Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2005-03-15 by Steve Kale
So I hear Contax is toast. What a shame - and I just bought the 645 macro lense. I wonder if it was because of strong comp from other 645 products or whether due to the encroachment of 35mm digital.
2005-03-16 by Tyler Boley
From another list- > Kyocera ends producting 35mm compact cameras and hight-end digital > compact cameras. Medfmt cameras are continued. Tyler --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" <stevekale@b...> wrote: > > So I hear Contax is toast. What a shame - and I just bought the 645 macro lense. I > wonder if it was because of strong comp from other 645 products or whether due to the > encroachment of 35mm digital.
2005-03-16 by Tim Atherton
"Sources at Kyocera have confirmed that the company is to cease production of film and digital cameras, putting a huge question mark over the future of one of the oldest brands in photography, Contax. Contax cameras have been produced since the early 1930's, when the brand was launched by German optical legend Zeiss Ikon. Contax joined forces with Japanese manufacturer Yashica in the 1960's, becoming part of electronics giant Kyocera in the mid-1990's. Kyocera has had some success in the digital camera market with models bearing Yashica, Kyocera and Contax branding, though the company's first foray into the digital SLR market (the Contax N Digital) was widely regarded as an expensive failure. There is some confusion over the future of the Contax brand, or the widely anticipated digital rangefinder (G digital) and Mark II 645 cameras. When we spoke to a Kyocera UK representative at the UK's Focus on Imaging exhibition this week, it was made clear that there may well be a future for Contax under another owner, with one rumor mentioning Sony as a potential buyer (the company already uses Carl Zeiss branded lenses on some of its digital compacts). Kyocera has already stopped production of film and digital cameras, and the various international operations are being prepared for closure. The reasons given were purely market-related (in other words not because of financial difficulties), with Kyocera now concentrating on its mobile phone and semiconductor business." and "Contax - end of an era The manufacture of Contax and Kyocera branded 35mm film cameras has ceased, and digital products are to follow by the end of the year, marking the end of an era. A spokesman for Kyocera in the UK confirmed to BJP that the Japanese manufacturer has already stopped production of both its own and Contax-branded 35mm film cameras. These include the Contax TVS-III, which is a high-end zoom compact; and the electronic rangefinder, the Contax G2. The production of digital cameras under both the Kyocera and Contax brand name is also to stop by the end of the year. Operations in the US have already closed and the distribution of products has been transferred to American distributor, Tocad. Frazer Allen of Kyocera UK told BJP that the company has made the decision because of market-led problems as opposed to financial reasons. Allen says that Kyocera is planning to concentrate on the mobile phone business, although it will continue to manufacture other electronic products as well. Despite this announcement, rumours are still circulating of two new launches for Contax' medium format ranges. A Mark II 645 camera and a digital rangefinder to join the G series have been predicted, but Allen could not confirm whether these products are still on the design board. The History of Contax, Kyocera and Carl Zeiss Carl Zeiss started making high quality magnifying glasses in 1846 but by 1925, his company had moved on to manufacturing cameras. A year later, it bought four small camera manufacturing firms: Ica, Contessa-Nettel, Ernemann and Goertz to form Zeiss Ikon AG - a company with designs to compete with those manufactured by Leica. In 1932, Zeiss Ikon produced the Contax camera, which represented the top of the company's range. The Mark I model was in production from 1932 to 1938 and the Mark II was produced until 1945. After the war, the company was split in two across the East-West German divide. It was Carl Zeiss Dresden in the East, though, that introduced the world's first 35mm SLR camera body at the Leipzig Spring Fair in 1949. This was the Contax S. The first SLR produced by the Western branch of the company came in 1953 - this was the Contaflex and was a leaf shutter model. By the late 1960s, however, competition from Japan and economic conditions in Germany determined that Carl Zeiss could no longer produce cameras in its native land. A partnership was formed with Japanese electronic giant Yashica. The first product of this union was the Contax RTS, which was launched at Photokina in 1974. Kyocera bought Yashica in 1996 and the Contax-brand name was included in this deal."
2005-03-16 by Andre
There's more at Luminous-Landscape. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml Scroll down to the March 6th item. There seems to be a public relation snafu on the part of Kyocera in Europe. Cheers, Andre
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Andre writes: > Scroll down to the March 6th item. There seems to be a public relation > snafu on the part of Kyocera in Europe. It seems more logical that MF gear would be continued; the market is small and has its ups and downs, but over the long term it may be more stable, with less competition, than the 35mm market, which is driven far more by common consumers who don't understand why digital might not be the ideal choice.
2005-03-16 by Djon
Mamiya has already introduced an "MF" digital: a 22MP rangefinder as well as 22MP backs for various antique 120 slrs. This answers the question of who will process 120 color film in the future: Almost nobody. Labs are abandoning that business right and left. Digital eliminates the undesirable proofing delays of most former 120 shooters (wedding/portrait/studio photogs used far more than amateurs ever did). Think how effective print sales already are for the real pros who by definition already provide large-monitor proofs immediately after the wedding or sitting (sometimes with a gold frame around the monitor), or while the art director and product manager are in the studio. There's no more place in professional photography for film, except perhaps as a novelty. As we know from the 6 and 7, Mamiya is capable of optics that rival Zeiss. The cost of the new 22MP Mamiya MF rangefinder camera, or the Mamiya 22MP backs for Hassleblad and other MF cameras, is chump change for many professional photographers and is in any case a tax deduction. Many professional DSLR shooters will shortly be dumping their mere 12 MP cameras for something more professional. Meanwhile, I'm incredibly happy with my IIIC Leica and my Minolta 5400 scanner. The 1937 uncoated Elmar looks especially good on Entrada.
> It seems more logical that MF gear would be continued; the market is > small and has its ups and downs, but over the long term it may be more > stable, with less competition, than the 35mm market, which is driven far > more by common consumers who don't understand why digital might not be > the ideal choice.
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Djon writes: > There's no more place in professional photography for film, except > perhaps as a novelty. Zzzz. I've been hearing this ever since the first lame digital cameras came out, and it's still not true. > Many professional DSLR shooters will shortly be dumping their mere 12 > MP cameras for something more professional. Strange: a "mere" 4 megapixels was "film quality" only a short time ago. Before that, two megapixels was film quality. Before that, a megapixel was film quality. It seems that "film quality" always equates to just slightly less than whatever digital cameras currently provide. Remember, unless someone starts building true B&W digital cameras, a move to digital is going to have a serious impact on B&W, too. Desaturating a color digital photo is nothing like shooting B&W on real film (or even shooting it with a real B&W digital camera).
2005-03-16 by Anthony S. Tubbs
Anthony rumor has it Nikon is coming out with a Digital FM3, that might suit your needs. Anthony Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
>Remember, unless someone starts building true B&W digital cameras, a >move to digital is going to have a serious impact on B&W, too. >Desaturating a color digital photo is nothing like shooting B&W on real >film (or even shooting it with a real B&W digital camera). > > > > >
2005-03-16 by Bob Frost
Snob! Bob Frost. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > than the 35mm market, which is driven far > more by common consumers who don't understand why digital might not be > the ideal choice.
2005-03-16 by Steve Kale
Please...film is already dead for most (particularly time sensitive) professional environments. I don't know a single fashion photographer that still shoots film and I suspect that the conversion in pro sports photography and in paparazzi is even greater.
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:03:11 +0100 > To: Djon <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so toast ! > > > Djon writes: > >> There's no more place in professional photography for film, except >> perhaps as a novelty. > > Zzzz. I've been hearing this ever since the first lame digital cameras > came out, and it's still not true. >
2005-03-16 by Francis Ford
Most all of the editorial shooters on the West coast are still shooting film.I have a friend that assists and shoots out there and says they think digital looks to plastic,they like the softness of grain. A lot shoot 4x5 color neg.It might have to do with editors not wanting to change. Magazines are not so time driven.Francis Ford --- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote: > Please...film is already dead for most (particularly > time sensitive) > professional environments. I don't know a single > fashion photographer that > still shoots film and I suspect that the conversion > in pro sports > photography and in paparazzi is even greater. > > > > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" > <anthony@...> > > Reply-To: > <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:03:11 +0100 > > To: Djon > <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so > toast ! > > > > > > Djon writes: > > > >> There's no more place in professional photography > for film, except > >> perhaps as a novelty. > > > > Zzzz. I've been hearing this ever since the first > lame digital cameras > > came out, and it's still not true. > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
2005-03-16 by Andre
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote: > Please...film is already dead for most (particularly time sensitive) > professional environments. Well, not quite. Ilford has just announced the return of glass plates coating! http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=211150 Cheers, Andre
2005-03-16 by Ernst Dinkla
Andre wrote: >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale ><stevekale@b...> wrote: > > >>Please...film is already dead for most (particularly time sensitive) >>professional environments. >> >> > >Well, not quite. Ilford has just announced the return of glass plates >coating! > >http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=211150 > >Cheers, >Andre > > It ain't film :-) It looks like one part is heading for nostalgia, the other one to explore off-spins of the coating technology for other industries (Harman). Not a bad concept. But Ilford competing with Efke is getting half of what already is a niche. An they are not allowed to enter the inkjet business in competition with Swiss Ilford. Ernst
2005-03-16 by scott_now_coming
I see Pentax up the ante with an 18.6 MP camera. Announced yesterday for an up coming show in Japan: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05031502pentax645digital.asp Scott --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" <stevekale@b...> wrote: > > So I hear Contax is toast. What a shame - and I just bought the 645 macro lense. I > wonder if it was because of strong comp from other 645 products or whether due to the > encroachment of 35mm digital.
2005-03-16 by Tyler Boley
So many pronouncements with the tone of righteous certainty, and dripping with the scornful tone of insider info. So little knowledge... Tyler
2005-03-16 by Tom Baker
Tyler - This would be norm in our current society. Tom Baker Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote: So many pronouncements with the tone of righteous certainty, and dripping with the scornful tone of insider info. So little knowledge... Tyler Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. 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: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-03-16 by Tyler Boley
Yes. I haven't yet reached my target caffiene level for the day. I should get back to that, then norm will be just hunky dory and unworthy of comment once again. Tyler --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker <tbaker1328@s...> wrote: > Tyler - > > This would be norm in our current society. > > Tom Baker > > Tyler Boley <tyler@t...> wrote: > > > So many pronouncements with the tone of righteous certainty, and > dripping with the scornful tone of insider info. > > So little knowledge... > > > Tyler > > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. > > 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: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-03-16 by Peter Gorwin
Amen.
On Mar 16, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Tyler Boley wrote: > > > So many pronouncements with the tone of righteous certainty, and > dripping with the scornful tone of insider info. > > So little knowledge... > > > Tyler >
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Anthony S. Tubbs writes: > Anthony rumor has it Nikon is coming out with a Digital FM3, that might > suit your needs. The equipment I already have suits my needs admirably (although a couple extra _identical_ bodies and a few more lenses wouldn't hurt). I can get excellent black and white just by popping in a roll of B&W film (although it would be nice if Kodak would continue making Tech Pan).
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Steve Kale writes: > Please...film is already dead for most (particularly time sensitive) > professional environments. Not _particularly_ time-sensitive, but _primarily_ time-sensitive. If you don't have time constraints, it's much, much harder to justify digital photography. The best photographs are still taken on film. The fact that some professionals are more concerned with making a fast buck than with producing the best possible images doesn't mean that they are a model for others to follow. And certainly amateur photographers in particular need not sacrifice quality. > I don't know a single fashion photographer that > still shoots film and I suspect that the conversion in pro sports > photography and in paparazzi is even greater. So? None of these are my heroes.
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Andre writes: > Well, not quite. Ilford has just announced the return of glass plates > coating! At least someone still has principles.
2005-03-16 by Andy Graham
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote: > Andre writes: > > > Well, not quite. Ilford has just announced the return of glass plates > > coating! > > At least someone still has principles. just out of curiousity......what "principles" would you be speaking of? andy
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Andy Graham writes: > just out of curiousity......what "principles" would you be speaking > of? How about principles like these: http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-SanDiegoNight.htm A single shot on film with four _billion_ pixels. In a panorama of the San Diego skyline, you can see individual lampshades inside rooms at the hotels along the beach. I'd love to see a twenty-foot-wide Duratrans of this image! An article in Wired today brags about a camera made with a scanning digital back that produces 144 megapixels. Unfortunately, that's 40 times smaller than the film image pointed to above. And the digital image requires exposures lasting for minutes, whereas the film camera does it all in one brief exposure. Yup, I think I'll be shooting film for quite a bit longer!
2005-03-16 by Diane Fields
Oh, so you shoot with one of the Gigapixl cams???
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony G. Atkielski
To: Andy Graham
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so toast !
Andy Graham writes:
> just out of curiousity......what "principles" would you be speaking
> of?
How about principles like these:
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-SanDiegoNight.htm
A single shot on film with four _billion_ pixels. In a panorama of the
San Diego skyline, you can see individual lampshades inside rooms at the
hotels along the beach. I'd love to see a twenty-foot-wide Duratrans of
this image!
An article in Wired today brags about a camera made with a scanning
digital back that produces 144 megapixels. Unfortunately, that's 40
times smaller than the film image pointed to above. And the digital
image requires exposures lasting for minutes, whereas the film camera
does it all in one brief exposure.
Yup, I think I'll be shooting film for quite a bit longer!
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2005-03-16 by Andy Graham
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote: > Andy Graham writes: > > > just out of curiousity......what "principles" would you be speaking > > of? > > How about principles like these: > > http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-SanDiegoNight.htm > > A single shot on film with four _billion_ pixels. In a panorama of the > San Diego skyline, you can see individual lampshades inside rooms at the > hotels along the beach. I'd love to see a twenty-foot-wide Duratrans of > this image! oh,..you mean the "bigger is better" "principles"?~s~....so,it is NOT the image...it's how big you can blow it up? > > An article in Wired today brags about a camera made with a scanning > digital back that produces 144 megapixels. Unfortunately, that's 40 > times smaller than the film image pointed to above. And the digital > image requires exposures lasting for minutes, whereas the film camera
> does it all in one brief exposure. > > Yup, I think I'll be shooting film for quite a bit longer!
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Diane Fields writes: > Oh, so you shoot with one of the Gigapixl cams??? No, but I shoot with film, and the only difference is in the size of the film.
2005-03-16 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Andy Graham writes: > oh,..you mean the "bigger is better" "principles"? Yes. A key factor in overall image quality is resolution.
2005-03-16 by Stan McQueen
That site seems a little strange. I shoot 4x5 and scan at 2000 ppi, but I don't refer to my camera as an 80 megapixel camera. I scan 35mm at 4000 ppi, but that doesn't make it a 24 megapixel camera. They're both film cameras. It's the scanner that turns the silver into pixels. Stan ======================= Photography by Stan McQueen http://www.smcqueen.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Fields [mailto:picnic@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:01 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so toast !
Oh, so you shoot with one of the Gigapixl cams???
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony G. Atkielski
To: Andy Graham
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so toast !
Andy Graham writes:
> just out of curiousity......what "principles" would you be speaking
> of?
How about principles like these:
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-SanDiegoNight.htm
A single shot on film with four _billion_ pixels. In a panorama of the
San Diego skyline, you can see individual lampshades inside rooms at the
hotels along the beach. I'd love to see a twenty-foot-wide Duratrans of
this image!
An article in Wired today brags about a camera made with a scanning
digital back that produces 144 megapixels. Unfortunately, that's 40
times smaller than the film image pointed to above. And the digital
image requires exposures lasting for minutes, whereas the film camera
does it all in one brief exposure.
Yup, I think I'll be shooting film for quite a bit longer!
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/20052005-03-16 by Andy Biggs
Precisely. That is what I have been chiming in about for quite a while. Just trying to follow the digital coattails, I suspect. It is still a film camera. Has absolutely nothing to do with pixels. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Besides, they need to put their camera in the hands of a decent photographer. The shots they have on their site are less than stellar.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan McQueen [mailto:smcqueen@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:34 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Gigapixl Camera (WAS: Contax is not so toast !)
That site seems a little strange. I shoot 4x5 and scan at 2000 ppi, but I
don't refer to my camera as an 80 megapixel camera. I scan 35mm at 4000 ppi,
but that doesn't make it a 24 megapixel camera. They're both film cameras.
It's the scanner that turns the silver into pixels.
Stan
=======================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Fields [mailto:picnic@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:01 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so toast !
Oh, so you shoot with one of the Gigapixl cams???
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony G. Atkielski
To: Andy Graham
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Contax is not so toast !
Andy Graham writes:
> just out of curiousity......what "principles" would you be speaking
> of?
How about principles like these:
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-SanDiegoNight.htm
A single shot on film with four _billion_ pixels. In a panorama of the
San Diego skyline, you can see individual lampshades inside rooms at the
hotels along the beach. I'd love to see a twenty-foot-wide Duratrans of
this image!
An article in Wired today brags about a camera made with a scanning
digital back that produces 144 megapixels. Unfortunately, that's 40
times smaller than the film image pointed to above. And the digital
image requires exposures lasting for minutes, whereas the film camera
does it all in one brief exposure.
Yup, I think I'll be shooting film for quite a bit longer!
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In
low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Links2005-03-16 by Andy Graham
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote: > Andy Graham writes: > > > oh,..you mean the "bigger is better" "principles"? > > Yes. A key factor in overall image quality is resolution. No. ONE factor in overall image quality MAY be resolution...unless ofcourse we are doing detailed scientific imaging which would increase the relative importance of resolution.....just my opinion ofcourse~s~. andy
2005-03-17 by joshscapes
When it comes down to it, let's face it, there are those that talk and those that create. I wish we could all agree not to debate what is better and simply create exquisite prints with whatever means we use and appreciate that. Digital has some wonderful qualities. Film has some wonderful qualities. Only someone insecure with what they are doing feels the need to proclaim that one or the other is "dead." Just my 2 cents. Josh
2005-03-17 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Stan McQueen writes: > That site seems a little strange. I shoot 4x5 and scan at 2000 ppi, but I > don't refer to my camera as an 80 megapixel camera. I scan 35mm at 4000 ppi, > but that doesn't make it a 24 megapixel camera. They're both film cameras. > It's the scanner that turns the silver into pixels. As the site itself makes clear, today there are not many practical uses for photographs unless they are in digital form. The image is captured on film, but then it is scanned. The utility of their technology depends on the resolution of the scanned image. It would be difficult, for example, to expose 10x20-foot sheets of photographic paper with an enlarger and then develop them.
2005-03-17 by Andre
>It would be difficult, > for example, to expose 10x20-foot sheets of photographic paper with an > enlarger and then develop them. These things have been done in the darkroom since WWII. The developper is even applied with a mop! Cheers, Andre
2005-03-17 by Aleksandr Milewski
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > The utility of their technology > depends on the resolution of the scanned image. It would be difficult, > for example, to expose 10x20-foot sheets of photographic paper with an > enlarger and then develop them. Yet their "Technology" is that they built an aerial camera, and are doing the conversion from the aerial film's unique characteristic curves to something more "photographic" in software. This beast has been at the center of a phenomenal hype machine, but there is nothing new here. -Z
2005-03-17 by Robert W. Shearer
HEAR!HEAR!
----- Original Message ----- From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gigapixl Camera (WAS: Contax is not so toast !) When it comes down to it, let's face it, there are those that talk and those that create. I wish we could all agree not to debate what is better and simply create exquisite prints with whatever means we use and appreciate that. Digital has some wonderful qualities. Film has some wonderful qualities. Only someone insecure with what they are doing feels the need to proclaim that one or the other is "dead." Just my 2 cents. Josh Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. 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: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. Yahoo! Groups Links
2005-03-17 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Andre writes: > These things have been done in the darkroom since WWII. The developper > is even applied with a mop! Which labs would you recommend today? And why do it that way if you can print it in other ways more easily with results of equal quality?
2005-03-17 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Aleksandr Milewski writes: > This beast has been at the center of a phenomenal hype machine, but > there is nothing new here. The guy who is doing 144 megapixels with a scanning back is getting a lot more hype.
2005-03-17 by Bob Frost
Anthony, Resolution of what? From the data I have seen, sensor resolution in cameras such as the D2X and IDsII are equal or superior to 35mm Velvia in resolution. We don't yet have sensors comparable to the larger sizes of film, but that is just a matter of size, not resolution, surely. Bob Frost. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> Yes. A key factor in overall image quality is resolution.
2005-03-17 by Steve Kale
The definition of this forum is that it is a place to debate technique ie talk. It is not a place to show one's creativity - nor could it.
> From: "Robert W. Shearer" <rwshearer@...> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:23:17 -0500 > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gigapixl Camera (WAS: Contax is not so toast !) > > > HEAR!HEAR! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gigapixl Camera (WAS: Contax is not so toast !) > > > > > When it comes down to it, let's face it, there are those that talk > and those that create. I wish we could all agree not to debate what > is better and simply create exquisite prints with whatever means we > use and appreciate that. Digital has some wonderful qualities. > Film has some wonderful qualities. Only someone insecure with what > they are doing feels the need to proclaim that one or the other > is "dead." > > Just my 2 cents. > > Josh >
2005-03-17 by Richard Ross / RH Designs
>Resolution of what? From the data I have seen, sensor resolution in cameras >such as the D2X and IDsII are equal or superior to 35mm Velvia in >resolution. We don't yet have sensors comparable to the larger sizes of >film, but that is just a matter of size, not resolution, surely. 35mm Velvia requires around 16MP equivalent according to http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html The late lamented Agfa APX25 has an even higher resolution than Velvia, and the dynamic range of film is still higher than digital cameras and not subject to "clipping". I shall stick with film for origination for now - at least its keeping properties are well proven! Regards Richard
2005-03-17 by Francis Ford
BRAVO.......Francis Ford --- "Robert W. Shearer" <rwshearer@...> wrote: > HEAR!HEAR! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gigapixl Camera (WAS: > Contax is not so toast !) > > > > > When it comes down to it, let's face it, there are > those that talk > and those that create. I wish we could all agree > not to debate what > is better and simply create exquisite prints with > whatever means we > use and appreciate that. Digital has some wonderful > qualities. > Film has some wonderful qualities. Only someone > insecure with what > they are doing feels the need to proclaim that one > or the other > is "dead." > > Just my 2 cents. > > Josh > > > > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, > and other resources as > they are often being updated. > > 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: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of > earlier messages to keep > them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal > attacks or flames. > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be > removed from the > membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group > topic of digital B&W > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic > posts may be removed from > the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the > group rules and > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and > decisions of the group Owner and > Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" > in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT > THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP > SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR > LOSS OF PROFITS, > GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN > IF THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP > HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) > THE USE OR THE INABILITY > TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR > ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) > STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY > THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO > GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO > GROUP. > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
2005-03-17 by Bob Frost
Richard, According to Roger Clark's site that you quoted, 35mm color films vary enormously in their digital MP equivalents. His figures for Velvia are somewhere between 8-18MP, Kodachrome 64 6-10MP, Ektachrome 100 and Sensia 200 4-6MP, and Provia 3200 2-4MP. For 35mm B&W films he gives Tech Pan with 16MP, TMX 6MP, TMV 4MP, and Tmax 3200 2MP. So the 1DsII with its 16.4 MP is equivalent or superior to all these films, and the D2x is superior to most. Clark also shows http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/ that the 1DII camera has a far higher signal-to-noise ration than Velvia 50. As to dynamic range, Clark shows http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/ that the 1DII camera has a far higher dynamic range than either of the two films he tested, Kodak Gold 200 and Velvia 50. I will agree with your last point, I have loads of faded/torn/scratched negs/prints from my parents, and hundreds of missing ones. Bob Frost.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Ross / RH Designs" <richard@...> >Resolution of what? From the data I have seen, sensor resolution in cameras >such as the D2X and IDsII are equal or superior to 35mm Velvia in >resolution. We don't yet have sensors comparable to the larger sizes of >film, but that is just a matter of size, not resolution, surely. 35mm Velvia requires around 16MP equivalent according to http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html The late lamented Agfa APX25 has an even higher resolution than Velvia, and the dynamic range of film is still higher than digital cameras and not subject to "clipping".
2005-03-17 by jnhugo
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Francis Ford <francisford45@y...> wrote: > BRAVO.......Francis Ford > --- "Robert W. Shearer" <rwshearer@c...> wrote: > > HEAR!HEAR! > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@j...> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:39 PM > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gigapixl Camera (WAS: > > Contax is not so toast !) > > > > > > > > > > When it comes down to it, let's face it, there are > > those that talk > > and those that create. I wish we could all agree > > not to debate There are also those who create and talk- it is healthy and interesting and helps us to understand our own positions-as long as it is in good spirit and intent-debate is healthy -so is the so called act of "creating"... (as John Lennon said: Nothing you can do that can't be done")-by the way -do you think it is possible that God created evolution?(no rsvp nessacary)
2005-03-17 by Anthony G. Atkielski
Bob Frost writes: > Resolution of what? From the data I have seen, sensor resolution in cameras > such as the D2X and IDsII are equal or superior to 35mm Velvia in > resolution. I believe what I see, rather than what I read, and digital doesn't even come close. Shooting B&W digitally is doubly bizarre, since not only do you sacrifice resolution, but you sacrifce tonality as well. > We don't yet have sensors comparable to the larger sizes of > film, but that is just a matter of size, not resolution, surely. Sufficiently large sensors would have lots of pixels, yes, but nobody knows how to make those. And you cannot just make pixels smaller, because the noise goes up and the quality of each pixel declines rapidly. In the final analysis, for both film and digital, the size of the imaging plane makes all the difference.
2005-03-17 by Aleksandr Milewski
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > Aleksandr Milewski writes: > > >>This beast has been at the center of a phenomenal hype machine, but >>there is nothing new here. > > > The guy who is doing 144 megapixels with a scanning back is getting a > lot more hype. This thing made the rounds in the mainstream press six months ago. Lots of noise about "Scientists being interested in the process." Only a scientist who's been under a rock since the advent of color film would find this in any way innovative.