Digital BW, The Print

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

From: Austin Franklin
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:19 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images



> 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...

Austin

Please forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that if the chip were able to capture all three elements (RGB etc),  without interpolation and guestimating the correct color information, it would save a tremendous amount of time. what do you mean by it isn't that big a deal? I wait 40 seconds for a tiff file to be created ( although i will soon be trying raw), and emptying out a buffer during a portrait session can seem like eons.
I thought that the Foveon would eliminate all the algorithyms etc. that take so long to create and write a file.
Thanks,
George J Kunze
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


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

> > 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...
>
> Austin
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that
> if the chip were able to capture all three elements (RGB etc),
> without interpolation and guestimating the correct color
> information, it would save a tremendous amount of time. what do
> you mean by it isn't that big a deal? I wait 40 seconds for a
> tiff file to be created

Hi George,

I highly doubt that is due to interpolation.

> ( although i will soon be trying raw),
> and emptying out a buffer during a portrait session can seem like eons.
> I thought that the Foveon would eliminate all the algorithyms
> etc. that take so long to create and write a file.

You can certainly test this by simply creating a raw image file...  I can
see if you are doing compression, that might slow things up...but
interpolation should be being done in hardware, and therefore take up
literally no additional time.  But again, I don't know what different
manufacturers do, so I really can't say.

Regards,

Austin

> Please forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that if the
chip > > > were able to capture all three elements (RGB etc),  without
interpolation and > > guestimating the correct color information, it would
save a tremendous amount of > time. what do you mean by it isn't that big a
deal? I wait 40 seconds for a tiff > file to be created ( although i will
soon be trying raw), and emptying out a > > > buffer during a portrait
session can seem like eons.
> I thought that the Foveon would eliminate all the algorithyms etc. that
take so > long to create and write a file.
> 
The vast majority of waiting time is taken in writing the captured image to
the storage media. You'll notice that the camera is ready much faster when
you set the mode to highly-compressed JPGs, than if you shoot in TIFF mode
at the same resolution, despite the JPG requiring more processing. The
difference is due to the file size.

Darren.
http://www.pool-room.com/


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

The time lag is caused by the read out to the storage device. There is a 
lot of information comeing off the sensor and only a few spickets for it 
to come through. It's somewhat like pumping a fire hose into a soda 
straw and tiff files are big - it's a big bottle neck.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
> > > 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...
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > Please forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that
> > if the chip were able to capture all three elements (RGB etc),
> > without interpolation and guestimating the correct color
> > information, it would save a tremendous amount of time. what do
> > you mean by it isn't that big a deal? I wait 40 seconds for a
> > tiff file to be created
>
> Hi George,
>
> I highly doubt that is due to interpolation.
>
> > ( although i will soon be trying raw),
> > and emptying out a buffer during a portrait session can seem like eons.
> > I thought that the Foveon would eliminate all the algorithyms
> > etc. that take so long to create and write a file.
>
> You can certainly test this by simply creating a raw image file...  I can
> see if you are doing compression, that might slow things up...but
> interpolation should be being done in hardware, and therefore take up
> literally no additional time.  But again, I don't know what different
> manufacturers do, so I really can't say.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1155069/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302> 
>
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Hi Truman,

SOME time lag is due to reading out the sensor, but certainly not of the
order that is being spoke of (40 seconds).  Readout of the sensor should
take less than a second.

Writing to data storage is obviously an issue.  If you are writing to a hard
drive, it won't be any faster (in fact slower) than writing 18M (for raw or
uncompressed TIFF) to your desktop hard disk.

Austin

> The time lag is caused by the read out to the storage device. There is a
> lot of information comeing off the sensor and only a few spickets for it
> to come through. It's somewhat like pumping a fire hose into a soda
> straw and tiff files are big - it's a big bottle neck.
>
> Truman
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >
> > > > 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...
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > > Please forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that
> > > if the chip were able to capture all three elements (RGB etc),
> > > without interpolation and guestimating the correct color
> > > information, it would save a tremendous amount of time. what do
> > > you mean by it isn't that big a deal? I wait 40 seconds for a
> > > tiff file to be created
> >
> > Hi George,
> >
> > I highly doubt that is due to interpolation.
> >
> > > ( although i will soon be trying raw),
> > > and emptying out a buffer during a portrait session can seem
> like eons.
> > > I thought that the Foveon would eliminate all the algorithyms
> > > etc. that take so long to create and write a file.
> >
> > You can certainly test this by simply creating a raw image
> file...  I can
> > see if you are doing compression, that might slow things up...but
> > interpolation should be being done in hardware, and therefore take up
> > literally no additional time.  But again, I don't know what different
> > manufacturers do, so I really can't say.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin

Austin,

Hard drives on desktops are much faster than hard drives on laptops 
which are faster than micro drives. Developing high speed flash memory 
is the answer for high resolution digital cameras - of course more speed 
means more power means more heat. An image contains a large amount of 
information and the best, cheapest, fastest storage medium for images 
still is film. The write time is basically zero - once the shutter is 
closed the image has been captured and "written" to the storage media. 
But, alas, film has some drawbacks.

Ten years down the road it will be interesting to see how this all 
flushes out. Will the film camera be relegated to a revered place in the 
Smithsonian as a relic or the past, or will the many high end users come 
back to film after playing with digital and the digital camera nitch be 
the point and shoot photographer who wants to sent pictures of the kids 
to grandma? I think cost and ease of use will determine a lot of it.

Cheers
Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Truman,
>
> SOME time lag is due to reading out the sensor, but certainly not of the
> order that is being spoke of (40 seconds).  Readout of the sensor should
> take less than a second.
>
> Writing to data storage is obviously an issue.  If you are writing to 
> a hard
> drive, it won't be any faster (in fact slower) than writing 18M (for 
> raw or
> uncompressed TIFF) to your desktop hard disk.
>
> Austin
>

Truman,

> Hard drives on desktops are much faster than hard drives on laptops
> which are faster than micro drives.

Of course, that's what I believe I said...

> Developing high speed flash memory
> is the answer for high resolution digital cameras - of course more speed
> means more power means more heat.

I agree that silicon storage is the answer, whether it is "flash" or some
other memory technique, is up for grabs IMO.  Also, as die processes shrink,
so does voltage...as well as resistance, and therefore heat is decreased, as
well as speed increased.

> An image contains a large amount of
> information and the best, cheapest, fastest storage medium for images
> still is film. The write time is basically zero - once the shutter is
> closed the image has been captured and "written" to the storage media.

Agreed.

> But, alas, film has some drawbacks.

Like what, aside from it isn't "instant", like digital?

> Ten years down the road it will be interesting to see how this all
> flushes out. Will the film camera be relegated to a revered place in the
> Smithsonian as a relic or the past, or will the many high end users come
> back to film after playing with digital and the digital camera nitch be
> the point and shoot photographer who wants to sent pictures of the kids
> to grandma? I think cost and ease of use will determine a lot of it.

I believe film will always be here, though relegated to more art than
standard P&S "photography".

Austin

> Truman,
>
> > Hard drives on desktops are much faster than hard drives on laptops
> > which are faster than micro drives.
>
> Of course, that's what I believe I said...

sorry I forgot to say this...and the point was...that writing 18M to a
desktop drive will be faster than writing 18G to a micro drive, which can
give one some soft of idea as to how fast the camera can write the image, at
best.  It takes quite a few seconds...

Austin

There are alot of advantages in being "instant."  There are some 
environmental issues with film - heat and humidity for example. I have a 
G2 which is  a fine camera for taking pictures on vacation. It is also a 
fine camera for exploring a subject prior to lugging out the 4x5 to take 
the shot.  It takes good pictures. It, however, is not a fine art 
camera. It might be in the future digital will also be the choice of 
photojournalist - get the shot, throw it on a satellite link and it's up 
on CNN 5 minutes after it is shot. But the quailty demands for 
photojournalism are not the same as fine art. With good scanners 
available, an effective link between processing in the digital format 
and film has been made. With printers becoming better and coming down in 
price, the gap is closing in on printing on silver. In fact as scanner 
technology and printer technology advance, it may impact the digital 
camera. The scanner technology in particular will allow the 
photojournalist to have his shot back to CNN within an hours if not 5 
minutes. I see this as a very fluid market currently and it will flush 
out over time. The camera makers seem to be concentrating on the "low 
end" point and shoot maket, feeling their way in the high end digital 
SLR market.

It is going to be very difficult - at least in the immediate future for 
any digital camera to compete costwise with film cameras of the same 
construction and same optical quality.  The digital processing and 
storage issues and batter implications have their cost and given this 
additional cost I would rather it go into the optics.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
>
> > But, alas, film has some drawbacks.
>
> Like what, aside from it isn't "instant", like digital?
>

Truman,

> There are alot of advantages in being "instant."

Of course, that's what I said...but aside from that...

> There are some
> environmental issues with film - heat and humidity for example.

And those same issues are even more so an issue with electronics.

> It might be in the future digital will also be the choice of
> photojournalist - get the shot, throw it on a satellite link and it's up
> on CNN 5 minutes after it is shot.

It already is a major choice of photojournalists.

> But the quailty demands for
> photojournalism are not the same as fine art.

Exactly why it works so well for them.

> It is going to be very difficult - at least in the immediate future for
> any digital camera to compete costwise with film cameras of the same
> construction and same optical quality.  The digital processing and
> storage issues and batter implications have their cost and given this
> additional cost I would rather it go into the optics.

Optics are the same, for film or digital now, so I don't see that as an
issue.  Digital cameras are vastly cheaper for some people to use...and for
others, not so.  It all depends on what your needs are.

Austin

Truman Prevatt wrote:

>There are alot of advantages in being "instant."  There are some 
>environmental issues with film - heat and humidity for example. I have a 
>G2 which is  a fine camera for taking pictures on vacation. It is also a 
>fine camera for exploring a subject prior to lugging out the 4x5 to take 
>the shot.  It takes good pictures. It, however, is not a fine art 
>camera. It might be in the future digital will also be the choice of 
>photojournalist 
>
It already is... at least in Major US markets... I haven't seena n AP or 
Major Newspaper guy generally shooting film, for about 2 years..

The real crossing of the Rubicon ocurrred when Time and the other weekly 
magazines started using it as the default medium..,

Keith
 




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

Keith-

Sports illustrated has been digital only for almost 3 years.

Tom O'Connell

TomOC@...
www.thomasoconnell.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image 
Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Truman Prevatt wrote:
> 
> >There are alot of advantages in being "instant."  There are some 
> >environmental issues with film - heat and humidity for example. I 
have a 
> >G2 which is  a fine camera for taking pictures on vacation. It is 
also a 
> >fine camera for exploring a subject prior to lugging out the 4x5 
to take 
> >the shot.  It takes good pictures. It, however, is not a fine art 
> >camera. It might be in the future digital will also be the choice 
of 
> >photojournalist 
> >
> It already is... at least in Major US markets... I haven't seena n 
AP or 
> Major Newspaper guy generally shooting film, for about 2 years..
> 
> The real crossing of the Rubicon ocurrred when Time and the other 
weekly 

> magazines started using it as the default medium..,
> 
> Keith
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom writes:

> Sports illustrated has been digital only for
> almost 3 years.

Sports Illustrated has never had stringent requirements for image quality.
Speed and content are everything, it seems, which is logical for sports.

tomoc wrote:

>Keith-
>
>Sports illustrated has been digital only for almost 3 years.
>
>Tom O'Connell
>
>
>  
>
Given I formerly did a good aount of sports work..  Including an SI 
Spoeical Issue cover shot... You'd think I would have thought of them...

Sometimes one can't see the forest for the trees..

Consider the Rubicon crossed somewhere back there..

I must have been asleep in my saddle when we made the crossing..  ;-)

Keith
 
 



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

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

From: Darren Collins
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW]Foveon and saving time, was... Storage of digital images

> Please forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that if the
chip > > > were able to capture all three elements (RGB etc),  without
interpolation and > > guestimating the correct color information, it would
save a tremendous amount of > time. what do you mean by it isn't that big a
deal? I wait 40 seconds for a tiff > file to be created ( although i will
soon be trying raw), and emptying out a > > > buffer during a portrait
session can seem like eons.
> I thought that the Foveon would eliminate all the algorithyms etc. that
take so > long to create and write a file.
>  
The vast majority of waiting time is taken in writing the captured image to
the storage media. You'll notice that the camera is ready much faster when
you set the mode to highly-compressed JPGs, than if you shoot in TIFF mode
at the same resolution, despite the JPG requiring more processing. The
difference is due to the file size.

Darren.
http://www.pool-room.com/

Darren and all,
Thanks for your replies.
George J Kunze
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


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