Digital BW, The Print

Jerry,

I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of the
advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems to
mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max out of
the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw format or
largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I took about
13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500 images at 50MB per
image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable computer or hard-drive to
store them on while I'm away, and then instead of putting them all in my
filing cabinet until I want to scan an image, I've got to keep them all on a
computer, until I might want them one day. Copying just that batch of images
to CD is going to use about 40 CD's and take hours. Using DVD-R will
probably take just as long; fewer disks but costing far more.

How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only going
to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better lossless
compression systems appear?

Bob Frost.

Jerry-

There are many options you can take. You can either take a portable 
laptop on your trip away, or you can choose to use a small portable 
device that does more of an archiving function, like a Digital Wallet 
or an Image Bank. I just returned from a 5-week trip to east Africa, 
where I took somewhere around 3,000 images with my Canon D30. I use 
an Image Bank (http://www.simacorp.com/photo.html#digital), and I 
purchased a 40GB hard drive to fit inside. I chose the Digital Walley 
over other products, because many of our trips involve camping in the 
back country, where there is no ability to recharge the internal 
battery of the units that use proprietary batteries. The Image Bank 
can run off of 6 AA batteries, 110v/220v/240v and 12v or 24v auto.

I have found the best resource for learning more about digital 
storage is the forums at dpreview.com. Here is a link:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1023

Enjoy!



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@b...> 
wrote:
> Jerry,
> 
> I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know 
most of the
> advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one 
seems to
> mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the 
max out of
> the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw 
format or
> largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I took 
about
> 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500 images at 
50MB per
> image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable computer or hard-
drive to
> store them on while I'm away, and then instead of putting them all 
in my
> filing cabinet until I want to scan an image, I've got to keep them 
all on a
> computer, until I might want them one day. Copying just that batch 
of images
> to CD is going to use about 40 CD's and take hours. Using DVD-R will
> probably take just as long; fewer disks but costing far more.
> 
> How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is 
only going

> to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better lossless
> compression systems appear?
> 
> Bob Frost.

Bob;

Just to jump in here, you probably want a portable storage device such as
MindStor http://www.mindsat.com/ or something similar.

Wendel

> From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 16:33:08 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of the
> advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems to
> mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max out of
> the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw format or
> largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I took about
> 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500 images at 50MB per
> image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable computer or hard-drive to
> store them on while I'm away, and then instead of putting them all in my
> filing cabinet until I want to scan an image, I've got to keep them all on a
> computer, until I might want them one day. Copying just that batch of images
> to CD is going to use about 40 CD's and take hours. Using DVD-R will
> probably take just as long; fewer disks but costing far more.
> 
> How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only going
> to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better lossless
> compression systems appear?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
> 
> 
>

> How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only going
> to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better lossless
> compression systems appear?
> 
> Bob Frost.

To store images on the road you could go the iPod route. It's available both for 
Window's and Mac and has Firewire.

John V.

If you don't need the access to AA batteries like Andy, I can tell 
you the 20 gib mindstor is a great solution...you do need a couple of 
extra battery packs to use it in the field, but it is very fast (fire 
wire and USB) and rugged and reliable...I've been using it for about 
3 months.

Final storage, though, has only one decent solution...DVD...there is 
a lot of controversy over what the ultimate format will be...HP and 
others have recently started a betamax/vhs war of formats when they 
introduced the DVD+ format. There was already plenty of confusion in 
the DVD-R arena.

It seems to me that DVD-R has so much more market share outstanding 
with the huge installed base, that even if DVD+ wins the marketing 
wars, they will have to support a read function for the DVD-R, so 
I've just bought my second generation DVD-R burner (they keep getting 
cheaper and better). There are a lot of good ones out there...I opted 
for a pioneer A03 (already not the latest and greatest)again because 
it seems to be the largest market share and is compatible with MAC 
and windows.

Be forewarned...it will look like a brave new world of videophiles, 
but once you get the hardware and set it up (actually quite easy) and 
establish your workflow (you'll wreck one or two disks <g>) it's a 
snap and by far the quickest, safest, most efficient way to store 
images...now you'll need to find the perfect catalog 
software...another topic <g>

Cheers,

Tom O'Connell

TomOC@...
www.thomasoconnell.com




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@b...> 
wrote:
> Jerry,
> 
> I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know 
most of the
> advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one 
seems to
> mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the 
max out of
> the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw 
format or
> largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I took 
about
> 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500 images at 
50MB per
> image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable computer or hard-
drive to
> store them on while I'm away, and then instead of putting them all 
in my
> filing cabinet until I want to scan an image, I've got to keep them 
all on a
> computer, until I might want them one day. Copying just that batch 
of images
> to CD is going to use about 40 CD's and take hours. Using DVD-R will
> probably take just as long; fewer disks but costing far more.
> 
> How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is 
only going

> to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better lossless
> compression systems appear?
> 
> Bob Frost.

I recently posted an article about using an iPaq Pocket PC with
removable PCMCIA hard drives to store pictures while on
vacation/camping/hiking:

	http://www.glasslantern.com/articles/PocketPCstorage/index.htm

I ended up writing a custom program to do the transfers - you can get a
beta of it from the site if you're interested. For long term storage, I
archive raw NEF files to 2 CDs as well as keeping them on my hard drive.
One of the CDs gets mailed offsite in case my apartment burns down. I'll
move to DVD storage once the format wars are over.

later,
-jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...] 
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:33 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


Jerry,

I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of
the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems
to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max
out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw
format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I
took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500
images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable
computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then instead
of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an image,
I've got to keep them all on a computer, until I might want them one
day. Copying just that batch of images to CD is going to use about 40
CD's and take hours. Using DVD-R will probably take just as long; fewer
disks but costing far more.

How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only
going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
lossless compression systems appear?

Bob Frost.


<snip>

When I travel with my D1x I almost always take a laptop with me.  This is a
pain particularly for exotic or rugged locals...but it does allow me to get
feed back on the images while I'm shooting.  Another option that many
photojournalists use while in the field is a Digital Wallet.  I have one
with a 6gb HD.  These have operating systems to download files from the
microdrive or compact flash and then allow transfer to your main harddrive
via USB.  Its pretty small and light.  I have one friend that regularly
shoots remotely and he simply clips it to his belt during a days shoots and
swaps cards periodically.

All of this is a digital mixed blessing.  For time limited jobs its great.
I flew to Chicago about 4 months ago for a weekend shoot in which I had to
turn images around that weekend for a magazine.  I easily handled the job on
my color calibrated iBook and made the deadline.  This would have been
almost impossible if I was shooting film...with a remote city and weekend
hours at photolabs.

In contrast, its next to impossible to take a digital camera on a
backpacking trip...where you may go a week without power...for this I still
use film.  Likewise if you are trying to travel light...film is frequently
better...or maybe go with the Digital Wallet...provided you will have
regular power to charge camera and Digital Wallet batteries.  I take a small
powerstrip with me in case of limited outlets.

Incidentally, my .NEF files from the D1x are only about 7.7mb...so I think
you are overestimating your storage needs.  The files blow up to 60mb when
you decompress them in photoshop and save as 16bit TIFF...but they are much
smaller in NEF format.

Robert

On 7/27/02 11:25 AM, "Jeff Blum"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...]
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:33 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images
> 
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of
> the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems
> to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max
> out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw
> format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I
> took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500
> images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable
> computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then instead
> of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an image,
> I've got to keep them all on a computer, until I might want them one
> day. Copying just that batch of images to CD is going to use about 40
> CD's and take hours. Using DVD-R will probably take just as long; fewer
> disks but costing far more.
> 
> How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only
> going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
> lossless compression systems appear?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
> 
>

> Jerry,
> 
> I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of
> the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems
> to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max
> out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw
> format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I
> took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500
> images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable
> computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then instead
> of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an image,

> How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only
> going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
> lossless compression systems appear?
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 

If I can add a thought:

If I shot 500 images on a holiday, I would probably cull out most of them,
and would be very pleased if I had more than a dozen that should be stored
at hi res. And maybe there might be another couple dozen of personal/family
images that I would keep, and those might be 18 megs or less each.
 
It's so much easier to edit out digital images than film images. This is
something that doesn't seem to get much consideration when people are
comparing digital with film.

2 cents.

Jim

25 GB --

umm .. lets see..

a DVD-R holds about 4.7 GB --

25/4.7 = 5.3 ..

.. so you can fit your WHOLE vacation shoot on about 6 DVD-R discs..

.. of course you should probably just throw away the stuff that didn't work
out (out of focus -- bad lighting -- etc) . and save that stuff that you
liked or think that has some potential .. -- maybe then you could save your
vacaiton in about 2 or 3 DVD-R discs ..

.. DVD-R drives are pretty cheap now -- i just got one for $250 (Pioneer
ADR-04) ..

-- ricardo

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Klebau" <jklebau@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> > Jerry,
> >
> > I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of
> > the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems
> > to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max
> > out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw
> > format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I
> > took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500
> > images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable
> > computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then instead
> > of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an image,
>
> > How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only
> > going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
> > lossless compression systems appear?
> >
> > Bob Frost.
> >
>
> If I can add a thought:
>
> If I shot 500 images on a holiday, I would probably cull out most of them,
> and would be very pleased if I had more than a dozen that should be stored
> at hi res. And maybe there might be another couple dozen of
personal/family
> images that I would keep, and those might be 18 megs or less each.
>
> It's so much easier to edit out digital images than film images. This is
> something that doesn't seem to get much consideration when people are
> comparing digital with film.
>
> 2 cents.
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

Along those lines: I recently got a Nikon D100, and spent an 
afternoon shooting in a graveyard. At the end, I came home with 6 
images on a 256 MB compact flash (which will store 25 in raw format). 
All of them made it to the print stage. That is by far the most 
keepers I have ever had in an afternoon of shooting (ever!). I shot 
more than 6, but I deleted most of them right there in the field. 
With film, I would easily have burned 3 rolls of 36, with all the 
bracketing.

I have found myself slowing down using the D100, which is great. I 
prefer the contemplative pace in photography. But, there is also the 
instant gratification - download onto the PC, tweak, and print. No 
chemical processing, no scanning.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., James Klebau <jklebau@i...> 
wrote:
> > Jerry,
> > 
> > I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know 
most of
> > the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-
one seems
> > to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get 
the max
> > out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image 
in raw
> > format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last 
holiday I
> > took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 
500
> > images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a 
portable
> > computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then 
instead
> > of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an 
image,
> 
> > How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is 
only
> > going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
> > lossless compression systems appear?
> > 
> > Bob Frost.
> > 
> 
> If I can add a thought:
> 
> If I shot 500 images on a holiday, I would probably cull out most 
of them,
> and would be very pleased if I had more than a dozen that should be 
stored
> at hi res. And maybe there might be another couple dozen of 
personal/family
> images that I would keep, and those might be 18 megs or less each.
>  
> It's so much easier to edit out digital images than film images. 
This is
> something that doesn't seem to get much consideration when people 
are

> comparing digital with film.
> 
> 2 cents.
> 
> Jim

Note that the S2 does not actually produce 12 mp; it produces 6 mp, which it
interpolates to 12 mp in order to justify the marketing hype.  So you can
downsample to 6 mp without any loss of quality, since that's what the image
originally was to start with.  And 6 mp is about all you need for full-frame
images at normal viewing distances.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Klebau" <jklebau@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 01:17
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


>
> > Jerry,
> >
> > I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most of
> > the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one seems
> > to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the max
> > out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in raw
> > format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I
> > took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500
> > images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable
> > computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then instead
> > of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an image,
>
> > How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only
> > going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
> > lossless compression systems appear?
> >
> > Bob Frost.
> >
>
> If I can add a thought:
>
> If I shot 500 images on a holiday, I would probably cull out most of them,
> and would be very pleased if I had more than a dozen that should be stored
> at hi res. And maybe there might be another couple dozen of
personal/family
> images that I would keep, and those might be 18 megs or less each.
>
> It's so much easier to edit out digital images than film images. This is
> something that doesn't seem to get much consideration when people are
> comparing digital with film.
>
> 2 cents.
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>

Anthony,

Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except for a few exotica) is
interpolated? The skill of the camera maker is surely in choosing the best
size and number of sensors, their physical arrangement, and the
interpolation techniques.

For example, a Nikon D1x has a chip with 4028 x 1324 sensors, but the image
produced is 3008 x 1960 pixels - all interpolated !!

As to 6 mpixels being all one needs, I can see the difference between my
current scanned and printed images with 24 mpixels and my previous ones with
'only' 11 mpixels. With just 6 mpixels an A3+ print would only have 167 ppi
! With 24 mpixels I can send 330 ppi to the printer - in the recommended
range.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Note that the S2 does not actually produce 12 mp; it produces 6 mp, which
it
> interpolates to 12 mp in order to justify the marketing hype.  So you can
> downsample to 6 mp without any loss of quality, since that's what the
image
> originally was to start with.  And 6 mp is about all you need for
full-frame
> images at normal viewing distances.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Klebau" <jklebau@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 01:17
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images
>
>
> >
> > > Jerry,
> > >
> > > I'm considering the new Fuji S2 for a move into digicams. I know most
of
> > > the advantages and disadvantages versus film, but something no-one
seems
> > > to mention is storage of the image files. If you're going to get the
max
> > > out of the camera, you're going to save a 12 million pixel image in
raw
> > > format or largest tiff, at about 50 MB per image. On my last holiday I
> > > took about 13/14 films (36 each) so that would be getting on for 500
> > > images at 50MB per image = 25GB!! So I would have to buy a portable
> > > computer or hard-drive to store them on while I'm away, and then
instead
> > > of putting them all in my filing cabinet until I want to scan an
image,
> >
> > > How are you and others coping with this storage problem that is only
> > > going to get worse as camera resolutions increase, unless better
> > > lossless compression systems appear?
> > >
> > > Bob Frost.
> > >
> >
> > If I can add a thought:
> >
> > If I shot 500 images on a holiday, I would probably cull out most of
them,
> > and would be very pleased if I had more than a dozen that should be
stored
> > at hi res. And maybe there might be another couple dozen of
> personal/family
> > images that I would keep, and those might be 18 megs or less each.
> >
> > It's so much easier to edit out digital images than film images. This is
> > something that doesn't seem to get much consideration when people are
> > comparing digital with film.
> >
> > 2 cents.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> >
> > 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>

Bob writes:

> Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
> for a few exotica) is interpolated?

No.  Normally each pixel in the output image corresponds to a physical pixel
in the CCD.  The only interpolation that occurs is for color, since each
pixel has a color filter over it to restrict incoming light to red, blue, or
green (with green being twice as common as the other two colors, since the
eye is more sensitive to it).  So color information is significantly
interpolated, and luminance is slightly interpolated, but the actual
resolution of the output image overall matches that of the CCD.

Additionally, most interpolation does not inflate resolution artificially.
If anything, in good cameras, the resolution in the output image is _lower_
than the resolution of the CCD, because interpolation is used to produce a
smaller number of pixels of better quality.

The Fuji case, however, inflates around 6 megapixels to twice that number in
the output image, and it's just as much a case of hype as are scanners that
"interpolate" to much higher resolutions than they can actually provide
optically.  Pixel inflation in this way does nothing to improve image
quality; it only helps to sell cameras to the unwary.

> The skill of the camera maker is surely in choosing
> the best size and number of sensors, their physical
> arrangement, and the interpolation techniques.

Maybe, but interpolation to twice the resolution of the chip is never
justified for photosites of symmetrical configuration, no matter what the
skill of the camera maker.

> For example, a Nikon D1x has a chip with 4028 x
> 1324 sensors, but the image produced is 3008 x
> 1960 pixels - all interpolated !!

The difference is only 9.6%--still suspicious, but hardly the 100% different
advertised by Fuji.  The D1x has an unusual photosite configuration as well,
as I recall.

> As to 6 mpixels being all one needs, I can see
> the difference between my current scanned and
> printed images with 24 mpixels and my previous
> ones with 'only' 11 mpixels.

Not on a print held at standard viewing distance.

Under absolutely perfect viewing conditions, when viewing an image with an
aspect ratio of 3:2 at a "standard" distance equal to the diagonal (about
3.6), you can see a maximum of 21.8 megapixels.  This limit is imposed by
the dimensions and spacing of the cone cells in the retina, and it cannot
get any better than this.  However, it can and does get a lot worse: under
more normal conditions, resolving power is at least twice as bad, which
gives a total image size of 2x2 fewer pixels, or about 6 megapixels.

The only way to exceed this figure is to view the image from a closer
distance.  The only time 6-8 megapixels is insufficient, then, is when the
image will be viewed from less than the diagonal, or when it will be cropped
(the cropped portion must still have 6-8 megapixels, which means that the
uncropped version must be correspondingly larger).

Most small prints are actually viewed from distances larger than the
diagonal, and so the required number of pixels is even smaller.  For a
4x6-inch snapshot viewed from 19" away, even one megapixel is fine.

On the other hand, if you make a wall-sized 6x6-foot enlargement and view it
from two feet away, you'll need 106 megapixels (more than 10,000 pixels on a
side) in the image in order to guarantee that it looks sharp from that
distance.  This requires at least medium-format gear.

> With just 6 mpixels an A3+ print would only
> have 167 ppi!

That's all it needs, as long as you view it from at least 50 cm away.

> With 24 mpixels I can send 330 ppi to the printer
> - in the recommended range.

Inkjet printers can't print more than about 150-160 ppi; the rest is for
depth of modulation (whence the recommendation for a slightly higher
resolution).  For large A3 prints and beyond, however, at normal viewing
distances, you don't need that much resolution on the print.

Anthony - can you explain "depth of modulation" to me?

Stephen Petegorsky
petegorsky@...
web site - www.spphoto.com

Shilesh, 

Welcome to the Digital Revolution Part 3. 

First was the Printer. 
Second was the Scanner. 
Now...the camera. 

Steadman



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's a bit more subtle that that. It has to do with the information 
content in the image. Here the term information is used in it's 
mathematical sense. For example if you were taking a picuture of a 
smooth 18% grey card, the amount of information would be small and you 
only need the number of pixels to capture this information. This image 
could be interpolated to your hearts content (assuming good robust 
interpolation procedures were used ) and get what ever resolution (above 
the min required to capture the information) with no ill effect.

However, if the initial sensor is not sufficient to capture the 
information in the image, no amount of  processing afterwards can 
generate that information. It's the same as filtering out all the 
frequencies above 8 kHz in an auido system sampling at 20 kHz and then 
interpolating up to 50 kHz and turning up the gain on an equalizier to 
try to get it back the information above 8 kHz - all you get is high 
frequency noise.

Interpolation may work on one image, but may fall apart on another. In 
general there is some "slight of hand" in all digital cameras. They list 
the raw pixel but actually it really divided in thirds - each third 
capturing a specific color. This data is now "interpolated" to produce 
color information at each pixel. The new stacked sensors will change 
that some but they are trying to claim that their real resolutions is 
not 3 megs but 3 times that. So there is a lot of "numbers games" being 
played.

NASA did an experiment with color image  resolution some time back  They 
flew two sensors in Landsa. One was a color sensor using similar methods 
as the current crop of digital cameras to produce a color image. The 
other was the black and white sensor without the color mask - to 
captured only energy of the photons. NASA defines resolution to be the 
closest objects that can be detected and differentiated on the ground. 
There are standard ways to mesure and test ranges that are used in the 
testing and calibration of sensors.

Calibrated targets were put on the ground to measure the resolution and 
the images were processed through standard procedures to measure 
"resolution."  The resolution of the color sensors was on the order of 
17 meters and the black and white on the order of 10 meters. There was 
also a large variance (3 meters if memory serves me right)  in the 
measured resloution of the color sensor based on the acutal target used. 
The variance of the black and white sensor was less that 1/3 of a meter. 
Because of this Landsat uses black and white sensors and IR sensors for 
high resolution imagery and uses the color sensors to fill in details, 
e.g., live foliage, dead foliage, muddy water, clear water, etc. The 
resolution you can get with film at the same orbit with the same optics 
is less than 6 inches - with better dynamic range.

With digital cameras it's buyer beware of the hype. They are to some 
extent selling a bill of goods. They are fine for point and shoot and 
the new crop is fine for photojournalism. Some of the medium format and 
large format digital backs may be approaching the quality you can get 
with 35 mm film. But it's going to be a long before we see the digital 
35 mm replace film in images where quality is absolutely critical.

Truman

Bob Frost wrote:

> Anthony,
>
> Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except for a few exotica) is
> interpolated? The skill of the camera maker is surely in choosing the best
> size and number of sensors, their physical arrangement, and the
> interpolation techniques.
>
> For example, a Nikon D1x has a chip with 4028 x 1324 sensors, but the 
> image
> produced is 3008 x 1960 pixels - all interpolated !!
>
> As to 6 mpixels being all one needs, I can see the difference between my
> current scanned and printed images with 24 mpixels and my previous 
> ones with
> 'only' 11 mpixels. With just 6 mpixels an A3+ print would only have 
> 167 ppi
> ! With 24 mpixels I can send 330 ppi to the printer - in the recommended
> range.
>
> Bob Frost.
>

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>


> Bob writes:
>
> > Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
> > for a few exotica) is interpolated?
>
> No.  Normally each pixel in the output image corresponds to a physical
pixel
> in the CCD.  The only interpolation that occurs is for color, since each
> pixel has a color filter over it to restrict incoming light to red, blue,
or
> green (with green being twice as common as the other two colors, since the
> eye is more sensitive to it).  So color information is significantly
> interpolated, and luminance is slightly interpolated, but the actual
> resolution of the output image overall matches that of the CCD.

Anthony,

If the color information is 'significantly interpolated' and the luminance
is 'slightly interpolated', my logic tells me that all the pixels contain
interpolated information, i.e. the info in each pixel comes partly from
neighbouring pixels.


> The Fuji case, however, inflates around 6 megapixels to twice that number
in
> the output image, and it's just as much a case of hype as are scanners
that
> "interpolate" to much higher resolutions than they can actually provide
> optically.  Pixel inflation in this way does nothing to improve image
> quality; it only helps to sell cameras to the unwary.
>
> > The skill of the camera maker is surely in choosing
> > the best size and number of sensors, their physical
> > arrangement, and the interpolation techniques.
>
> Maybe, but interpolation to twice the resolution of the chip is never
> justified for photosites of symmetrical configuration, no matter what the
> skill of the camera maker.

Surely the Fuji, with its staggered lines of sensors (similar to some Epson
scanners that have staggered lines of sensors), is an intermediate case. It
doesn't seem the same to me as the simple interpolation to massive sizes
that cheap scanners often offer. By staggering the sensors in alternate
rows, doesn't this enable better interpolations? Agreed 12 mpixel chips
would be better, but they are next years cameras.


> > For example, a Nikon D1x has a chip with 4028 x
> > 1324 sensors, but the image produced is 3008 x
> > 1960 pixels - all interpolated !!
>
> The difference is only 9.6%--still suspicious, but hardly the 100%
different
> advertised by Fuji.  The D1x has an unusual photosite configuration as
well,
> as I recall.

OK, but I wasn't calculating the overall pixel number; I was looking at the
fact that from a line of 4028 sensors collecting one side of the image, the
camera outputs 3008 pixels. And on the other side from 1324 sensors it
produces 1960 pixels. I don't see how that can be done without significant
interpolation. If it can, please explain how.

> > As to 6 mpixels being all one needs, I can see
> > the difference between my current scanned and
> > printed images with 24 mpixels and my previous
> > ones with 'only' 11 mpixels.
>
> Not on a print held at standard viewing distance.
>
> Under absolutely perfect viewing conditions, when viewing an image with an
> aspect ratio of 3:2 at a "standard" distance equal to the diagonal (about
> 3.6), you can see a maximum of 21.8 megapixels.  This limit is imposed by
> the dimensions and spacing of the cone cells in the retina, and it cannot
> get any better than this.  However, it can and does get a lot worse: under
> more normal conditions, resolving power is at least twice as bad, which
> gives a total image size of 2x2 fewer pixels, or about 6 megapixels.
>
> The only way to exceed this figure is to view the image from a closer
> distance.  The only time 6-8 megapixels is insufficient, then, is when the
> image will be viewed from less than the diagonal, or when it will be
cropped
> (the cropped portion must still have 6-8 megapixels, which means that the
> uncropped version must be correspondingly larger).

I wish people would just view images from the 'standard viewing distance';
it would make life a lot easier. But unfortunately experts always seem to
get their noses down to the prints, or even whip out their loupes, so I
reckon I need my 24 mpixels to keep them, and myself, happy.

>
> > With just 6 mpixels an A3+ print would only
> > have 167 ppi!
>
> That's all it needs, as long as you view it from at least 50 cm away.
>
> > With 24 mpixels I can send 330 ppi to the printer
> > - in the recommended range.
>
> Inkjet printers can't print more than about 150-160 ppi; the rest is for
> depth of modulation (whence the recommendation for a slightly higher
> resolution).  For large A3 prints and beyond, however, at normal viewing
> distances, you don't need that much resolution on the print.

Mmmm. I'll think a bit more about that answer.

Bob Frost.

> > Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
> > for a few exotica) is interpolated?
>
> No.

YES.

> Normally each pixel in the output image corresponds to a physical
> pixel
> in the CCD.

Anthony, you're doing it again.  You're trying to talk authoritatively about
something you don't seem to understand.  AND...you're responding to a
question with an answer that, though your "answer" just so happens to be
somewhat true, has nothing to do with the actual question.  Fact is, EVERY
output pixel of a Bayer pattern CCD camera IS interpolated, period.

The CCD has SENSOR elements, not pixels.  Pixels are the result after the
sensor information is interpolated.

> The only interpolation that occurs is for color, since each
> pixel has a color filter over it to restrict incoming light to
> red, blue,
> or
> green (with green being twice as common as the other two
> colors, since the
> eye is more sensitive to it).

Since the image sensors only give ONE value for each sensor location, and
each sensor location is only ONE of three colors, how is the "color"
information separated from the luminance information at the sensor level?
Answer is, it isn't.  EVERY SINGLE output pixel (which contains RGB
information, not chrominance and luminance information) is derived via
interpolating the sensor data.

Austin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Bob writes:
>
> > Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
> > for a few exotica) is interpolated?
>
> No.  Normally each pixel in the output image corresponds to a physical
pixel
> in the CCD.  The only interpolation that occurs is for color, since each
> pixel has a color filter over it to restrict incoming light to red, blue,
or
> green (with green being twice as common as the other two colors, since the
> eye is more sensitive to it).  So color information is significantly
> interpolated, and luminance is slightly interpolated, but the actual
> resolution of the output image overall matches that of the CCD.
>
> Additionally, most interpolation does not inflate resolution artificially.
> If anything, in good cameras, the resolution in the output image is
_lower_
> than the resolution of the CCD, because interpolation is used to produce a
> smaller number of pixels of better quality.
>
> The Fuji case, however, inflates around 6 megapixels to twice that number
in
> the output image, and it's just as much a case of hype as are scanners
that
> "interpolate" to much higher resolutions than they can actually provide
> optically.  Pixel inflation in this way does nothing to improve image
> quality; it only helps to sell cameras to the unwary.
>
> > The skill of the camera maker is surely in choosing
> > the best size and number of sensors, their physical
> > arrangement, and the interpolation techniques.
>
> Maybe, but interpolation to twice the resolution of the chip is never
> justified for photosites of symmetrical configuration, no matter what the
> skill of the camera maker.
>
> > For example, a Nikon D1x has a chip with 4028 x
> > 1324 sensors, but the image produced is 3008 x
> > 1960 pixels - all interpolated !!
>
> The difference is only 9.6%--still suspicious, but hardly the 100%
different
> advertised by Fuji.  The D1x has an unusual photosite configuration as
well,
> as I recall.
>
> > As to 6 mpixels being all one needs, I can see
> > the difference between my current scanned and
> > printed images with 24 mpixels and my previous
> > ones with 'only' 11 mpixels.
>
> Not on a print held at standard viewing distance.
>
> Under absolutely perfect viewing conditions, when viewing an image with an
> aspect ratio of 3:2 at a "standard" distance equal to the diagonal (about
> 3.6), you can see a maximum of 21.8 megapixels.  This limit is imposed by
> the dimensions and spacing of the cone cells in the retina, and it cannot
> get any better than this.  However, it can and does get a lot worse: under
> more normal conditions, resolving power is at least twice as bad, which
> gives a total image size of 2x2 fewer pixels, or about 6 megapixels.
>
> The only way to exceed this figure is to view the image from a closer
> distance.  The only time 6-8 megapixels is insufficient, then, is when the
> image will be viewed from less than the diagonal, or when it will be
cropped
> (the cropped portion must still have 6-8 megapixels, which means that the
> uncropped version must be correspondingly larger).
>
> Most small prints are actually viewed from distances larger than the
> diagonal, and so the required number of pixels is even smaller.  For a
> 4x6-inch snapshot viewed from 19" away, even one megapixel is fine.
>
> On the other hand, if you make a wall-sized 6x6-foot enlargement and view
it
> from two feet away, you'll need 106 megapixels (more than 10,000 pixels on
a
> side) in the image in order to guarantee that it looks sharp from that
> distance.  This requires at least medium-format gear.
>
> > With just 6 mpixels an A3+ print would only
> > have 167 ppi!
>
> That's all it needs, as long as you view it from at least 50 cm away.
>
> > With 24 mpixels I can send 330 ppi to the printer
> > - in the recommended range.
>
> Inkjet printers can't print more than about 150-160 ppi; the rest is for
> depth of modulation (whence the recommendation for a slightly higher
> resolution).  For large A3 prints and beyond, however, at normal viewing
> distances, you don't need that much resolution on the print.

Anthony,

The problem is that the artist generally has no control over the viewing
distance. With small prints I think your theory is probably sound but with
large prints I think there are practical problems. People are going to walk
right up to that 6x6 foot print and view it at 18". Worse they might be
extremely nearsighted, like myself. When I take my glasses off I can look at
a portion of the print from a distance of about 4". (That's not really fair
to the artist but I can't resist. <G>)

Realistically I would expect people to hold large prints 11x17 to 20x24 up
in their hands to look at them at distances of say 12" to 24". In a gallery
situation I would want to be prepared for people to look at my prints at
least 18", probably 12", regardless of size.

I have never heard anyone recommend input to an inkjet below about 240 ppi
which corresponds to 1.5 x 160 ppi. A more common rule of thumb is 360 ppi.
Beyond that I cannot detect any significant difference but others report
that they do see a difference by going to 720 dpi.

For myself I would like the image quality of my inkjet prints to be equal to
my silver fiber prints and this seems to require 360 ppi to the printer
regardless of print size. Since the largest I can print with my 1280 is
13x19 this leads me to a minimum file size of about 30 megapixels or if I
want my file to be capable of being printed at 20x24 about 60 megapixels.

Now I am quite impressed by some of the B&W prints I have seen from cameras
like the DX1 enlarged to 13x19 and at a normal viewing distance of 23" or
greater I think they are very appealing. The grainless characteristics give
the prints a large format feel rather than a 35mm feel. View them at a
closer distance and the lack of fine detail becomes noticeable to me. Keep
in mind that I favor a 4x5 view camera for my work so that you have an idea
of what I like to acheive with my own prints.

Martin Wesley

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>>Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
>>>for a few exotica) is interpolated?
>>>      
>>>
>>No.
>>    
>>
>
>YES.
>  
>

Not just "exotica" anymore --  the CCD in the Sigma is the Foveon chip.. 
It reads red green and blue in each sensor well.  So, no interpolation, 
and no need for color filters to do it.. That chip has three layers of 
substrate, so each well measures one color at each level.. It doe NOT 
use a Bayer pattern.. The chip design was originally used on spy 
satellites..

MicroSoft has put a ton of money behind this chip too, probably with the 
intention of developing WinCams (like Winmodems, where the system does 
the actual controller work). You could just plug in a cam that is almost 
all chip to a USB or FireWire port and use it as you wish..  Also, it 
could then easily be incorporated into PDAs or even cellphones using Win 
OS's etc..

There is a HUGE processing saving (and that means in time as well) 
because no interpolation is necessary.. It should avoid the vast 
majority of moiré issues as well..

>  
>
>>Normally each pixel in the output image corresponds to a physical
>>pixel
>>in the CCD.
>>    
>>
>
>Anthony, you're doing it again.  You're trying to talk authoritatively about
>something you don't seem to understand.  AND...you're responding to a
>question with an answer that, though your "answer" just so happens to be
>somewhat true, has nothing to do with the actual question.  Fact is, EVERY
>output pixel of a Bayer pattern CCD camera IS interpolated, period.
>  
>
YUP

>The CCD has SENSOR elements, not pixels.  Pixels are the result after the
>sensor information is interpolated.
>
>  
>
>>The only interpolation that occurs is for color, since each
>>pixel has a color filter over it to restrict incoming light to
>>red, blue,
>>or
>>green (with green being twice as common as the other two
>>colors, since the
>>eye is more sensitive to it).
>>    
>>
>
>Since the image sensors only give ONE value for each sensor location, and
>each sensor location is only ONE of three colors, how is the "color"
>information separated from the luminance information at the sensor level?
>Answer is, it isn't.  EVERY SINGLE output pixel (which contains RGB
>information, not chrominance and luminance information) is derived via
>interpolating the sensor data.
>
>  
>
YUP..

You only get one value from the sensor well in a Bayer pattern CCD. 
 That value basically equates to a luminance value for a particular 
color range (whatever range the filter transmits - or which the well is 
sensitive to)..  Software then takes the values fed by the sensors and 
interpolates color and luminance for 3 colors at each position.. That 
weakness is why edges can look funky or why we get many of the moires 
one sees..  Accordingly, the processing of a Bayer Pattern CCD output is 
at least as important as an accurate CCD..

With the Foveon chip, the chip itself is of vastly greater import in 
final image quality...  One advantage of the Foveon approach is that you 
need less actual wells to achieve comparable final resolution..


Keith




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Do you happen to know the status of this chip and the Sigma camera using 
it. There was a lot of hype some time back but I haven't heard much 
lately. Because of the tight tolorances this has to be tricky 
fabracation issues. It is a very interesting use of the physics of 
silicon - different colors are absorbed at different depths. But the 
tolorance on this is very tight. Color balance will be a bear and it may 
have to be tweaked for each sensor.  The other issue with it is it may 
be that in the long run higher density flat sensor arrays will catch up. 
A 9 meg Bayer patter may perform just as well as a 3 meg Foveon. Only 
time will. Signal processors are getting cheaper every day. You are 
seeing a 3 x improvment every two years in processor performance. Signal 
processors are cheap and getting smaller all the time.

It wil be interesting to see how it all flushes out. But the good news 
is that there is innovation out there.

Truman

Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >>>Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
> >>>for a few exotica) is interpolated?
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>No.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >YES.
> > 
> >
>
> Not just "exotica" anymore --  the CCD in the Sigma is the Foveon chip..
> It reads red green and blue in each sensor well.  So, no interpolation,
> and no need for color filters to do it.. That chip has three layers of
> substrate, so each well measures one color at each level.. It doe NOT
> use a Bayer pattern.. The chip design was originally used on spy
> satellites..
>

> >>>Surely every pixel on a digital camera (except
> >>>for a few exotica) is interpolated?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >YES.
> >
> >
>
> Not just "exotica" anymore --  the CCD in the Sigma is the Foveon chip..
> It reads red green and blue in each sensor well.  So, no interpolation,
> and no need for color filters to do it.. That chip has three layers of
> substrate, so each well measures one color at each level.. It doe NOT
> use a Bayer pattern..

Yes, I know the Foveon chip VERY well, thanks...but you can't buy a camera
with this chip at this time...as far as I know.  Also, the quality of the
images from it, and the ability to actually produce it, has yet to be
honestly tested.

> There is a HUGE processing saving (and that means in time as well)
> because no interpolation is necessary..

It isn't that big a deal...in fact, it is easily done in hardware, and the
cost is very minimal.  I've developed some hardware interpolation filters...

> It should avoid the vast
> majority of moir\ufffd issues as well..

There is no moir\ufffd issue with current Bayer pattern digicams.  That's a
problem that has been done away with a long time ago...  That's merely
Foveon hype.  It's like selling rubber tyres today, and comparing them to
wooden wagon wheels... ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Given all the hype some time ( what it's been about 9 months now ) about 
sensor, it is odd that we haven't seen it. I would suspect there are 
some problems with fabrication of chips with consistent properties in 
large quantities to make it economically feasable.

Not every good idea in semiconductor physics makes a good consumer product.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

> >
> Yes, I know the Foveon chip VERY well, thanks...but you can't buy a camera
> with this chip at this time...as far as I know.  Also, the quality of the
> images from it, and the ability to actually produce it, has yet to be
> honestly tested.
>

> There is no moir\ufffd issue with current Bayer pattern digicams.  That's a
> problem that has been done away with a long time ago...  That's merely
> Foveon hype.  It's like selling rubber tyres today, and comparing them to
> wooden wagon wheels... ;-)
>

Sorry, the Canon 1D shows plenty of moire in certain situations. There's an
action to fix it at www.fredmiranda.com.

Talk amongst yourselves for a while. I'll give you a topic: Why beauty is a
*subjective* experience and not a matter of "my banana is bigger than
yours."

Luke

I periodically experience moire pattern problems with my Canon 
Powershot G1, which while not the most recent edition of the 
Bayer pattern digicams is certainly not  wooden wagon wheel.

- David

= = = Original message = = =

Austin Franklin wrote

>There is no moir~ issue with current Bayer pattern digicams. 
 That's a
>problem that has been done away with a long time ago...  That's 
merely
>Foveon hype.  It's like selling rubber tyres today, and comparing 
them to
>wooden wagon wheels... ;-)
>
>  
>
Not so fast pardner!

Before you go shootin at my Conestoga.

A close associate and sometime shootin pardner who uses a Canon 
1D has 
had several recent incidents with moires when subjects were wearing 

particularly troublesome patterns.. Users of the original Nikon 
D1's had 
some problems as well..

You can't interpolate and NEVER have problems, the software is 

guesstimating. (Unless you shoot successive images with the same 
wells 
picking up different colors - and that's just not very useful 
in 
anything but motionless subjects)

Keith




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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences 
by visiting this same page.

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/


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

Austin Franklin wrote

>There is no moir\ufffd issue with current Bayer pattern digicams.  That's a
>problem that has been done away with a long time ago...  That's merely
>Foveon hype.  It's like selling rubber tyres today, and comparing them to
>wooden wagon wheels... ;-)
>
>  
>
Not so fast pardner!

Before you go shootin at my Conestoga.

A close associate and sometime shootin pardner who uses a Canon 1D has 
had several recent incidents with moires when subjects were wearing 
particularly troublesome patterns.. Users of the original Nikon D1's had 
some problems as well..

You can't interpolate and NEVER have problems, the software is 
guesstimating. (Unless you shoot successive images with the same wells 
picking up different colors - and that's just not very useful in 
anything but motionless subjects)

Keith

Hi,

There's simply no excuse for having moire patterns in digicams any
more...that are caused by the Bayer pattern CCD...I'm not talking about
anomalies caused by the regular pattern of the CCD.

I'd also say that some manufacturers may not take the "care" to develop
their non-professional digicams to eliminate this, but the point is, it's
not rocket science...and there simply is no excuse for it, IMO.

Any Canon D-30 (or D-60) people with any moire problems???

Regards,

Austin

> I periodically experience moire pattern problems with my Canon
> Powershot G1, which while not the most recent edition of the
> Bayer pattern digicams is certainly not  wooden wagon wheel.
>
> - David
>
> = = = Original message = = =
>
> Austin Franklin wrote
>
> >There is no moir~ issue with current Bayer pattern digicams.
>  That's a
> >problem that has been done away with a long time ago...  That's
> merely
> >Foveon hype.  It's like selling rubber tyres today, and comparing
> them to
> >wooden wagon wheels... ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> Not so fast pardner!
>
> Before you go shootin at my Conestoga.
>
> A close associate and sometime shootin pardner who uses a Canon
> 1D has
> had several recent incidents with moires when subjects were wearing
>
> particularly troublesome patterns.. Users of the original Nikon
> D1's had
> some problems as well..
>
> You can't interpolate and NEVER have problems, the software is
>
> guesstimating. (Unless you shoot successive images with the same
> wells
> picking up different colors - and that's just not very useful
> in
> anything but motionless subjects)
>
> Keith

Bob writes:

> If the color information is 'significantly
> interpolated' and the luminance is 'slightly
> interpolated', my logic tells me that all
> the pixels contain interpolated information,
> i.e. the info in each pixel comes partly from
> neighbouring pixels.

They do, but it's not the wholesale interpolation involved in the Fuji claim
(if I understand the Fuji claim correctly).

> Surely the Fuji, with its staggered lines of
> sensors (similar to some Epson scanners that
> have staggered lines of sensors), is an
> intermediate case.

Staggering the sensors doesn't make much difference.  If they were twice as
long as wide, you could interpolate to generate twice as many pixels as
photosites; not really an increase in resolution, but just a necessary
interpolation because the pixels in digital images must always be square.  A
number of digicams have been in this category, IIRC.

> It doesn't seem the same to me as the simple
> interpolation to massive sizes that cheap
> scanners often offer.

Whatever it is, interpolation to greater resolutions than that provided by
the CCD is always hype.

> By staggering the sensors in alternate
> rows, doesn't this enable better interpolations?

For some cases, but not for others.  I'm not sure what kind of staggering
you have in mind, but some types of arrangements can reduce aliasing of
certain elements of certain images.  However, the overall resolution is the
same.

Photosites that are arranged in straight rows produce aliasing when certain
image elements strike them, such as nearly vertical or nearly horizontal
lines.  A random arrangement of photosites would never show aliasing.
However, arranging them randomly still does not increase resolution.

> Agreed 12 mpixel chips would be better, but
> they are next years cameras.

We'll see.

> I don't see how that can be done without
> significant interpolation.

It can't, but that type of interpolation changes resolution only slightly.

> I wish people would just view images from the
> 'standard viewing distance'; it would make life
> a lot easier. But unfortunately experts always
> seem to get their noses down to the prints, or
> even whip out their loupes, so I reckon I need
> my 24 mpixels to keep them, and myself, happy.

Then you must continue to shoot film for the time being, and slow film at
that.

Martin writes:

> The problem is that the artist generally has
> no control over the viewing distance.

That is often true, but if you follow that line of reasoning, nothing less
than infinite resolution is acceptable.  Unfortunately, infinite resolution
is not achievable.

> People are going to walk right up to that
> 6x6 foot print and view it at 18".

The larger the print, the closer the viewing distance tends to be, if it is
exhibited under identical conditions.  So you really need MF or LF for the
wall-sized prints, if you want to retain detail (although I see a lot of
wall-sized enlargements from 35mm, too).

> I have never heard anyone recommend input to
> an inkjet below about 240 ppi which corresponds
> to 1.5 x 160 ppi. A more common rule of thumb
> is 360 ppi.  Beyond that I cannot detect any
> significant difference but others report
> that they do see a difference by going to
> 720 dpi.

In theory there is always a difference for higher resolutions.  In practice,
the visible difference improves in a rapidly diminishing fashion with
increasing resolution, such that 1.5x is usually the cost-effective choice,
2x on rare occasions.  But it is largely pointless for photographers to try
to get 360 ppi to print on a 160 ppi printer.  They'd be far better off
going to 240 ppi and finding a printer that can output 200 ppi.

> For myself I would like the image quality of my
> inkjet prints to be equal to my silver fiber
> prints and this seems to require 360 ppi to the
> printer regardless of print size. Since the
> largest I can print with my 1280 is 13x19 this
> leads me to a minimum file size of about 30
> megapixels or if I want my file to be capable
> of being printed at 20x24 about 60 megapixels.

So you work exclusively in medium format and beyond, right?  You won't get
resolutions like that from 35mm, as a general rule.

I like to have the highest possible resolution, too, but the reality is that
it usually doesn't matter that much.  If it did, digital would not be as
popular as it is today.

Keith writes:

> A close associate and sometime shootin pardner
> who uses a Canon 1D has had several recent
> incidents with moires when subjects were wearing
> particularly troublesome patterns.

Moir\ufffd is always a problem if the sensor pattern is regular (e.g., rows and
columns) and if there are equally regular features in the image that
approach or exceed the resolution of the sensor.  The only solutions are to
put more pixels in the sensor, randomize the sensor pattern (which is why
film never shows moir\ufffd), or blur the image so that no part of the image
exceeds the resolution of the sensor.

Anthony,

When you refer to a 160 ppi or 200 ppi printer, what exactly are you
referring to, and  how does this relate to dpi resolution of the printer?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> But it is largely pointless for photographers to try
> to get 360 ppi to print on a 160 ppi printer.  They'd be far better off
> going to 240 ppi and finding a printer that can output 200 ppi.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Bob writes:

> Inkjet printers, like offset presses, use essentially opaque inks in four
or
> more colors, usually cyan, yellow, magenta, and black.  Since these inks
are
> opaque, their darknesss on paper cannot be varied, nor can one color be
> printed on top of another to blend the two.  So, in order to create
> variations in the darkness of the printing, the inks must be divided into
> dots of variable size.  When the dots are large and closely spaced, the
> printing appears dark (from a suitable distance).  When the dots are small
> and widely spaced, the printing appears light.

Anthony, substitute 'essentialy opaque' for 'almost transparant'. Then start
all over again.
Even silkscreen printing uses transparent inks when printing CMYK full
colour work.
Read about droplet size differences and how they are applied in inkjet
printing.
The Iris prints are for 90% built on transparent inklayer thickness
differences.
Better compare inkjet printing with stochastic screen printing or in the
Iris case with rotogravure printing,
comparing it with conventional offset or autotype raster printing doesn't
work. And that also means that the ppi/dpi relation is of another order than
the ppi/lpi relation.

Tone differences and by that colourmixing can be achieved in several ways:
dot size variation, dot frequency, ink layer thickness. They all are used in
inkjet printing and sometimes all of them in one print. They all rely on
transparent inks.

Only in monochrome raster (dotsize) printing it would be possible to use
opaque inks and even there it isn't used for technical reasons.

Easiest method is getting a loupe and examples of different printing
systems.

Ernst

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Ernst writes:
>
> > Anthony, substitute 'essentialy opaque' for
> > 'almost transparant'. Then start all over again.
>
> The inks I'm looking at on inkjet prints are hardly transparent at all.

The 2000p is a bad example of an Epson printer with the first Epson pigment
inks available.
Though more opaque they still are transparent.
Put your prints on a light table, check the composite greys at 60/70 percent
and you will see that they are not opaque and overlap so they have to be
transparent in a way. Your offset prints will show the same but with a bit
more white in between.

> > And that also means that the ppi/dpi relation
> > is of another order than the ppi/lpi relation.
>
> The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
> nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
> inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.

The real resolution is usually 720 dpi while some go up to 1440. The 2880
and on the older models 1440 dpi is a shift of the dotrow by half a dot.
Printer dpi should be compared with image setter dpi, the last can go up to
4000 dpi though. However printer dpi isn't the only way to get differences
in tone as I wrote, droplet sizes count as well. On Epsons like the 1270
there are 3 sizes in a chosen resolution.

> > Tone differences and by that colourmixing can be
> > achieved in several ways: dot size variation, dot
> > frequency, ink layer thickness.
>
> I haven't seen evidence of ink-layer thickness being varied in inkjet
> prints, but perhaps some of the fanciest inkjets do this.  To do it,
they'd
> need much more transparent inks than the inks used on the Epson prints
I've
> seen.

The Iris prints have inklayer thickness differences. Their resolution wasn't
higher than 300 dpi but the droplet counted per spot was between 1 and 13 I
believe.

>> They all rely on transparent inks.
>
> You don't need transparent inks to vary dot size or frequency.  Indeed, if
> you have truly transparent inks, you don't need to use adjacent dots at
all;
> you can just overlay one dot on top of another, blending colors to produce
> one pixel per machine dot.  This is exactly what dye-sublimation does, and
> if you compare a dye-sub print to an inkjet print under a loupe, the
> difference is impossible to ignore.

Using CMY (K) inks requires subtractive mixing, like subtractive mixing
requires CMY (K) inks. In an ideal world they should be printed on top of
one another and be completely transparent. Like they are used in film an
photo material, and less ideal in dye sub and rotogravure. It is the
limitation of the offset process, paper specs, ink transparency that makes
it difficult so 4 raster screens have to be printed at angles, where the
lighter dots are separated from another and the dots will start to overlap
above 50%. Not an ideal colourmixing process. But with enough development in
150 years it is now a very good process.

> > Easiest method is getting a loupe and examples
> > of different printing systems.
>
> I have, and it supports my previous explanation.  While inkjet printing is
> excellent, I've not seen inkjet prints that exceed what is achieved by
> high-end offset in terms of resolution.  I haven't examined any high-end,
> small-sized inkjet prints, though (I've looked at large, high-end prints,
> but perhaps their resolution is deliberately lower).

You should examine the small sized  inkjet prints and the latests wide
format models of Epson and then the conclusion can only be that they exceed
offset quality. They did that already on colour gamut so inkjet proofing for
offset printing became possible.

 > In any case, inkjet still leaves something to be desired in a number of
> ways, but it does do a very nice job with the right printer under the
right
> circumstances.  My 2000P cannot match the quality from my MD-2300 dye-sub,
> but it's good enough for most purposes, and using the latter was such a
pain
> that it finally wore me down, which is why I went to inkjet.

Your 2000p is one of few mistakes in printer models that Epson launched. It
would perform far better with dye inks. The pigment inks that it uses are
'metamerism' prone and to suppress that the UCR is extended so black goes
further. That shouldn't be a problem if the droplet size was smaller, it
isn't. To overcome that problem in the newer models Epson gave them smaller
droplet sizes, another ink and an extra grey =light black (transparent of
course).

Ernst

Bob writes:

> When you refer to a 160 ppi or 200 ppi printer,
> what exactly are you referring to, and how does
> this relate to dpi resolution of the printer?

Inkjet printers, like offset presses, use essentially opaque inks in four or
more colors, usually cyan, yellow, magenta, and black.  Since these inks are
opaque, their darknesss on paper cannot be varied, nor can one color be
printed on top of another to blend the two.  So, in order to create
variations in the darkness of the printing, the inks must be divided into
dots of variable size.  When the dots are large and closely spaced, the
printing appears dark (from a suitable distance).  When the dots are small
and widely spaced, the printing appears light.

Inkjet printers, like the imagesetters used to create plates for offset
printing, do not know about variable sizes for dots; they always print dots
of a fixed and very small size.  When dots of variable size are required (as
for printing halftone images, as described above), the tiny dots are
combined to form larger dots.  The range of densities on a print (from
darkest to lightest) depends on the number of different sizes of halftone
dot that can be printed, and this in turn depends on the number of machine
dots (the actual dots printed on the paper) that can be combined to form
each halftone dot.

Printing a single pixel on paper requires a halftone dot of each color.

As a result of all this, a 2880-dpi inkjet printer cannot print anywhere
near 2880 pixels per inch.  It prints far less, and there is an inverse
relationship between the number of intermediate tones it can print and the
resolution (because more tones requires more variability in dot size, but
that means that individual halftone dots must be made up of more machine
dots, which further reduces resolution).

So ... if the inkjet printer manages 2880 dpi, and you want 256 levels of
black or green or whatever, you'll need 256 machine dots per halftone dot.
That means roughly a square of eight machine dots on a side, and 2880/8 =
360, so 360 is the maximum number of pixels per inch that the printer can
manage with 2880 dpi, if 256 tone levels are desired.  If you want more
tones, resolution goes down; if you want less, resolution goes up.

Actual implementations are much more complicated, and shortcuts exist to
improve resolution a bit, but the above explanation illustrates why you
don't get anywhere near 2880 pixels per inch from a 2880-dpi printer.

Oh Anthony,

> Inkjet printers, like offset presses, use essentially opaque inks
> in four or
> more colors, usually cyan, yellow, magenta, and black.  Since
> these inks are
> opaque, their darknesss on paper cannot be varied, nor can one color be
> printed on top of another to blend the two.

That is true...but...

> So, in order to create
> variations in the darkness of the printing, the inks must be divided into
> dots of variable size.

That is simply not true.  SOME printers do have variable sized dots...but
not all do.

> When the dots are large and closely spaced, the
> printing appears dark (from a suitable distance).  When the dots are small
> and widely spaced, the printing appears light.

Spacing is typically not variable, it is fixed at 1440 (720, 2880...etc.) or
what ever it is...and doesn't vary for an individual image.  In other words,
the spacing is the same, no matter what the dot size is, and it is the dot
size (if it's a variable dot sized printer) and/or how many dots there are
over an area that determines light/dark.

Also, some printers that DO have a variable dot size, only allow ONE dot
size for an entire image, it is not variable across that image.

> Printing a single pixel on paper requires a halftone dot of each color.

No, it requires printing a lot more than "a" dot of each color...

> As a result of all this, a 2880-dpi inkjet printer cannot print anywhere
> near 2880 pixels per inch.  It prints far less, and there is an inverse
> relationship between the number of intermediate tones it can print and the
> resolution (because more tones requires more variability in dot size, but
> that means that individual halftone dots must be made up of more machine
> dots, which further reduces resolution).

It is not the only the variability in dot size, but the dither/halftone
method far more so than the variability in dot size...and as I've said, a
lot of printers don't vary the dot size.  I think you aren't quite up on how
halftoning/dithering works.

> So ... if the inkjet printer manages 2880 dpi, and you want 256 levels of
> black or green or whatever, you'll need 256 machine dots per halftone dot.

That's not true with stochastic screening techniques, and if variable dot
sizes are used...as well as multiple ink colors, like the graytone inks we
use.  It's simply not as empirical as you make it out to be.

Sigh.

Austin

Anthony, you wrote,

> Ernst writes:
>
> > The real resolution is usually 720 dpi
> > while some go up to 1440.
>
> The only resolution that interests me is pixels per inch, and that's
nowhere
> near 720 ppi.  If it is even 200 ppi, I'd be surprised.  I can easily see
> the masses of ink dots under a loupe, and even with the naked eye.

Depending on what you want to reproduce an Epson printer with a true 720 dpi
resolution will require 720 ppi down to 180 ppi input. 720 dpi for vector
art, fonts that are converted to bitmaps and so the contour definition still
gains up to the true printer resolution. And even then the tricks of
shifting a dotrow works for a quality improvement. For photos and colour
only, the input required is based on a consensus among users. The older
models didn't improve much above 240 ppi input. With the latest consumer
models (claimed) 2880 dpi, 3 picolitre smallest size droplet, 3 droplet
sizes per chosen resolution, CcMmYK it wouldn't surprise me if 720 dpi input
shows an improvement above 480 dpi on the best papers. Whether that still
can be seen with the naked eye is something else. Let us compare that with
offset printing and let us take the worst relation ppi/lpi of 2. 480 then
translates to 240 lpi offset raster, 720 translates to 360 lpi. If we take
the best translation ppi/lpi 1.41, then the numbers are 340 lpi and 510 lpi
resp. They all go beyond what is usual for good offset raster screening =160
lpi and one even above extremes like 500 lines per inch as has been used by
some offset printers to show their capability. Whether the last is an
economic and technical sound process is another matter, Epsons can do it any
time of the day. Then there's the far better gamut of Epson dyes and for
that matter Ilford dyes (Wide Spectrum inks being a klone of the last). The
9600/7600/2200 pigment inks have a better gamut than offset inks as well.

The translation of input ppi through printer dpi and what you observe then
in the print and give a quality expressed in subjective ppi's is another
matter. Like in any reproduction process there's a loss. You can only
compare it with other print processes and then inkjet is getting near the
top. The nice thing is that it is also very versatile from textile
sublimation to digital cibachrome on the same hardware.

> > You should examine the small sized inkjet
> > prints and the latests wide format models
> > of Epson and then the conclusion can only
> > be that they exceed offset quality.
>
> They must be _very_ recent, because nothing I've seen up to now has been
> that good.

The wide format 9600/7600 are now delivered, some have them running for 2
months now.
The consumer models with dye inks that have that quality are at least a year
old.

> > Your 2000p is one of few mistakes in printer
> > models that Epson launched. It would perform
> > far better with dye inks.
>
> Except that the resulting prints would be useless after six months.  A
nice
> print that only lasts for a few months isn't much better than a long-term
> print with metamerism.

20 years with the right dyes and papers. Better than most conventional photo
prints and most offset printed material. I wonder what ink the new HP
printers use as HP claims an even longer (Wilhelm tested) fade resistance,
most likely pigment but maybe ........

Ernst

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Martin writes:
>
> > The problem is that the artist generally has
> > no control over the viewing distance.
>
> That is often true, but if you follow that line of reasoning, nothing less
> than infinite resolution is acceptable.  Unfortunately, infinite
resolution
> is not achievable.

Anthony,

That doesn't follow at all. There is a finite close distance that is the
limit people can focus their eyes. I would guess that it is about 12 to 14".
Which if you take your value of the diagonal as the "normal" viewing
distance suggests an 8x8" to 10x10" print.
>
> > People are going to walk right up to that
> > 6x6 foot print and view it at 18".
>
> The larger the print, the closer the viewing distance tends to be, if it
is
> exhibited under identical conditions.  So you really need MF or LF for the
> wall-sized prints, if you want to retain detail (although I see a lot of
> wall-sized enlargements from 35mm, too).

I see have seen large prints from 35mm and I have enjoyed them, but it is a
different artistic statement than what you would get using a larger negative
or file size.
>
> > I have never heard anyone recommend input to
> > an inkjet below about 240 ppi which corresponds
> > to 1.5 x 160 ppi. A more common rule of thumb
> > is 360 ppi.  Beyond that I cannot detect any
> > significant difference but others report
> > that they do see a difference by going to
> > 720 dpi.
>
> In theory there is always a difference for higher resolutions.  In
practice,
> the visible difference improves in a rapidly diminishing fashion with
> increasing resolution, such that 1.5x is usually the cost-effective
choice,
> 2x on rare occasions.  But it is largely pointless for photographers to
try
> to get 360 ppi to print on a 160 ppi printer.  They'd be far better off
> going to 240 ppi and finding a printer that can output 200 ppi.

I agree that at a certain point you get less and less improvement from
increasing resolution until further increases achieve no visible
improvement. I simply question where that point is. I am confused as to
where you get the 160 ppi figure. I am inclined to agree with Austin
(collective gasp <G>) that inkjet printer output cannot be meaningfully
described in terms of ppi since the images are dithered. You could draw a
pixel analogy with halftone printing where each variable sized dot
represents a pixel but I don't see this type of pattern in my output. My own
experience is that output visibly starts to deteriorate when I send less
than 360 ppi to my Epson printers.
>
> > For myself I would like the image quality of my
> > inkjet prints to be equal to my silver fiber
> > prints and this seems to require 360 ppi to the
> > printer regardless of print size. Since the
> > largest I can print with my 1280 is 13x19 this
> > leads me to a minimum file size of about 30
> > megapixels or if I want my file to be capable
> > of being printed at 20x24 about 60 megapixels.
>
> So you work exclusively in medium format and beyond, right?  You won't get
> resolutions like that from 35mm, as a general rule.

I currently shoot 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5. I generally only print the 35mm up to
about 6x9" or 7x10" but that is solely my personal preference for my work. I
do like the prints I have tried from 35mm negs on 11x17 and 13x19 paper much
more than traditional enlargements at those sizes.
>
> I like to have the highest possible resolution, too, but the reality is
that
> it usually doesn't matter that much.  If it did, digital would not be as
> popular as it is today.

Yes and no. There certainly is an upper limit to amount of resolution that
is usable or meaningful. I simply feel that you are using an input value to
the printer that is unnecessarily low. Most of us are using desktop printers
that will accommodate 13x19 paper. Even printing full bleed at 360 ppi input
to the printer we are only looking at a 32 megapixel file (4680X6840) which
does not seem like a very large file to me. If you have that much resolution
in your file, it would seem to me that you are better off using it then not.
Some of this may be subjective and critical eyes maybe less accepting of
lower resolutions.

Martin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Bob writes:
>
> > When you refer to a 160 ppi or 200 ppi printer,
> > what exactly are you referring to, and how does
> > this relate to dpi resolution of the printer?
>
> Inkjet printers, like offset presses, use essentially opaque inks in four
or
> more colors, usually cyan, yellow, magenta, and black.  Since these inks
are
> opaque, their darknesss on paper cannot be varied, nor can one color be
> printed on top of another to blend the two.

Anthony,

The inks are not opaque, even the pigment inks. If you do some swabs with
the inks the color of the underlying substrate does show through. In general
the lighter positions in the gray scale inks are dilutions of the black ink
with a clear base material resulting in semi-translucent inks. So drops of
ink can be placed on top of each other to create intermediate tones. This is
definitely true for dye based color inks. I believe that the inks used in
offset printing are quite different from those used in inkjet printers.

> So, in order to create
> variations in the darkness of the printing, the inks must be divided into
> dots of variable size.  When the dots are large and closely spaced, the
> printing appears dark (from a suitable distance).  When the dots are small
> and widely spaced, the printing appears light.
>
> Inkjet printers, like the imagesetters used to create plates for offset
> printing, do not know about variable sizes for dots; they always print
dots
> of a fixed and very small size.  When dots of variable size are required
(as
> for printing halftone images, as described above), the tiny dots are
> combined to form larger dots.  The range of densities on a print (from
> darkest to lightest) depends on the number of different sizes of halftone
> dot that can be printed, and this in turn depends on the number of machine
> dots (the actual dots printed on the paper) that can be combined to form
> each halftone dot.
>
> Printing a single pixel on paper requires a halftone dot of each color.
>
> As a result of all this, a 2880-dpi inkjet printer cannot print anywhere
> near 2880 pixels per inch.  It prints far less, and there is an inverse
> relationship between the number of intermediate tones it can print and the
> resolution (because more tones requires more variability in dot size, but
> that means that individual halftone dots must be made up of more machine
> dots, which further reduces resolution).
>
> So ... if the inkjet printer manages 2880 dpi, and you want 256 levels of
> black or green or whatever, you'll need 256 machine dots per halftone dot.
> That means roughly a square of eight machine dots on a side, and 2880/8 =
> 360, so 360 is the maximum number of pixels per inch that the printer can
> manage with 2880 dpi, if 256 tone levels are desired.  If you want more
> tones, resolution goes down; if you want less, resolution goes up.
>
> Actual implementations are much more complicated, and shortcuts exist to
> improve resolution a bit, but the above explanation illustrates why you
> don't get anywhere near 2880 pixels per inch from a 2880-dpi printer.

Your logic is partially correct for something like an image setter or
standard laser printer but the fact that the different inks can be overlaid
to create different tones or hues, and the use of dither patterns suggests
that you can simulate much more than the math implies. If what you say was
correct, I doubt that we would be very pleased with out digital prints,
color or B&W. I believe it would be more correct to say that a modern inkjet
printer interprets pixel input rather than to say it prints pixels.

Martin

Martin writes:

> If you have that much resolution in your file,
> it would seem to me that you are better off
> using it then not.

There's no harm in using whatever resolution you have.  But if my file
doesn't have enough pixels to print at 360 ppi at the size I want, there's
no harm in printing at 300 ppi or even 240 ppi.  The implication is that 360
ppi is _necessary_ for a decent print, but I do not find that to be true.

Martin writes:

> The inks are not opaque, even the pigment inks.

I know.  Neither are offset printing inks.  But for practical purposes, they
are generally treated as opaque.  They do not have the transparency of
dye-sub or chemical emulsions, and I do not see whatever transparency they
possess ever being used in actual printing.  If inkjet printers had reliably
transparent inks, they would print like dye-sub printers, and you'd be able
to get a true 2880 ppi on the print.

> So drops of ink can be placed on top of each
> other to create intermediate tones.

That doesn't appear to be happening on the inkjet prints I've examined.

> I believe that the inks used in offset printing
> are quite different from those used in inkjet
> printers.

They probably are, but a common characteristic between the two is opacity.

> Your logic is partially correct for something like an
> image setter or standard laser printer but the fact
> that the different inks can be overlaid to create
> different tones or hues, and the use of dither patterns
> suggests that you can simulate much more than the math
> implies.

Dithering dramatically reduces resolution, so I don't count that.  Close
examination of the prints from my 2000P (and indeed of any inkjet prints
that I've looked at thus far) reveals adjacent dots of ink, not overlaid
dots of ink.  If you look closely enough, the image always shows a slight
grain from this adjacent placement, like that of a stochastic halftone
screen in offset.

In contrast, dye-sub printers overlay transparent inks directly, and the
prints from my Alps MD-2300 (which unfortunately I no longer use, because
supplies are scarce and the printer is far too finicky) show razor
sharpness.  Under the loupe, each pixel is clearly distinct, with its own
color and intensity, and there is no dithering or grain.  I wish Epson made
dye-sub printers--with this quality but with the reliability and
user-friendliness of other Epson printers.  It's just too much trouble to
get stuff printed on the Alps, but it sure did a beautiful job--the results
could not be distinguished from a chemical print (and would tolerate
scrubbing under a stream of water without any visible damage).

> If what you say was correct, I doubt that we would
> be very pleased with out digital prints, color or B&W.

I'm not.  They look nice from a distance, but they always lack sharpness
upon very close examination, just like halftone images in a magazine.

> I believe it would be more correct to say that
> a modern inkjet printer interprets pixel input
> rather than to say it prints pixels.

That's true, but it is still constrained by the opacity of inks.

Ernst writes:

> Anthony, substitute 'essentialy opaque' for
> 'almost transparant'. Then start all over again.

The inks I'm looking at on inkjet prints are hardly transparent at all.

> Better compare inkjet printing with stochastic
> screen printing ...

I did.

> And that also means that the ppi/dpi relation
> is of another order than the ppi/lpi relation.

The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.

> Tone differences and by that colourmixing can be
> achieved in several ways: dot size variation, dot
> frequency, ink layer thickness.

I haven't seen evidence of ink-layer thickness being varied in inkjet
prints, but perhaps some of the fanciest inkjets do this.  To do it, they'd
need much more transparent inks than the inks used on the Epson prints I've
seen.

> They all rely on transparent inks.

You don't need transparent inks to vary dot size or frequency.  Indeed, if
you have truly transparent inks, you don't need to use adjacent dots at all;
you can just overlay one dot on top of another, blending colors to produce
one pixel per machine dot.  This is exactly what dye-sublimation does, and
if you compare a dye-sub print to an inkjet print under a loupe, the
difference is impossible to ignore.

> Easiest method is getting a loupe and examples
> of different printing systems.

I have, and it supports my previous explanation.  While inkjet printing is
excellent, I've not seen inkjet prints that exceed what is achieved by
high-end offset in terms of resolution.  I haven't examined any high-end,
small-sized inkjet prints, though (I've looked at large, high-end prints,
but perhaps their resolution is deliberately lower).

In any case, inkjet still leaves something to be desired in a number of
ways, but it does do a very nice job with the right printer under the right
circumstances.  My 2000P cannot match the quality from my MD-2300 dye-sub,
but it's good enough for most purposes, and using the latter was such a pain
that it finally wore me down, which is why I went to inkjet.

Ernst writes:

> The real resolution is usually 720 dpi
> while some go up to 1440.

The only resolution that interests me is pixels per inch, and that's nowhere
near 720 ppi.  If it is even 200 ppi, I'd be surprised.  I can easily see
the masses of ink dots under a loupe, and even with the naked eye.

> You should examine the small sized inkjet
> prints and the latests wide format models
> of Epson and then the conclusion can only
> be that they exceed offset quality.

They must be _very_ recent, because nothing I've seen up to now has been
that good.

> Your 2000p is one of few mistakes in printer
> models that Epson launched. It would perform
> far better with dye inks.

Except that the resulting prints would be useless after six months.  A nice
print that only lasts for a few months isn't much better than a long-term
print with metamerism.

Ernst writes:

> I wonder what ink the new HP printers use as
> HP claims an even longer (Wilhelm tested) fade
> resistance, most likely pigment but maybe ........

The last time I tried an HP printer for photos, the ink washed away
instantly as I watched when I held it under a faucet, leaving blank paper.
I wrote off HP at that point.

As for Epson resolution, I'll have to try a 4x6 of a medium-format shot and
see exactly how much resolution I'm getting under a microscope (that would
be just under 1500 ppi for the image).

Anthony,

> The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
> nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
> inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.

You don't get 2880 cows per inch either...these printers are spec'd in DOTS
per inch, NOT pixels per inch, or cows per inch.

If the printer says it's 2880 DOTS per inch, THEN the TRUE resolution IS
2880 DOTS per inch.

Austin

> I am inclined to agree with Austin
> (collective gasp <G>)

Hi Martin,

Well, given enough time, most sensible people eventually do ;-)

Regards,

Austin

At 07:58 AM 8/2/2002, Austin wrote:
>Anthony,
>
> > The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
> > nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
> > inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.
>
>You don't get 2880 cows per inch either...these printers are spec'd in DOTS
>per inch, NOT pixels per inch, or cows per inch.
>
>If the printer says it's 2880 DOTS per inch, THEN the TRUE resolution IS
>2880 DOTS per inch.

I interpreted Anthony's statement as a refutation to the commonly-held 
notion (well, probably not so much among this group) that a printer dot is 
a pixel. When I discuss my prints and printing techniques with many of the 
non-technical people I know, the first thing that they think is that the 
printer is printing one dot per pixel. I usually have to explain that it 
takes many printer dots to make up one pixel of the image.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

>> And that also means that the ppi/dpi relation
>> is of another order than the ppi/lpi relation.
> 
> The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
> nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
> inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.

Of course you don't. You cannot exchange ppi and dpi like that. they are not
the same thing. That is why a file can be various ppi numbers and print well
using the same dpi setting of the printer. I don't know why scanners and
image app's use the dpi measure as a standard, it just adds to the
confusion. They use pixels, not dots. Printers use dots to create the pixels
the image holds. No?

> 
>> Easiest method is getting a loupe and examples
>> of different printing systems.
> 
> I have, and it supports my previous explanation.  While inkjet printing is
> excellent, I've not seen inkjet prints that exceed what is achieved by
> high-end offset in terms of resolution.  I haven't examined any high-end,
> small-sized inkjet prints, though (I've looked at large, high-end prints,
> but perhaps their resolution is deliberately lower).

Even a high screen stochastic offset print shows the pattern, in my opinion.
However random, it's visible, it's not cont tone. The ink jet quad prints I
have and have seen from others show varying degrees of pattern/dither or
dot, depends on the print process and knowledge of the printer, and from my
experience also on the actual Epson printer used. My color inkjet prints
from various epson ink-jets far exceed the look of any offset job I've had
done. (with or without loupe)  I'm referring to
screening/dither/pattern/dot/you name it.


Carolyn Frayn

> Anthony,
> 
>> The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
>> nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
>> inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.
> 
> You don't get 2880 cows per inch either...these printers are spec'd in DOTS
> per inch, NOT pixels per inch, or cows per inch.
> 
> If the printer says it's 2880 DOTS per inch, THEN the TRUE resolution IS
> 2880 DOTS per inch.
> 
> Austin


Oh sorry, I should have read this before saying anything, much better to use
the Cow analogy... <g>

Carolyn

> 
>> I am inclined to agree with Austin
>> (collective gasp <G>)
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Well, given enough time, most sensible people eventually do ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin


Thanks Austin, I haven't spit coffee in a while...

Carolyn

> Oh sorry, I should have read this before saying anything, much better to
use
> the Cow analogy... <g>

You're not one of the people beta-testing the new Gateway printers, are you?

> >> I am inclined to agree with Austin
> >> (collective gasp <G>)
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Well, given enough time, most sensible people eventually do ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
>
>
> Thanks Austin, I haven't spit coffee in a while...
>
> Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

Glad I could help ;-)

Too bad you didn't "shark" it...like when it goes up your nose, and you make
a kind of "snark" sound...at least I do...every now and then...

Regards,

Austin

> 
>> Oh sorry, I should have read this before saying anything, much better to
> use
>> the Cow analogy... <g>
> 
> You're not one of the people beta-testing the new Gateway printers, are you?

shhhh, I cannot udder a word.
 
(never thought I'd sink to cow humour - stop it!)

> 
> Hi Carolyn,
> 
> Glad I could help ;-)

<g>  Hi back Austin, it's been a while...

> Too bad you didn't "shark" it...like when it goes up your nose, and you make
> a kind of "snark" sound...at least I do...every now and then...
> 

That sounds totally painful... remember doing that with coke as a kid though
<g>

Carolyn

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Martin writes:
>
> > If you have that much resolution in your file,
> > it would seem to me that you are better off
> > using it then not.
>
> There's no harm in using whatever resolution you have.  But if my file
> doesn't have enough pixels to print at 360 ppi at the size I want, there's
> no harm in printing at 300 ppi or even 240 ppi.  The implication is that
360
> ppi is _necessary_ for a decent print, but I do not find that to be true.
>
Anthony,

I will go along with you there but the earlier 160 ppi and 106 ppi figures
you used seem much too low to me. I think that in the 240 to 720 ppi range
it comes down to a matter of personal taste or artistic intent in the work.

Martin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Martin writes:
>
> > The inks are not opaque, even the pigment inks.
>
> I know.  Neither are offset printing inks.  But for practical purposes,
they
> are generally treated as opaque.  They do not have the transparency of
> dye-sub or chemical emulsions, and I do not see whatever transparency they
> possess ever being used in actual printing.  If inkjet printers had
reliably
> transparent inks, they would print like dye-sub printers, and you'd be
able
> to get a true 2880 ppi on the print.
>
> > So drops of ink can be placed on top of each
> > other to create intermediate tones.
>
> That doesn't appear to be happening on the inkjet prints I've examined.

Anthony,

The only place I don't see that happening in a grayscale inkjet print is in
the very lightest area where a single ink is doing all the work. Even there
I can't distinguish individual dots in the prints from my 1280 even with an
8x loupe so I have to assume that they overlap or are so small it simply
doesn't matter.
>
> > I believe that the inks used in offset printing
> > are quite different from those used in inkjet
> > printers.
>
> They probably are, but a common characteristic between the two is opacity.

As I said I find the grayscale pigment inks quite transparent and the Epson
color dye inks to be completely transparent.
>
> > Your logic is partially correct for something like an
> > image setter or standard laser printer but the fact
> > that the different inks can be overlaid to create
> > different tones or hues, and the use of dither patterns
> > suggests that you can simulate much more than the math
> > implies.
>
> Dithering dramatically reduces resolution, so I don't count that.  Close
> examination of the prints from my 2000P (and indeed of any inkjet prints
> that I've looked at thus far) reveals adjacent dots of ink, not overlaid
> dots of ink.  If you look closely enough, the image always shows a slight
> grain from this adjacent placement, like that of a stochastic halftone
> screen in offset.

Well the point is not to have any visible resolution. I generally cannot
detect the dither pattern in prints off the current generation of Epson
inkjets with either the Epson driver or the Piezo driver. I can see it a bit
in output from the 3000 and 1200 in the upper highlights looking very close.
The 2000P has a larger than average droplet size as I recall. In general the
dither patterns appear to be completely undetectable at "normal" viewing
distances. My 13x19 prints done from drum scans of 4x5 negs show the grain
of the Ilford FP4+ film when viewed with a loupe. If the dither/resolution
is finer than the film grain what more do I need?
>
> In contrast, dye-sub printers overlay transparent inks directly, and the
> prints from my Alps MD-2300 (which unfortunately I no longer use, because
> supplies are scarce and the printer is far too finicky) show razor
> sharpness.  Under the loupe, each pixel is clearly distinct, with its own
> color and intensity, and there is no dithering or grain.  I wish Epson
made
> dye-sub printers--with this quality but with the reliability and
> user-friendliness of other Epson printers.  It's just too much trouble to
> get stuff printed on the Alps, but it sure did a beautiful job--the
results
> could not be distinguished from a chemical print (and would tolerate
> scrubbing under a stream of water without any visible damage).

I have not seen many dye-sub prints but the ones I have seen did not seem to
be any better than a good inkjet print.
>
> > If what you say was correct, I doubt that we would
> > be very pleased with out digital prints, color or B&W.
>
> I'm not.  They look nice from a distance, but they always lack sharpness
> upon very close examination, just like halftone images in a magazine.

All I can say is that something is wrong with the inkjet prints you have
been looking at. If properly done, I have found inkjet prints to equal or
exceed silver prints in terms of sharpness and resolution and do not bear
any resemblance to a magazine line screen image.
>
> > I believe it would be more correct to say that
> > a modern inkjet printer interprets pixel input
> > rather than to say it prints pixels.
>
> That's true, but it is still constrained by the opacity of inks.

The end result it better than the pixel input in that it takes a halftone
and produces a continuous tone.

Martin

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> 
> > I am inclined to agree with Austin
> > (collective gasp <G>)
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Well, given enough time, most sensible people eventually do ;-)
> 
How don't let it go to your head. <Evil G>

Martin