Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2002-05-27 by jmoore50310
I have the opportunity to purchase a used Nikon D1 at a good price. My only concern is the print quality that I will get with my Epson 1280 using MIS VM inks. Is the D1's 2.6mp resolution good enough to produce high quality A3 size prints? Thanks, Jim
2002-05-27 by Robert Morrison
On 5/27/02 9:48 AM, "jmoore50310" <jmoore274@...> wrote: > Is the D1's 2.6mp resolution good enough to produce high quality A3 > size prints? No. You need a minimum of 6megapixel. I shot a D1 for about a year and a half and got many lovely 5x7 and some 8x10 that I was happy with though. Don't expect to be able to crop...you need the full 2.7mp from the D1 for an 8x10. Personally I wouldn't buy a used D1...the D1x was a quantum leap forward in so many ways...not just image quality. You may want to take a look at the D100...that would almost certainly be a better option. Robert
2002-05-27 by Austin Franklin
Hi Jim, An A3 is ~ 11 x 16, and 2.6M pixels is ~ 1k x 1.6k which gives you 1024 across 11 inches, or less than 90 pixels per inch to the printer. IMO, that is insufficient to be called high quality. High quality would be about 240+ pixels/inch to the printer. Of course you can rez up anything...but does that really give you a quality image? IMO, no, but some people believe it does... Austin > Is the D1's 2.6mp resolution good enough to produce high quality A3 > size prints?
2002-05-27 by Mij Sirron
The D1's are cheap because they are obsolete. The D1X is so much better. Besides resolution, the D1's had, in my experience, a problem with rendering Caucasian skin tones properly. The review may still be posted at www.dpreview.com Jim --- Robert Morrison <rmorrison@...> wrote: > On 5/27/02 9:48 AM, "jmoore50310" > <jmoore274@...> wrote: > > > Is the D1's 2.6mp resolution good enough to > produce high quality A3 > > size prints? > > No. You need a minimum of 6megapixel. I shot a D1 > for about a year and a > half and got many lovely 5x7 and some 8x10 that I > was happy with though. > Don't expect to be able to crop...you need the full > 2.7mp from the D1 for an > 8x10. Personally I wouldn't buy a used D1...the D1x > was a quantum leap > forward in so many ways...not just image quality. > You may want to take a > look at the D100...that would almost certainly be a > better option. > > Robert > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
2002-05-27 by Jerry Olson
Not really, especially at infinity, but fine for 8x10's . Why not get the Nikon D100 when it comes out this summer? 6.3 megapixels, and about two thousand dollars. I can hardly wait for my canon D60, and it's been 2 1/2 months now since I ordered it. Does ANYONE on this list have theirs yet? It was supposed to have been released in MARCH. Jerry jmoore50310 wrote:
> > I have the opportunity to purchase a used Nikon D1 at a good price. > My only concern is the print quality that I will get with my Epson > 1280 using MIS VM inks. > > Is the D1's 2.6mp resolution good enough to produce high quality A3 > size prints? > > Thanks, > Jim > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2002-05-27 by Lawrence Smith
>Does ANYONE on this list have > theirs yet? It was supposed to have been released in MARCH. > > > Jerry > I don't have one but I did talk to a guy in San Diego in April that was shooting with one. He had the 70-200 IS lens attached and it was a fine combo! He had a D30 as well and was VERY pleased with improvements that the D60 had to offer. He must have been one of the first people to get his... Lawrence
2002-05-27 by massman8064145
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> wrote: > Not really, especially at infinity, but fine for 8x10's . > > Why not get the Nikon D100 when it comes out this summer? 6.3 > megapixels, and about two thousand dollars. > > I can hardly wait for my canon D60, and it's been 2 1/2 months now since > I ordered it. Does ANYONE on this list have theirs yet? It was supposed > to have been released in MARCH. > > > Jerry > > > > jmoore50310 wrote: > > > > I have the opportunity to purchase a used Nikon D1 at a good price. > > My only concern is the print quality that I will get with my Epson > > 1280 using MIS VM inks. > > > > Is the D1's 2.6mp resolution good enough to produce high quality A3 > > size prints? > > > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > > - Include your full name with your message. > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." > > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2002-05-28 by Bob Frost
Jerry, I've thought seriously about getting the Nikon D100 with its 6.3 interpolated megapixels (2.1 real megapixels), but in the end I still come back to the incontrovertible fact that from my Nikon F100, Provia 100F, and Nikon LS4000 I get 24 real megapixels (unless Austin tells me I'm making a miscalculation somewhere)! Prosumer digital cameras are not even in the same ballpark yet - they are still an order of magnitude away. Bob Frost. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> > > Why not get the Nikon D100 when it comes out this summer? 6.3 > megapixels, and about two thousand dollars.
2002-05-28 by Robert Morrison
On 5/28/02 2:20 AM, "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> wrote: > I've thought seriously about getting the Nikon D100 with its 6.3 > interpolated megapixels (2.1 real megapixels), but in the end I still come > back to the incontrovertible fact that from my Nikon F100, Provia 100F, and > Nikon LS4000 I get 24 real megapixels (unless Austin tells me I'm making a > miscalculation somewhere)! > > Prosumer digital cameras are not even in the same ballpark yet - they are > still an order of magnitude away. > That basically sums it up. For a 8x10...it doesn't make a big difference...for a 20x24...its the difference between being able to do it or not...then there is a lot of "gray area" in between (11 x 14, 16 x 20). The choice really comes down to how you shoot. If you shoot a lot the cost and time saving of digital is simply incredible...if you shoot a roll a week then its not a big deal...well let's think about it...$5 for film...$10 (or an evening) for processing...another evening to do test scans...$50 for a drum scan...hmmm...times 52. Now you can add it up differently...two evenings plus $10K for an Imacon gets rid of the evening of test scans and the $50 for the drum scan. The bottom line is if time or money is precious...AND...you don't want to print bigger a D100 (or D60 or D1x...what I have) can't be beat. In my workflow I need to shoot about 100 rolls to justify the $3K it costs to upgrade each year and a half. With the digital I spend less time, shoot more, and get to look at many more images on my screen...but it doesn't replace your medium format film under any conditions. The other reason to go digital involves what you shoot and for whom...but that's another story (e.g., photojournalism, sports photography, theater or film stills, weddings). If you need it fast...the lighting is really weird or unpredictable...or your head will roll if you don't get the shot and you can't shoot it again...digital can't be beat. I had a job last winter where I was shooting some experimental theatre. Had to shoot with the stage light including during a performance from a tech booth. I shot film with a F100 and digital with my D1x. I got nothing from my film camera and 100 take home images from my D1x. The difference was being able to look at histograms and previews immediately. The matrix/center/spot metering was way off. There was no way to use a light meter for much of the shooting. Shooting digital it turned out was the difference between getting a magazine cover...and not. If you shoot a roll of landscape every couple of weeks with a 4x5...why are you reading this?...ha ha...ah...maybe its because you in front of your computer scanning. Robert
2002-05-29 by Jerry Olson
Bob, where did you hear that the pixels were interpolated? the Canon D60 has a real 6.3 Megapixel chip. Wouldn't Nikon do the same, just to keep up with Canon? Jerry Bob Frost wrote:
> > Jerry, > > I've thought seriously about getting the Nikon D100 with its 6.3 > interpolated megapixels (2.1 real megapixels), but in the end I still come > back to the incontrovertible fact that from my Nikon F100, Provia 100F, and > Nikon LS4000 I get 24 real megapixels (unless Austin tells me I'm making a > miscalculation somewhere)! > > Prosumer digital cameras are not even in the same ballpark yet - they are > still an order of magnitude away. > > Bob Frost. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> > > > > Why not get the Nikon D100 when it comes out this summer? 6.3 > > megapixels, and about two thousand dollars. > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2002-05-29 by Darren Collins
Jerry, I think Bob's having a go at the Bayer Pattern method used by current digital sensors to interpolate a full-colour image. It's not really "2.1 real megapixels", but neither is it 6.3 real megapixels. It's actually made up of something like 1.5 million blue, 1.5 million red and 3 million green pixels, all spaced out in a grid pattern, which are then mashed together mathematically to give a full-colour 6.3 Mp image. On the sensor itself, there are 6.3 million real pixels, but each pixel only records one colour (red, green or blue). The new Foveon chip records red, green AND blue values at every pixel on its surface, so presumably it will give better quality than a Bayer sensor at the same resolution. It turns out that human vision is more sensitive to the actual number of dots than to colour resolution, so the improvement this new technology offers is not as huge as it first sounds (though it is still an improvement). There's some excellent info on this site if you're interested in what the D60 can do: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d60.htm Darren.
-----Original Message----- Bob, where did you hear that the pixels were interpolated? the Canon D60 has a real 6.3 Megapixel chip. Wouldn't Nikon do the same, just to keep up with Canon? Jerry Bob Frost wrote: > > Jerry, > > I've thought seriously about getting the Nikon D100 with its 6.3 > interpolated megapixels (2.1 real megapixels), but in the end I still come > back to the incontrovertible fact that from my Nikon F100, Provia 100F, and > Nikon LS4000 I get 24 real megapixels (unless Austin tells me I'm making a > miscalculation somewhere)! > > Prosumer digital cameras are not even in the same ballpark yet - they are > still an order of magnitude away. > > Bob Frost. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-05-29 by Austin Franklin
Hi Darren (and Jerry below), > On the sensor itself, > there are 6.3 million real pixels, but each pixel only records one colour > (red, green or blue). Well, no. There are 6.3 million real SENSORS, not pixels. A COLOR pixel, as used in any imaging program, consists of ALL THREE COLOR COMPONENTS, red, green AND blue, not just one of them. > The new Foveon chip records red, green AND blue values at every > pixel on its > surface, so presumably it will give better quality than a Bayer sensor at > the same resolution. It's somewhat the same as just taking a group of four of the Bayer pattern sensors and calling them a pixel ;-) > Bob, where did you hear that the pixels were interpolated? the Canon D60 > has a real 6.3 Megapixel chip. Wouldn't Nikon do the same, just to keep > up with Canon? > > Jerry They absolutely ARE interpolated. It is a 6.3 megaSENSOR chip. It interpolates the 3M green, 1.5M blue and 1.5M red sensors and gives you a 6.3M pixel file, just as Darren said. Austin
2002-05-29 by Robert Morrison
Yeah his info was wrong. Its a 5.4 megapixel chip that is interpolated to 5.9 megapixel. Remember, it is Canon that is keeping up with Nikon...the D1x is over a year old now...I would imagine that Nikon will launch another pro upgrade in the fall or winter. The D100 which is positioned to compete with the D60 is also 6.31 megapixel. Robert
On 5/28/02 6:44 PM, "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> wrote: > Bob, where did you hear that the pixels were interpolated? the Canon D60 > has a real 6.3 Megapixel chip. Wouldn't Nikon do the same, just to keep > up with Canon? > > Jerry > > > > Bob Frost wrote: >> >> Jerry, >> >> I've thought seriously about getting the Nikon D100 with its 6.3 >> interpolated megapixels (2.1 real megapixels), but in the end I still come >> back to the incontrovertible fact that from my Nikon F100, Provia 100F, and >> Nikon LS4000 I get 24 real megapixels (unless Austin tells me I'm making a >> miscalculation somewhere)! >> >> Prosumer digital cameras are not even in the same ballpark yet - they are >> still an order of magnitude away. >> >> Bob Frost. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> >>> >>> Why not get the Nikon D100 when it comes out this summer? 6.3 >>> megapixels, and about two thousand dollars. >> >> >> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and >> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: >> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint >> >> Please follow these basic guidelines: >> - Include your full name with your message. >> - Include the address of your website, if you have one. >> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep >> them short. >> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. >> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or >> "flames." >> - Complete your Yahoo profile. >> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various >> resources on the homepage. >> >> >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or > "flames." > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various > resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2002-05-29 by Darren Collins
>> On the sensor itself, >> there are 6.3 million real pixels, but each pixel only records one colour >> (red, green or blue). > >Well, no. There are 6.3 million real SENSORS, not pixels. A COLOR pixel, >as used in any imaging program, consists of ALL THREE COLOR COMPONENTS, red, >green AND blue, not just one of them. > I meant the same as you, but yes, sensor is a better term. It's less confusing. >> The new Foveon chip records red, green AND blue values at every >> pixel on its >> surface, so presumably it will give better quality than a Bayer sensor at >> the same resolution. > >It's somewhat the same as just taking a group of four of the Bayer pattern >sensors and calling them a pixel ;-) > Similar, but not the same. Each bayer pattern sensor is recording light intensity (for one colour) at a slightly different location in the grid. It's just that each sensor only has information for one colour channel. (BTW, I've often wondered why nobody ever designed a bayer filter grid that could somehow be moved out of the way so that each pixel recorded just the light intensity, letting the user make full-resolution monochrome images.) I read an analysis of the quality of images derived from Foveon's new sensor, and the author calculated that they are equivalent (in perceived quality) to a Bayer pattern sensor with something like 1.4 or 1.6 times the resolution. It's an improvement, but not as great as the 4x resolution improvement you'd expect at first glance. Sorry not to be able to back this up with a reference, but I can't remember where I read the analysis. Another paper I read was a study of the lp/mm it is possible to capture on 35mm film. The author found that lenses, use of consumer film, non-use of tripods/shutter releases/mirror lock-up, use of autofocus, filters placed on the lens, etc limits most photographers to a quality of around 50 lp/mm. That equates to 100dpi on a sensor 36mm x 24mm, or a 3600x2400 pixel image (just over 8Mp). Using all the right techniques and top-of-the-line slide film it is possible to achieve 80 lp/mm, which equates to a 22 Mp digital image. Of course, noise characteristics differ (random grain vs. evenly-spaced pixels), so percieved quality may not match up like the maths does. In the end, though, the mathematics doesn't matter. It's what the user likes best that matters. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-05-29 by Ton Guiking
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Darren Collins [mailto:collinda@...] (...) > Another paper I read was a study of the lp/mm it is possible to capture on 35mm film. The author found that lenses, use of consumer film, non-use of tripods/shutter releases/mirror lock-up, use of autofocus, filters placed on the lens, etc limits most photographers to a quality of around 50 lp/mm. That equates to 100dpi on a sensor 36mm x 24mm, or a 3600x2400 pixel image (just over 8Mp). < Maybe, but the same 'lowering issues' apply to digital photography, so a real 6 Mp in a digital camera would result in (due to use of lenses, non-use of tripods etc.)to, say, 2.2 Mp. What matters is what you get in films vs. CCD, **all the other things being equal**. Best, Ton Guiking Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705 019182:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=102264355 4%3eM=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=10002 39/R=1> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egrou pmail/S=1705019182:HM/A=1000239/rand=776114936> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint Please follow these basic guidelines: - Include your full name with your message. - Include the address of your website, if you have one. - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile. - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-05-29 by Bob Frost
Jerry,
The Canon D60 may have a chip with 6.3 million 'sensors' that after
processing in the camera produce 6.3 million 'pixels', but my point was that
each of those sensors only measures luminosity and one color. A red sensor
measures luminosity and red light; to produce an RGB pixel from it the
program in the camera has to look at the values of the green and blue
sensors around the red one, and guess (interpolate) what the red sensor
might have seen if it could sense all three colours. The same goes for all
the other 6.3 million sensors on the chip. None of them has the complete
('real') information on the scene you have photographed - not a single
sensor in your camera can record the real detail in the picture!
So the color program in your D30, D60, Nikon D100, etc has to do exactly
what Photoshop does when interpolating, look at the existing info and by a
sum of varying complexity (linear, nearest neighbour, bicubic, etc)
calculate the missing information that you want.
That is not to say that all interpolation is bad; after all our eyes operate
on exactly the same principle (I think), interpolating from the rods and
cones in our retina that have different sensitivities to red, green, and
blue light.
I will eventually get a digital camera, of that I have no doubt (because of
all the advantages that Robert Morrison pointed out), but at the moment the
quality is not good enough for what I want. I want to be able to hand-hold
my camera much of the time, crop my slides, and then print them at 11x16
(A3). The prints I've seen from a D30 and Fuji S1 are just about OK
(slightly soft) when uncropped at 8x10 (A4), but not at any greater mag
unless it's the sort of image that is OK with soft focus.
Bob Frost.
----- Original Message -----From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> > Bob, where did you hear that the pixels were interpolated? the Canon D60 > has a real 6.3 Megapixel chip. Wouldn't Nikon do the same, just to keep > up with Canon?
2002-05-29 by Austin Franklin
Hi Darren, > >It's somewhat the same as just taking a group of four of the > Bayer pattern > >sensors and calling them a pixel ;-) > > > Similar, but not the same. Each bayer pattern sensor is recording light > intensity (for one colour) at a slightly different location in the grid. That "issue" can be solved with a microlense array over the sensor array. > Another paper I read was a study of the lp/mm it is possible to capture on > 35mm film. I've never been really happy with 35mm except for "snap shots" anyway...I prefer MF. Austin
2002-05-29 by Bob Frost
Hi Jerry, Having said that (below), I thought I should find out how many 'megapixels' our eyes have! It seem that in 'digicam advertising jargon' our eyes are pretty good - 126 'megapixels'. So our cameras have got a way to go yet! We have 120 million rod sensors in our eye that are not sensitive to color; they only measure luminosity. The cone sensors only number about 6 or seven million, and exist in three types which sense red, green, or blue. Their proportions are quite different to a camera; we have about 64% red, 32% green, and only 2% blue sensors. Most of these color sensors are located in the centre of the eye - the fovea centralis. Is this where Foveon gets it's name from? The cones are about 0.002mm in diam and about 30 000 are packed in the fovea centralis which is about 0.3 mm in diam. So at a rough calculation that gives us about 15 000 sensors per inch compared with a D60's 3000 per inch. But of course the D60's chip is bigger than our fovea! One analogy says that our rods are like a high-sensitivity black&white film such as Tri-X (back on subject), while our cones are like a low-sensivity color film overlapping the b&w film. Bob Frost. PS Isn't Google wonderful? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> > > That is not to say that all interpolation is bad; after all our eyes operate
> on exactly the same principle (I think), interpolating from the rods and > cones in our retina that have different sensitivities to red, green, and > blue light.
2002-05-29 by Austin Franklin
> Bob, my D30 CLOSEUPS are as sharp as provia film scanned at 4000 dpi. Jerry, Heavy sigh. Sharpness has never been the issue. A 100k pixel digital camera will produce razor sharp images. Austin
2002-05-29 by Jerry Olson
Bob, my D30 CLOSEUPS are as sharp as provia film scanned at 4000 dpi. The 12x18 print is as sharp or sharper than the provia at the same enlargement. You have to twiddle with the sharpness controls a lot to get it that sharp, without artifacts, but the D-30 can take a LOT of sharpening before anything shows up as an artifact. I have no doubt whatever that the D60 will be able to please you. I'm as picky as you are, and believe me, the D30 closeups are sharp. The landscapes have way too much fine detail and don't hold up nearly as well as closeups do. Jerry
> The Canon D60 may have a chip with 6.3 million 'sensors' that after
> processing in the camera produce 6.3 million 'pixels', but my point was that
> each of those sensors only measures luminosity and one color. A red sensor
> measures luminosity and red light; to produce an RGB pixel from it the
> program in the camera has to look at the values of the green and blue
> sensors around the red one, and guess (interpolate) what the red sensor
> might have seen if it could sense all three colours. The same goes for all
> the other 6.3 million sensors on the chip. None of them has the complete
> ('real') information on the scene you have photographed - not a single
> sensor in your camera can record the real detail in the picture!
>
> So the color program in your D30, D60, Nikon D100, etc has to do exactly
> what Photoshop does when interpolating, look at the existing info and by a
> sum of varying complexity (linear, nearest neighbour, bicubic, etc)
> calculate the missing information that you want.
>
> That is not to say that all interpolation is bad; after all our eyes operate
> on exactly the same principle (I think), interpolating from the rods and
> cones in our retina that have different sensitivities to red, green, and
> blue light.
>
> I will eventually get a digital camera, of that I have no doubt (because of
> all the advantages that Robert Morrison pointed out), but at the moment the
> quality is not good enough for what I want. I want to be able to hand-hold
> my camera much of the time, crop my slides, and then print them at 11x16
> (A3). The prints I've seen from a D30 and Fuji S1 are just about OK
> (slightly soft) when uncropped at 8x10 (A4), but not at any greater mag
> unless it's the sort of image that is OK with soft focus.
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
>
> > Bob, where did you hear that the pixels were interpolated? the Canon D60
> > has a real 6.3 Megapixel chip. Wouldn't Nikon do the same, just to keep
> > up with Canon?
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/2002-05-29 by Richard Sintchak
Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 12:28:48 PM, Jerry Olson wrote: JO> Bob, my D30 CLOSEUPS are as sharp as provia film scanned at 4000 dpi. JO> The 12x18 print is as sharp or sharper than the provia at the same JO> enlargement. You have to twiddle with the sharpness controls a lot to JO> get it that sharp, without artifacts, but the D-30 can take a LOT of JO> sharpening before anything shows up as an artifact. I have no doubt JO> whatever that the D60 will be able to please you. I'm as picky as you JO> are, and believe me, the D30 closeups are sharp. The landscapes have way JO> too much fine detail and don't hold up nearly as well as closeups do. JO> Jerry Jerry, This is impressive. Can you post some examples somewhere? Best regards, Richard mailto:richard@...
2002-05-29 by Moreno Polloni
> Bob, my D30 CLOSEUPS are as sharp as provia film scanned at 4000 dpi. > The 12x18 print is as sharp or sharper than the provia at the same > enlargement. You have to twiddle with the sharpness controls a lot to > get it that sharp, without artifacts, but the D-30 can take a LOT of > sharpening before anything shows up as an artifact. I have no doubt > whatever that the D60 will be able to please you. I'm as picky as you > are, and believe me, the D30 closeups are sharp. The landscapes have way > too much fine detail and don't hold up nearly as well as closeups do. What do you feel is the difference between pixels of close-up detail and pixels of landscape detail?
2002-05-29 by Jerry Olson
Richard, I can send you a large JPEG, which still looks great on the monitor. I don't know how to post an image somewhere. If you want, I could send it over the supper hour, as I suppose it will take awhile to download. Jerry Austin Always claims that sharpness isn't the issue, detail is. But all technicalites aside, the closeups from the D30 look great, if you are using sharp lenses. I used the 100mm and the 50mm Canon macros for the pictures I'm always talking about.
2002-05-29 by Jerry Olson
Moreno, The Closeups are razor sharp, and are equal in quality to 100 ISO films. (in 12x18 inch prints). The Landscapes don't resolve that much detail at infinity, because there is just not enough room on the sensor to capture all that fine detail far from the camera. If this isn't the correct reason, Austin can supply it, as he is very technically minded, and I'm not. The same thing is evident in film cameras. Landscapes don't hold the sharpness or detail that closeups do. This is quite evident in 13x19 prints, not evident in 8x12 prints. Jerry > What do you feel is the difference between pixels of close-up detail and > pixels of landscape detail?
2002-05-29 by Austin Franklin
Hi Jerry, > The Closeups are razor sharp, and are equal in quality to 100 ISO films. > (in 12x18 inch prints). The Landscapes don't resolve that much detail at > infinity, because there is just not enough room on the sensor to capture > all that fine detail far from the camera. If this isn't the correct > reason, Austin can supply it, as he is very technically minded, and I'm > not. You did fine, Jerry ;-) Austin
2002-05-29 by Darren Collins
>> Another paper I read was a study of the lp/mm it is possible to >> capture on >> 35mm film. The author found that lenses, use of consumer film, non-use >> of >> tripods/shutter releases/mirror lock-up, use of autofocus, filters >> placed on >> the lens, etc limits most photographers to a quality of around 50 lp/mm. >> That equates to 100dpi on a sensor 36mm x 24mm, or a 3600x2400 pixel >> image >> (just over 8Mp). >> > > Maybe, but the same 'lowering issues' apply to digital photography, so a > real 6 Mp in a digital camera would result in (due to use of lenses, > non-use of tripods etc.)to, say, 2.2 Mp. What matters is what you get in > films vs. CCD, **all the other things being equal**. > Best, > Ton Guiking > No, it doesn't work like that. You don't sacrifice some magical percentage of your maximum resolution. For the sake of simplicity, lets assume you've got an 8Mp 36x24mm digital camera. This camera would have enough resolution to record the 50 lp/mm images you can expect when hand-holding with consumer-grade lenses and filters. However, putting that camera on a tripod and using professional lenses won't get you any extra resolution. Nothing you do can increase the amount of detail you can capture (those lucky film guys can always upgrade to better film/lenses/tripods/filters/etc for more detail!). I think we're actually arguing the same thing here. I figure people that own 35mm cameras shouldn't put down digital's supposedly-lower resolution unless they're using high-quality slide film, tripods, good glass, etc to maximise the detail they're capturing on film. Otherwise, they're just as guilty of sacrificing resolution for convenience as us digital guys are. The difference is that film guys save money in the sacrifice - us digital guys pay extra for it :-). Darren. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-05-30 by jmoore50310
Thanks for all the replies and advice. I passed on the D1 and ordered a D60 today. The guy in the camera shop said that I should have it in 5 to 10 working days. Thanks again. Jim
2002-05-30 by Austin Franklin
> For the sake of simplicity, lets assume you've got an 8Mp 36x24mm digital > camera. This camera would have enough resolution to record the 50 lp/mm > images you can expect when hand-holding with consumer-grade lenses and > filters. However, putting that camera on a tripod and using professional > lenses won't get you any extra resolution. Nothing you do can increase the > amount of detail you can capture (those lucky film guys can always upgrade > to better film/lenses/tripods/filters/etc for more detail!). Darren, Aside from the difference for color, which, I agree, isn't that big a deal, there's a huge difference for B&W though...as these mentioned digicams only shoot in Bayer pattern RGB, you really don't get near the resolution and accurate tonality you get from B&W film with a digicam. Another issue is that film grains are random (in position and somewhat in size), digicams are not. Because of this, they really don't map 1:1 as far as resolution goes... For most color work not requiring much enlargement, most people will be quite happy with a 6M pixel Bayer pattern digicam of decent quality, and certainly 8 would be better ;-) Austin
2002-05-30 by Robert Morrison
As a "digicam" user myself...I think Austin has said it very, very well as usual...but I want 16 next...not 8!...I know greedy, greedy, greedy. Robert
On 5/30/02 5:43 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote: >> For the sake of simplicity, lets assume you've got an 8Mp 36x24mm digital >> camera. This camera would have enough resolution to record the 50 lp/mm >> images you can expect when hand-holding with consumer-grade lenses and >> filters. However, putting that camera on a tripod and using professional >> lenses won't get you any extra resolution. Nothing you do can increase the >> amount of detail you can capture (those lucky film guys can always upgrade >> to better film/lenses/tripods/filters/etc for more detail!). > > Darren, > > Aside from the difference for color, which, I agree, isn't that big a deal, > there's a huge difference for B&W though...as these mentioned digicams only > shoot in Bayer pattern RGB, you really don't get near the resolution and > accurate tonality you get from B&W film with a digicam. > > Another issue is that film grains are random (in position and somewhat in > size), digicams are not. Because of this, they really don't map 1:1 as far > as resolution goes... > > For most color work not requiring much enlargement, most people will be > quite happy with a 6M pixel Bayer pattern digicam of decent quality, and > certainly 8 would be better ;-) > > Austin > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or > "flames." > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various > resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2002-05-30 by Austin Franklin
Hi Robert, Thanks! I, too, am waiting for 16M pixels in a FULL FRAME 35mm format, but even more so on the horizon, and I believe more impressive would be a 6x6 full frame sensor for medium format...or even a 4x4 new format... Eventually, these won't be that expensive (relative to today that is), and having two back, one monochrome and one color won't be a big deal...but my guess is most people will be happy with using color and converting to monochrome...sigh...which means probably no monochrome backs. I'm not that impressed with 35mm quality, so comparing digital cameras to 35mm film quality doesn't really "interest" me. If I'm going to "fuss" with my images (as in scan them and play with tonal curves etc.), I'd rather do it with images that matter. I know what "matters" differs from person to person, but IMO, if you want to improve your photography (depending on what your style is that is), moving to a decent MF can make a HUGE difference. To digress...I have been using MF for over 20 years, mostly exclusively. It 's only because I got a film scanner that could scan 5080 for 35mm that I thought I'd try 35mm again...believing that with the best films, and best lenses etc. I could get the quality I was looking for from 35mm. I have both Leica and Contax/Zeiss 35mm systems...and they're great...but not for my B&W artwork (after all, this IS a B&W list). I pretty much end up using 35mm for snapshots and find that my work is so much better with MF. I AM shooting a LOT of 35mm, mostly family stuff (drug store development, 2 for 1 4x6 prints...everyone loves the pictures ;-)...so I'm happy I got the 35mm systems anyway...and digital would be a pain, as there is a lot of overhead (time) in storing them and printing them...where with film, drop it off, 2 for 1, give the prints away, throw the negatives in a file box...really easy. No fuss, no muss. Regards, Austin
> As a "digicam" user myself...I think Austin has said it very, very well as > usual...but I want 16 next...not 8!...I know greedy, greedy, greedy. > > Robert
2002-05-30 by Robert Morrison
On 5/30/02 8:31 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote: > I AM > shooting a LOT of 35mm, mostly family stuff (drug store development, 2 for 1 > 4x6 prints...everyone loves the pictures ;-)...so I'm happy I got the 35mm > systems anyway...and digital would be a pain, as there is a lot of overhead > (time) in storing them and printing them...where with film, drop it off, 2 > for 1, give the prints away, throw the negatives in a file box...really > easy. No fuss, no muss. These are really good points...unfortunately...my family is all over the world and photos are now seen as jpegs on web pages and attached to email...so I have to deal with the digital overhead. I think I'm about to buy a medium format and give that another try...in the past I haven't liked the inconvience of MF...but I've got several recommendations for the Mamiya 7II given my shooting preferences (handheld available light and mobile)...I'm going to rent one for a week long shoot in a couple of weeks. Just got a 7000 to do BW work and would like to be able to exploit the extra real estate. Robert
2002-05-30 by Austin Franklin
Hi Robert, > These are really good points...unfortunately...my family is all over the > world and photos are now seen as jpegs on web pages and attached to > email...so I have to deal with the digital overhead. I completely understand! > I think I'm about to buy a medium format and give that another > try...in the > past I haven't liked the inconvience of MF...but I've got several > recommendations for the Mamiya 7II given my shooting preferences (handheld > available light and mobile)...I'm going to rent one for a week > long shoot in > a couple of weeks. Just got a 7000 to do BW work and would like > to be able > to exploit the extra real estate. Two things made film great for me...one, a Jobo, and two, a Jobo ;-) Once I got my times down, it's literally put in the film and press the button...oh, and I do have to load the chemicals before I press the button... My BIGGEST issue with most MF is most don't have fast lenses, and most don't focus close at all. I shoot MF (and 35mm) mostly wide open, and end up quite close in some circumstances, and mostly use B&W films with MF (Tri-X and Plus-X/Delta 100). It's also why I don't like zooms...they are too slow for most of my work, and don't focus close enough (except with the Contax AX...as it has a built-in 10mm extension). You may find the same thing, if you shoot in low light... Hasselblad 20x(x) series can take a 110/2, and a 50/2.8...and they are the two fastest MF lenses around, and they are VERY close focus. There are a couple of other fast MF lenses...the 80/2.0 for the Rollei 600x as well as one is available for the Contax 645 (but I don't like the 645 format at all). The 200x series Hasselblads and lenses are a steal these days, IMO. A camera I recently bought was a Plaubel Makina 670...which has an 80/2.8...and is the fastest folder I could find, and the lense is supposedly superb (it's a Nikor). I have not developed any film from it though...yet. For size, weight and great results Rollei TLRs are really spectacular too...but not close enough focusing for me...don't know how the Plaubel is at that yet. I may be disappointed. Regards, Austin
2002-05-30 by Lawrence Smith
> Two things made film great for me...one, a Jobo, and two, a > Jobo ;-) Once I got my times down, it's literally put in the > film and press the button...oh, and I do have to load the > chemicals before I press the button... > Austin, Are you using an ATL 500/800? I've been considering getting a Jobo. Anyone got any experience with the CPP-2? (more in my price range) Lawrence
2002-05-30 by Robert Morrison
On 5/30/02 9:04 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote: > Hi Robert, > >> These are really good points...unfortunately...my family is all over the >> world and photos are now seen as jpegs on web pages and attached to >> email...so I have to deal with the digital overhead. > > I completely understand! > >> I think I'm about to buy a medium format and give that another >> try...in the >> past I haven't liked the inconvience of MF...but I've got several >> recommendations for the Mamiya 7II given my shooting preferences (handheld >> available light and mobile)...I'm going to rent one for a week >> long shoot in >> a couple of weeks. Just got a 7000 to do BW work and would like >> to be able >> to exploit the extra real estate. > > Two things made film great for me...one, a Jobo, and two, a Jobo ;-) Once I > got my times down, it's literally put in the film and press the button...oh, > and I do have to load the chemicals before I press the button... > > My BIGGEST issue with most MF is most don't have fast lenses, and most don't > focus close at all. I shoot MF (and 35mm) mostly wide open, and end up > quite close in some circumstances, and mostly use B&W films with MF (Tri-X > and Plus-X/Delta 100). It's also why I don't like zooms...they are too slow > for most of my work, and don't focus close enough (except with the Contax > AX...as it has a built-in 10mm extension). You may find the same thing, if > you shoot in low light... Hasselblad 20x(x) series can take a 110/2, and a > 50/2.8...and they are the two fastest MF lenses around, and they are VERY > close focus. There are a couple of other fast MF lenses...the 80/2.0 for > the Rollei 600x as well as one is available for the Contax 645 (but I don't > like the 645 format at all). The 200x series Hasselblads and lenses are a > steal these days, IMO. A camera I recently bought was a Plaubel Makina > 670...which has an 80/2.8...and is the fastest folder I could find, and the > lense is supposedly superb (it's a Nikor). I have not developed any film > from it though...yet. For size, weight and great results Rollei TLRs are > really spectacular too...but not close enough focusing for me...don't know > how the Plaubel is at that yet. I may be disappointed. > Thanks, the best the Mamiya does is F4...which is really slow for a guy who is used to shooting f1.4 and 1.8 nikon glass. Close focusing isn't a big deal for me...but light is. My main problem with the MF SLR's was mirror shake. I tried using mirror lock up...but that totally ruined my shooting dynamics...much of which involves models, dancers and actors in motion. That's why I'm thinking about the Mamiya 7II rangefinder...to get rid of the mirror...and try to decrease the bulk of the camera body...make it feel more pro 35mm body-like. I also like to fool around with landscape and architecture...where light is less important...but lightness is important. I also don't shoot zoom lenses...I have about 10 primes for my nikon rig...but could imagine doing with a 60-65mm MF lens. Robert
2002-05-30 by Tony Terlecki
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:56:51PM -0400, Lawrence Smith wrote: > > Two things made film great for me...one, a Jobo, and two, a > > Jobo ;-) Once I got my times down, it's literally put in the > > film and press the button...oh, and I do have to load the > > chemicals before I press the button... > > > > > Austin, > > Are you using an ATL 500/800? I've been considering getting a Jobo. > Anyone got any experience with the CPP-2? (more in my price range) > I've got a CPP-2. Great piece of kit which should last a lifetime (or as long as there's film and chemicals to develop). Use it for B&W, C41 and E6 and get excellent results. It is slightly more labour intensive than the ATL range because you have to do the timing and changing of chemicals. Don't even consider a CPP-2 without the lift - it's a must have accessory. There are lots of these becoming available on the second hand market as people move over to digital so you can pick up Jobo kit at good prices at the moment. -- Tony Terlecki ajt@...
2002-05-30 by Lawrence Smith
Thanks for the info. I suspected that the used market might be pretty good for these now. Time to hit ebay and take a look! Thanks again, Lawrence
> There are lots of these becoming available on the second hand > market as people move over to digital so you can pick up Jobo > kit at good prices at the moment.
2002-05-30 by Austin Franklin
Hi Lawrence, ATL-1500 is, in my opinion, the best one there is for "our" type of use. Don't consider an early ATL-1000, but a later ATl-1000 is OK, and can be had for a very good price, and doesn't have the disadvantages of the early ones (early ones have no tempering of B&W, and a glass thermometer...). Austin
> -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence Smith [mailto:lsmith@...] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:34 PM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Print Quality From A Nikon D1 > > > Thanks for the info. I suspected that the used market might be pretty > good for these now. Time to hit ebay and take a look! > > > Thanks again, > > Lawrence > > > There are lots of these becoming available on the second hand > > market as people move over to digital so you can pick up Jobo > > kit at good prices at the moment.
2002-05-30 by Austin Franklin
> Austin, > > Are you using an ATL 500/800? I've been considering getting a Jobo. > Anyone got any experience with the CPP-2? (more in my price range) > > Lawrence Hi Lawrence, I had an early ATL-1000, and sold it and bought an ATL-1500. Both are exceptional, but I really prefer the further automation/programmability of the ATL-1500. Regards, Austin
2002-05-30 by Lawrence Smith
> Hi Lawrence, > > ATL-1500 is, in my opinion, the best one there is for "our" > type of use. Don't consider an early ATL-1000, but a later > ATl-1000 is OK, and can be had for a very good price, and > doesn't have the disadvantages of the early ones (early ones > have no tempering of B&W, and a glass thermometer...). > > Austin > Austin, Thanks for the info. I'd really like to have the consistency and ease of use. I know my own agitation techniques are not too consistent (a side effect of the ADD ;-) ) and getting consistent temps is a pain in my environment. Also, I'm sure I'd procrastinate the processing less if I could 'set it and forget it'... Lawrence
2002-06-01 by grdglass@aol.com
Austin, Kodak currently makes a monochrome only version in their top-of-the-line 35mm format, the DCS 760M. I have been trying to get a look at it or see some samples but nothing is available through the usual Kodak sources or pro photo dealers. I have not been able to get through to the right person at Kodak yet. Helene << Thanks! I, too, am waiting for 16M pixels in a FULL FRAME 35mm format, but even more so on the horizon, and I believe more impressive would be a 6x6 full frame sensor for medium format...or even a 4x4 new format... Eventually, these won't be that expensive (relative to today that is), and having two back, one monochrome and one color won't be a big deal...but my guess is most people will be happy with using color and converting to monochrome...sigh...which means probably no monochrome backs. >>
2002-06-01 by Austin Franklin
Hi Helene, Yep, I know about it...and they also make a monochrome back for Hasselblad...but it isn't full frame ;-( I also don't believe the DCS 760M is full frame either. Regards, Austin
> -----Original Message----- > From: grdglass@... [mailto:grdglass@...] > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 7:31 AM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Print Quality From A Nikon D1 > > > Austin, > > Kodak currently makes a monochrome only version in their > top-of-the-line 35mm > format, the DCS 760M. I have been trying to get a look at it or see some > samples but nothing is available through the usual Kodak sources > or pro photo > dealers. I have not been able to get through to the right person > at Kodak > yet. > > Helene > > << Thanks! I, too, am waiting for 16M pixels in a FULL FRAME > 35mm format, but > even more so on the horizon, and I believe more impressive would be a 6x6 > full frame sensor for medium format...or even a 4x4 new format... > Eventually, these won't be that expensive (relative to today that is), and > having two back, one monochrome and one color won't be a big deal...but my > guess is most people will be happy with using color and converting to > monochrome...sigh...which means probably no monochrome backs. >>
2002-06-02 by tomoc
Jerry- Austin may (probably is) right, but it may not matter much of the time (especially on closeups with a lot of evenly graduated areas). I have a Nikon D1 and D1x. They are each able to produce equally sharp images if the subject is well lit. The biggest advantage to the D1x (aside from better color balance and some more user friendly features) is that there is more detail on the CCD and in weakly lit scenes there is definitely more to work with in the shadow areas. I think the interpolation (yes, the lack of detail, Austin), produces very adequate images in many situations. The photo may "look" just as good or better than an image with "more detail" but you can still make the argument that detail is lacking. Something of an oblique proof of this would be the file sizes of various .jpg images...ones with a lot of fine detail are significantly larger than ones with lots of even areas and both are taken with the same camera... Extend the limited .jpg analogy to the CCD algorithms and you can imagine how the hardware runs out of headroom to resolve detail at some point. In most scenes I believe that this DOES NOT MEAN YOU PRODUCE AN INFERIOR PHOTO...and that's where the arguing starts for me <g>. Tom O'Connell TomOC@... www.thomasoconnell.com --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> wrote: > Richard, I can send you a large JPEG, which still looks great on the > monitor. I don't know how to post an image somewhere. If you want, I > could send it over the supper hour, as I suppose it will take awhile to > download. > > Jerry > > Austin Always claims that sharpness isn't the issue, detail is. But all > technicalites aside, the closeups from the D30 look great, if you are > using sharp lenses. I used the 100mm and the 50mm Canon macros for the > pictures I'm always talking about.
2002-06-02 by Jerry Olson
Tom, I have my June prints ready to go at last. When would be a good time to ship them? I understand you will be going on vacation sometime soon? Jerry tomoc wrote:
> > Jerry- > > Austin may (probably is) right, but it may not matter much of the > time (especially on closeups with a lot of evenly graduated areas).