charlie Self
>I don't think you'll ever find a "good" digital under $100, regardless of
>how many pixels it has. Even if CCDs cost $0.01, the rest of the camera (if
>it's good quality) costs more than $100 to produce.
>
>How many good film cameras are there under $100?
>
>I guess it depends on your definition of "good". Mine doesn't include the
>HP, Fuji, and Kodak crap digitals on the market, and certainly not the
>no-names.
It really does depend on WHO defines good. Joe and Jane Average really don't
give a rat's tuchus about my definition of good in cameras, nor do they care
about yours. And as far as the market goes, J&J are the cat's pajamas, because
that's where the bulk of cameras are sold and profits made. To them, 300 bucks
is a high end camera, but they'll buy one about every 3-4 years if my family is
any indication.
Predictions are for sales of over 10 million units in 2003, up over 16 million
by 2005. Consumer Electronics Association. Something like 23 million families
already have digital cameras.
Charlie Self
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful."
Samuel Johnson
Charlie Self
>Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote
>> Not true. Digital cameras already account for more than half of sales,
>> and that is even at a $300 entry price.
>
>Really? Where did you get that information? Is it referring to the numbers
>of units sold, or the total price of units sold? Total price maybe I can
>believe, but I really can't believe that statistic if it's referring to the
>number of cameras.
http://www.pmai.org/pdf/0403_pixels_to_prints.pdf
Stanley Krute
> I think once you're up into the 5-10mp range, you simply don't need any more
> resolution, regardless of how big an image you print. Large prints will be
> viewed farther away, and so 100-200ppi is fine for them. You'd only want
> really high resolution if the print is meant to be viewed from both far away
> and up close.
I came to photography after time spent as a painter. I used to paint
hyper-detailed works that were generally 48" x 72", and meant to
be viewed BOTH from afar AND from close-up -- I liked the challenge
of creating images that worked well at both viewing ranges.
So, for me anyways, yep, I want to be able to get 300 ppi for 48 and 72
inches ultimately. Just my own little mishehgahss, I realize, and one that
won't be a common desire.
Stan
lover of detail
Ron Hunter
Very likely total sales amount. Still, one sees a lot more digitals in
use today than just a year ago. They ARE taking over, and as prices for
a good 3mp come down to the $100 range, sales of film cameras will
continue to decline. For the 'snapshot' crowd (which is what the vast
majority of the general public IS), digital is just a lot less hassle.
I will probably replace my current digital camera in the next year or so
to correct some of the shortcomings of the current version. I have not
felt motivated to even take the film camera out of the closet, however.
gr
>
> I came to photography after time spent as a painter. I used to paint
> hyper-detailed works that were generally 48" x 72", and meant to
> be viewed BOTH from afar AND from close-up -- I liked the challenge
> of creating images that worked well at both viewing ranges.
>
> So, for me anyways, yep, I want to be able to get 300 ppi for 48 and 72
> inches ultimately. Just my own little mishehgahss, I realize, and one that
> won't be a common desire.
You must have some pretty small fingers to paint at 300ppi!
Mike Graham
> and a photo of Ansel Adams and his assistant Alan Ross in this
> darkroom in 1977 (taken by Glenn Fye) is in this collection:
><http://www.library.arizona.edu/branches/ccp/collection/webbooks/adamscol.pdf>[2]
There is an article in the September, I believe, issue of Outdoor
Photographer about Alan Ross and specifically what he learned from Ansel
Adams. Don't expect a whole book-full of info, just a couple of pages.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
mike 'at' metalmangler.com |
<http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada
Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
<http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
Mike Graham
> I came to photography after time spent as a painter. I used to paint
> hyper-detailed works that were generally 48" x 72", and meant to
> be viewed BOTH from afar AND from close-up -- I liked the challenge
> of creating images that worked well at both viewing ranges.
I have seen super-realistic paintings, and they amaze me to no end. Some
people say 'what's the point of making a painting that looks like a
photograph' and I say 'because hardly anyone *can*, that's why!'.
> So, for me anyways, yep, I want to be able to get 300 ppi for 48 and 72
> inches ultimately. Just my own little mishehgahss, I realize, and one that
> won't be a common desire.
I imagine you could get that resolution today with a scanning camera or by
using a panoramic approach, but what would you *print* it on?
Eolake Stobblehouse
Indeed. It was pointed out to me by Norman Koren (Normankoren.com) that
making film is very, very, costly. And when film sales begin to suffer,
profits will suffer fast, and prices will go up, which will make sales
suffer even more...
Eolake
--
- Eolake
--
em...@maccreator.com
http://MacCreator.com
Ms. Jaime
<mi...@metalmangler.com> wrote:
> I have seen super-realistic paintings, and they amaze me to no end.
Might be worth taking a trip to a nearby art gallery. I think they
let you take pics too. Not sure on that. I believe the one in
Hamilton does but as for the others YMMV.
Ms.Jaime
"This, is an ex-parrot"
Mark Grebner
> find the majority of new cameras (excluding disposables) will be digital.
>
> Film will fade away, but as you say film has a huge amount of inertia, film
> will still be available in ten year time. You can?t be certain that film
> will still exist in 50 years or 100 years, it will probably be quite rare
> in 20 years.
>
> We all know that we wont wake up tomorrow to find film no longer available,
> the disappearance of film will be a long slow process.
I think people who engage in the film/digital debate are overlooking a
more likely conclusion - that film will be SUBSUMED by digital, not
just REPLACED. In other words, film may continue to find some niche
uses, but eventually all photos will be digital, even the ones that
start with a film camera.
Think about how analog phones were replaced by digital ones. Starting
slowly 40 years ago, but gathering speed, digital technology made
analog switches, cables, and equipment obsolete. There was a lot of
resistance, mainly because of the cost of upgrading perfectly
functional capital equipment, as well as from Aunt Emma.
But today, virtually ALL telephone communication is digital EXCEPT
(maybe) the phone you hold in your hand and the wire to the pole. The
change swept around and past the subscriber - the telcos convert any
digital signals they receive to digital, and if necessary convert them
back to analog again when they are delivered. But the phone system
itself is utterly digital.
How much longer will commerical film development remain an analog
process? As more and more of the volume is received in digital
format, film will find itself merely a special format - kind of like
floppy disk is today.
And physical output ("prints") will be thought of as a specific output
medium. If someone happens to bring film in and ask to receive
prints, the internals of the processing will still be digital.
Given that perspective, it may well be true that the cheapest way to
take certain photos will be with a disposable film camera. But - just
like the phone system today - there will be subtle redesign even of
the analog processes to make the resulting digital processing more
efficient.
I imagine analog handsets will still be useable - and in use - thirty
years from now. Film cameras too. They'll both be minor (if
historically interesting) aspects of a technologically advanced
digital system.
Dan Wojciechowski
news:6Ks7b.1913$ND6.19...@twister1.starband.net...
> Yep, this is a personal view kind of issue.
>
> Myself, I like 300 to 400 ppi for printing.
...
Stanley:
I'm curious; do you (or the service you use) have a 400ppi printer?
While I suspect that software can use information beyond the ability of the
printer to produce a better picture under some circumstances, the improvements
are likely to be quite minor. And I suspect the rate of return diminishes quite rapidly
as the printer's capabilities are exceded.
If that is indeed the case, 200ppi, maybe a little more, should be plenty for the
average
home user, today.
(On the other hand, I reserve the right to grab as many pixels as I can afford, since
who knows what the future might hold?)
--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com
"When children have to play inside so they don't disappear
While private eyes solve marriage lies cause we dont talk for years
And football teams are kissing queens and losing sight of having dreams
In a world where all we want is only what we want until it's ours"