Digital BW, The Print

Way too expensive. I would certainly want both color and black and white
capabilities for that price.  And a Canon Body.

Jerry

Carl Schofield wrote:

> 
> New camera from Kodak, DCS 760M:
> http://www.pdnonline.com/newprod/articles/article1404.html
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Way too expensive. I would certainly want both color and black 
and white
> capabilities for that price.  And a Canon Body.
> 
> Jerry
Amen Jerry, but at least they are beginning to consider the 
market for diigital B&W.  Wouldn't you love to have a Canon body 
(priced like the D30) with these specs:

KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS 760M Digital Camera
Specifications

*	ISO Settings: 80ÊtoÊ400 
*	6-megapixel CCD (3032ÊxÊ2008) 
*	Bit depth: 12-bit (12-bit single channel monochrome data) 
original capture 
*	In-camera optional file finishing – 
*	18 MB finished TIFF file size
(8-bit monochrome, 3Êchannels) 
*	12 MB finished linear TIFF file
(16-bit linear monochrome data, 1Êchannel) 
*	JPEG finished file options 
*	Removable, rechargeable NiMH battery 
*	IR filter included 
*	1.3XÊfocal length 
*	Dual PC card slots,TypeÊII,ÊIII 
*	Size:
ÊÊÊ7.6Êin. (194Êmm) tall
ÊÊÊ6.2Êin. (158Êmm) wide
ÊÊÊ3.4Êin. (88Êmm) deep 
*	Weight: 4.1Êlbs (1.86Êkg) with battery and PC card, without lens 
*	Conforms to FCC ClassÊB, CE Mark 
*	ClassÊB Declaration, VCCIÊClass BÊCertified

Jerry,

Everyone determines their own particular price/feature scheme, but a
6 MP B&W camera using a dedicated B&W CCD would be superior to the
exact same camera with a 6MP Color CCD (RGB) used in grayscale mode.

On the color version only ¼ (1.5 MP) of the pixels gather Red
info, ¼ (1.5 MP) gather blue info, and ½ gather green info (3
MP).  This information is then interpolated into a file (often 6MP).  
This file is then converted into grayscale.  On a color CCD, the
individual CCD elements have filters, so this RGB behavior cannot be 
turned off.
 
So on a color CCD, even for a grayscale file; it starts out as an 
interpolated color file then is converted to grayscale.

A dedicated B&W camera is not handicapped with this interpolation 
scheme.  Each of the 6 million pixels gathers a dedicated (not 
interpolated) value for the grayscale value.  This results in a file 
of higher fidelity (than on a like camera with a color RGB sensor).

The dedicated B&W camera would most likely result in grayscale images 
that would hold up to larger prints (than a like technology camera 
with a color RGB CCD).

Now whither this upside would offset the additional cost and utility 
of a color version would be an individual decision, but I am sure 
there are some users that would rather enjoy the increased B&W 
fidelity of this camera over the increased usability or price point.

In the past, Kodak sold a 6MP B&W digicam with a Canon body (I dont 
remember the model #).  They closed these out about a year ago for 
$2500.  At the time I thought it was a grand bargain.  The closeout 
stock only lasted about two days.

Enjoy!     Lon
___________________________________
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Way too expensive. I would certainly want both color and black and 
white
> capabilities for that price.  And a Canon Body.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Carl Schofield wrote:
> > 
> > New camera from Kodak, DCS 760M:
> > http://www.pdnonline.com/newprod/articles/article1404.html
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page
is 
at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
messages 
to keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
"flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

The 400-800 ISO settings are unacceptable in a camera of this price.
100-1600 would be a must.

Jerry




scho_2000 wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Way too expensive. I would certainly want both color and black
> and white
> > capabilities for that price.  And a Canon Body.
> >
> > Jerry
> Amen Jerry, but at least they are beginning to consider the
> market for diigital B&W.  Wouldn't you love to have a Canon body
> (priced like the D30) with these specs:
> 
> KODAK PROFESSIONAL DCS 760M Digital Camera
> Specifications
> 
> *       ISO Settings: 80\ufffdto\ufffd400
> *       6-megapixel CCD (3032\ufffdx\ufffd2008)
> *       Bit depth: 12-bit (12-bit single channel monochrome data)
> original capture
> *       In-camera optional file finishing \ufffd
> *       18 MB finished TIFF file size
> (8-bit monochrome, 3\ufffdchannels)
> *       12 MB finished linear TIFF file
> (16-bit linear monochrome data, 1\ufffdchannel)
> *       JPEG finished file options
> *       Removable, rechargeable NiMH battery
> *       IR filter included
> *       1.3X\ufffdfocal length
> *       Dual PC card slots,Type\ufffdII,\ufffdIII
> *       Size:
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd7.6\ufffdin. (194\ufffdmm) tall
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd6.2\ufffdin. (158\ufffdmm) wide
> \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd3.4\ufffdin. (88\ufffdmm) deep
> *       Weight: 4.1\ufffdlbs (1.86\ufffdkg) with battery and PC card, without lens
> *       Conforms to FCC Class\ufffdB, CE Mark
> *       Class\ufffdB Declaration, VCCI\ufffdClass B\ufffdCertified
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Lorie, this is true, but you also lose the incredible convenience of
having built in red, green, and blue filters. It's awful nice to be able
to use the channel mixer in photoshop to get the exact tones you want.
And it's even nicer that you can use these filters with no increase in
aperture or decrease in shutter speeds!

Jerry

londuck wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> 
> Everyone determines their own particular price/feature scheme, but a
> 6 MP B&W camera using a dedicated B&W CCD would be superior to the
> exact same camera with a 6MP Color CCD (RGB) used in grayscale mode.
>

Hi Jerry,

Well, a dedicated B&W digital camera will give you 4x real resolution over a
color conversion.  That, in and of it self, is worth it if you are really
into shooting B&W, which I am.

If the A/Ds are 12 bits, that is FAR more than you need to get any visible
tonality you can imagine.  8 bits would be a problem, but 12+ no.

I scan B&W in B&W (with the Leafscan), and the tonality I get from it is
superb, so I have no doubt that 12 bit+ grayscale is more than sufficient to
superbly give you any tonality you want.

I'd LOVE a full frame one shot B&W back for my Hasselblad, as well as a
Contax D1 that's B&W...

Austin

> Lorie, this is true, but you also lose the incredible convenience of
> having built in red, green, and blue filters. It's awful nice to be able
> to use the channel mixer in photoshop to get the exact tones you want.
> And it's even nicer that you can use these filters with no increase in
> aperture or decrease in shutter speeds!
>
> Jerry
>
> londuck wrote:
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > Everyone determines their own particular price/feature scheme, but a
> > 6 MP B&W camera using a dedicated B&W CCD would be superior to the
> > exact same camera with a 6MP Color CCD (RGB) used in grayscale mode.

Austin, When I stitch 2 picutres together, I can Easily get a 22 inch
print that has all the quality I'd ever need or want. I can do this for
landscapes, but this tells me that 6 megapixels will be all I'll ever
need. I'm sure I won't be ablt to afford the D60 until it's successor is out.

The D30 is SO close to delivering the quality I need now, but for
landscapes, it requires stitching 2 frames together, for a panorama,
that nearly doubles the resolution of a single shot. For closeups its
great now.

That black and white camera would be wonderful, but 10 grand is out of
the question for me. Even if it did shoot color, it would still be way
too much. 

Jerry

> Well, a dedicated B&W digital camera will give you 4x real resolution over a
> color conversion.  That, in and of it self, is worth it if you are really
> into shooting B&W, which I am.

Hi Jerry,

> I can do this for
> landscapes, but this tells me that 6 megapixels will be all I'll ever
> need. I'm sure I won't be ablt to afford the D60 until it's
> successor is out.

Well, the issue is...you aren't getting 6M pixels of REAL information...  If
the sensor was 24M sensors, then I'd be willing to say that what you are
seeing is what you believe you are seeing.  We'll have to have a
show-and-tell some day, Jerry ;-)

> That black and white camera would be wonderful, but 10 grand is out of
> the question for me. Even if it did shoot color, it would still be way
> too much.

I just wouldn't spend $10, when I can shoot a Hasselblad with B&W film, and
just scan it...and get the exact results I want!

Regards,

Austin

Austin, the next time we have another print exchange I'll include a D30
print. You can then tell me what detail seems to be missing.  I was
going to include a D30 print in the last exchange, but didn't feel I had
a strong enough image yet, as I had just started using the camera. 
Technically I know your correct, but I truly am quite happy with the
quality of the D-30 in 8x10's for distant pictures, and 12x18 prints for
closeups, in color OR black and white.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > I can do this for
> > landscapes, but this tells me that 6 megapixels will be all I'll ever
> > need. I'm sure I won't be ablt to afford the D60 until it's
> > successor is out.
> 
> Well, the issue is...you aren't getting 6M pixels of REAL information...  If
> the sensor was 24M sensors, then I'd be willing to say that what you are
> seeing is what you believe you are seeing.  We'll have to have a
> show-and-tell some day, Jerry ;-)
> 
> > That black and white camera would be wonderful, but 10 grand is out of
> > the question for me. Even if it did shoot color, it would still be way
> > too much.
> 
> I just wouldn't spend $10, when I can shoot a Hasselblad with B&W film, and
> just scan it...and get the exact results I want!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Jerry,

> Austin, the next time we have another print exchange I'll include a D30
> print. You can then tell me what detail seems to be missing.

You would also have to include a film image of the same scene to compare to!

> Technically I know your correct, but I truly am quite happy with the
> quality of the D-30 in 8x10's for distant pictures, and 12x18 prints for
> closeups, in color OR black and white.

And I very well believe you are truly happy with the quality of the D-30!

Regards,

Austin

Can't do that Austin, I no longer have a darkroom. If you get your
Contax digital, let me know what you think. Zeiss lenses on a 6
megapixel digital camera. Sort of makes a person want to drool. 

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > Austin, the next time we have another print exchange I'll include a D30
> > print. You can then tell me what detail seems to be missing.
> 
> You would also have to include a film image of the same scene to compare to!
> 
> > Technically I know your correct, but I truly am quite happy with the
> > quality of the D-30 in 8x10's for distant pictures, and 12x18 prints for
> > closeups, in color OR black and white.
> 
> And I very well believe you are truly happy with the quality of the D-30!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> > That black and white camera would be wonderful, but 10 grand is 
out of
> > the question for me. Even if it did shoot color, it would still 
be way
> > too much.
> 
> I just wouldn't spend $10, when I can shoot a Hasselblad with B&W 
film, and
> just scan it...and get the exact results I want!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Austin

That's a turn up.

You always bring me back down to earth Austin. I have followed your 
objective answers to the digital debate for the last few weeks. I 
shoot 99% B&W on a hasselblad that has seen better days and am 
looking for a cheaper solution than a digital back for it. You 
seemed to know your stuff. How much better than a colour CCD as far 
as file size goes. I didn't phrase that well. Would that mean it 
would have three times as much detail? 

You know what I mean? Surely this would be a bloody good answer to 
someone like a Portrait photographer shooting all B&W. I can see the 
value in it and it's twice the price here.

Regards

Garry

Guys,

Didn't Dicomed produce a B&W only version of their Bigshot single 
shot camera back a few years ago?

It was a 16 megapixel full 6x6 frame beast.  Horrendously expensivc, 
but ahead of its time.  Be great to track one down to try it.

Now Garry, as you know, one of the oddities single shot digital 
capture is how subjective resolution seems dependent on subject 
matter.  Austin has I think correctly suggested in ealier threads why 
that is.  But the point is this: a camera such as the Fuji S1 which I 
use performs exceptionally well with protraits.  I assume the same is 
probably true for the D30.  

I used to shoot portraits on a Rollei 6008i - same delicious Carl 
Zeiss lenses as the Hassy - but I am sending the whole Rollei kit and 
kaboodle off for sale on Monday (any UK based offers?), as I get such 
great results with the S1.  I simply don't use the Rollei much 
anymore.  And with the excellent Convert to B&W Pro Photoshop plugin, 
I can convert colour stuf from the Fuji S1 to B&W, print with Piezo, 
and get fab results

So Gar, if you can, I'd recommend you borrow an S1 or D30 and try it 
for yourself.  And with the upcoming Fuji S2 and Canon D60, both with 
twice the resolution of the current models, and at *much* less than a 
digital back, your Hassy's days as a portrait camera may be 
numbered...

Or you could stump up the extra for the Contax, if it ever appears, 
and continue using those cool Zeiss lenses.
--
Quentin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "garrysarre" <garry@s...> 
wrote:
> 
> > > That black and white camera would be wonderful, but 10 grand is 
> out of
> > > the question for me. Even if it did shoot color, it would still 
> be way
> > > too much.
> > 
> > I just wouldn't spend $10, when I can shoot a Hasselblad with B&W 
> film, and
> > just scan it...and get the exact results I want!
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Austin
> 
> Austin
> 
> That's a turn up.
> 
> You always bring me back down to earth Austin. I have followed your 
> objective answers to the digital debate for the last few weeks. I 
> shoot 99% B&W on a hasselblad that has seen better days and am 
> looking for a cheaper solution than a digital back for it. You 
> seemed to know your stuff. How much better than a colour CCD as far 
> as file size goes. I didn't phrase that well. Would that mean it 
> would have three times as much detail? 
> 
> You know what I mean? Surely this would be a bloody good answer to 
> someone like a Portrait photographer shooting all B&W. I can see 
the 

> value in it and it's twice the price here.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Garry

If you get your
> Contax digital, let me know what you think. Zeiss lenses on a 6
> megapixel digital camera. Sort of makes a person want to drool.
> 
> Jerry
> 


That¹s the digital that I keep looking at.  Being able to use all my 645
lens on it really makes it attractive.  Of course, I could use my Nikkors on
a D1/X as well.  Somehow that¹s not quite as appealing...  That all being
said, there are about 100 things that I need more than either of those 2
bodies.  I guess I'll just stick to playing with my 995 for the time being.
It's great for things like parties and family get togethers.  It also is
pretty handy as a digital 'Polaroid back'.  I used as one yesterday to check
lighting ratios for a multiple light interior portrait session I was doing
on location.  Worked great.  I wish I could say the same for my new Sekonic
L608.  The radio trigger that was supposed to fire off the lights using
PocketWizards would not do it's job farther than 10 feet away.  Good thing a
had brought an extra remote.  Anyone had a similar problem with the 608?  To
keep this sort of on topic.  The portrait client is going to have some of
the enlargements done with MIS VM prints from my 1160.  For this image I
think I will be doing a dual tone print.  A cool/neutral background and a
warm subject.  The subject was in backlit with natural light at sunset and
the background interior was selectively illuminated with the strobes.

Lawrence


Sorry about the MAJOR thread drift.  Geez must be the ADD kicking in or the
pain killers from the recent broken rib.


------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
------------------------------

Jerry' right,

I just printed a 9X11 image shot with my D-30,  I would put is up 
against any 35 mm image out there. It looks vary good. If it was not 
the April Fools theme on the next print exchange I would definitely 
include It.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
<jerryolson@r...> 
wrote:
> Austin, the next time we have another print exchange I'll include a
D30
> print. You can then tell me what detail seems to be missing.  I was
> going to include a D30 print in the last exchange, but didn't feel
I had
> a strong enough image yet, as I had just started using the camera. 
> Technically I know your correct, but I truly am quite happy with the
> quality of the D-30 in 8x10's for distant pictures, and 12x18
prints for

> closeups, in color OR black and white.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
>

> Jerry' right,
> 
> I just printed a 9X11 image shot with my D-30,  I would put is up 
> against any 35 mm image out there.

Me too ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Steve-

Hang on to it. The next exchange after the April Fools one will have 
no theme...don't want more than 2 going on at once, but will announce 
an "open" exchange right after I have the prints for the first theme 
one...as in March 2 <g>

I'm dying to see your print... I'm a D1 - D1x user and I'm pulling 
FOR YOU!!!

Tom O'Connell



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "steven0356" <stevenr@m...> 
wrote:
> Jerry' right,
> 
> I just printed a 9X11 image shot with my D-30,  I would put is up 
> against any 35 mm image out there. It looks vary good. If it was 
not 
> the April Fools theme on the next print exchange I would definitely 
> include It.
> 
> Steve
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> 
> wrote:
> > Austin, the next time we have another print exchange I'll include 
a
> D30
> > print. You can then tell me what detail seems to be missing.  I 
was
> > going to include a D30 print in the last exchange, but didn't feel
> I had
> > a strong enough image yet, as I had just started using the 
camera. 
> > Technically I know your correct, but I truly am quite happy with 
the

> > quality of the D-30 in 8x10's for distant pictures, and 12x18
> prints for
> > closeups, in color OR black and white.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > 
> >

It only has a smallish sensor, but the newly-announced Sigma digital SLR has 
a true RGB sensor designed by Foveon.

See http://www.dpreview.com for the details.

This is this years's revolutionary product.

On Sunday 10 Feb 2002 1:43 am, Jerry Olson wrote:
>  Can't do that Austin, I no longer have a darkroom. If you get your
> Contax digital, let me know what you think. Zeiss lenses on a 6
> megapixel digital camera. Sort of makes a person want to drool.
>
> Jerry
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > > Austin, the next time we have another print exchange I'll include a D30
> > > print. You can then tell me what detail seems to be missing.
> >
> > You would also have to include a film image of the same scene to compare
> > to!
> >
> > > Technically I know your correct, but I truly am quite happy with the
> > > quality of the D-30 in 8x10's for distant pictures, and 12x18 prints
> > > for closeups, in color OR black and white.
> >
> > And I very well believe you are truly happy with the quality of the D-30!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> > keep them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change
> > the subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> > attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Er buy brand new Zeiss lenses you mean - Austin owns a conventional Contax 
outfit and his existing lenses won't fit the N digital.

On Sunday 10 Feb 2002 11:53 am, qdfb wrote:
> Or you could stump up the extra for the Contax, if it ever appears,
> and continue using those cool Zeiss lenses.

That is correct, and my hesitation to buy an N1 at this point in time...and
the lense selection is very very very limited.

Austin

>
> Er buy brand new Zeiss lenses you mean - Austin owns a
> conventional Contax
> outfit and his existing lenses won't fit the N digital.
>
> On Sunday 10 Feb 2002 11:53 am, qdfb wrote:
> > Or you could stump up the extra for the Contax, if it ever appears,
> > and continue using those cool Zeiss lenses.

I can't believe I'm jumping into this digital talk too, but this 
announcement this morning seems pretty exciting. Better 
resolution, and very affordable.

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.foveon.com/

It's a color chip, not B/W, but the camera body is at least black. 
Does that count for anything, to remain on topic?...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom"
<mark@m...> wrote:
> I can't believe I'm jumping into this digital talk too, but this 
> announcement this morning seems pretty exciting. Better 
> resolution, and very affordable.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/
> http://www.foveon.com/
> 
> It's a color chip, not B/W, but the camera body is at least black. 
> Does that count for anything, to remain on topic?...

Exciting indeed. Seems like the next plateau is coming.

Also, the dpreview site has an article with a basic explanation of
the checkerboard arrangement of the color pixel elements in
conventional digital cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021101foveonx3.asp

I believe this is the point Austin F.
was trying to explain on one of the lists (here?) several days ago.

Dave E.

> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021101foveonx3.asp
>
> I believe this is the point Austin F.
> was trying to explain on one of the lists (here?) several days ago.
>
> Dave E.

Hi Dave,

Yes, that was the exact point.

I do have questions on the diagrams they show in that referenced link.  I am
NOT a physicist...but I am an engineer with varying degrees.  They show on
the top, that blue filter blocks green and red, and green filter blocks red
and blue etc.

Well, on the bottom, they show blue passes green and red, and green passes
red only.  How does that work?

Also, it would appear to me there may possibly be a depth of focus issue
with this sensor...

I would understand a sensor array that has three sensors per pixel...with a
triple filter over each of the three sensors (the three sensors on the same
plane), but I don't understand the stacked sensors...  What IS good about
their discussion though, is they separate out sensors vs pixels ;-)

Austin

on 2/11/02 12:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Also, it would appear to me there may possibly be a depth of focus issue
> with this sensor...
> 
> I would understand a sensor array that has three sensors per pixel...with a
> triple filter over each of the three sensors (the three sensors on the same
> plane), but I don't understand the stacked sensors...  What IS good about
> their discussion though, is they separate out sensors vs pixels ;-)


I'm way out of my depth here (what else is new), but as each color is of a
different wavelength, don't you stand more of a chance of getting them all
in registration if the sensors are stacked to be at the right distance from
the wave?

God, I can't even phrase the question intelligently. I'm thinking of light
passing through a prism. As each color comes out it gets "projected" to a
different location. If you were trying to record each of those colors most
sharply, wouldn't you want each color specific sensor to be in line with
it's color as it comes through the prism? Does a similar thing happen to
light as it comes through a lens?

Todd

---  I USED TO DO a lot of infrared photography and it is true the 
red and near infrared focuses behind the focus plane of the other 
colors in the spectrum. apo lenses correct most of this disparity so 
don't think it is an issue anymore. larry pirrone

In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
wrote:
> on 2/11/02 12:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> > Also, it would appear to me there may possibly be a depth of 
focus issue
> > with this sensor...
> > 
> > I would understand a sensor array that has three sensors per 
pixel...with a
> > triple filter over each of the three sensors (the three sensors 
on the same
> > plane), but I don't understand the stacked sensors...  What IS 
good about
> > their discussion though, is they separate out sensors vs pixels ;-
)
> 
> 
> I'm way out of my depth here (what else is new), but as each color 
is of a
> different wavelength, don't you stand more of a chance of getting 
them all
> in registration if the sensors are stacked to be at the right 
distance from
> the wave?
> 
> God, I can't even phrase the question intelligently. I'm thinking 
of light
> passing through a prism. As each color comes out it 
gets "projected" to a
> different location. If you were trying to record each of those 
colors most
> sharply, wouldn't you want each color specific sensor to be in line 
with
> it's color as it comes through the prism? Does a similar thing 
happen to

> light as it comes through a lens?
> 
> Todd

Austin,

Being away for a few days, I may have missed this but the Contax 645 lenses
can be used with the new N Digital. Thta is one reason why I was considering
the N Digital, the price made be think again.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Did I hear right? Austin seems to like a
Digital SLR


> That is correct, and my hesitation to buy an N1 at this point in
time...and
> the lense selection is very very very limited.
>
> Austin
>
> >
> > Er buy brand new Zeiss lenses you mean - Austin owns a
> > conventional Contax
> > outfit and his existing lenses won't fit the N digital.
> >
> > On Sunday 10 Feb 2002 11:53 am, qdfb wrote:
> > > Or you could stump up the extra for the Contax, if it ever appears,
> > > and continue using those cool Zeiss lenses.
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Austin Franklin wrote:

> I do have questions on the diagrams they show in that 
> referenced link.  I am
> NOT a physicist...but I am an engineer with varying degrees.  
> They show on
> the top, that blue filter blocks green and red, and green 
> filter blocks red
> and blue etc.
> 
> Well, on the bottom, they show blue passes green and red, and 
> green passes
> red only.  How does that work?
> 

Hmmm, maybe here's how . . .the gory details are in the 1998 patent
#5,965,875

"It is well known that the greater the wavelength of light incident upon a
silicon substrate, the deeper the light will penetrate into the silicon
before it is absorbed. FIG. 5 shows light absorption length in silicon for
light in the visible spectrum. As indicated in FIG. 5, blue light, having a
wavelength of 400-490 nm, will be absorbed in a silicon substrate primarily
at a depth of about 0.2-0.5 microns. Green light, having a wavelength of
490-575 nm, will be absorbed in the silicon substrate at a depth of about
0.5-1.5 microns. Red light, having a wavelength of 575-700 nm, will be
absorbed in the silicon at a depth of about 1.5-3.0 microns. 

Taking advantage of these differences in absorption depth in silicon of
light of different wavelength, as shown in FIG. 6, a preferred embodiment of
the present invention provides a triple-well color photosensor structure
formed in a silicon substrate 100 of P-type conductivity (approx. 10.sup.15
atoms/cm.sup.2). The color photosensor structure includes a deep N-type
doped well region 102 (approx. 10.sup.16 atoms/cm.sup.2) formed in the
P-type silicon substrate 100. The junction depth of the N-doped region 102
is between about 1.5-3.0 microns, and preferably about 2 microns, i.e. the
approximate absorption depth of red light. Thus, the pn junction between the
deep N-doped region 102 and the P-type substrate 100 forms a red-sensitive
photodiode between the two regions."

Photosensors don't have to worry about that, ordinary light isn't coherent 
and the wavelengths are out of step anyway.

Yes, lenses focus each colour to a slightly different point. This is called 
chromatic aberration, and camera lenses are designed to minimise it as far as 
they can given cost constraints. This is one of the reasons why camera lenses 
are much more complex than spectacle lenses!

Apochromatic lenses are called that because they are designed to bring the 
three primary colours into focus at the same point, and hence all the other 
colours. Ordinary non-apo camera lenses only concentrate on two colours, so 
have slightly more chromatic aberration.

While I suppose that the physically different positions of the three colour 
pixels in a Foveon sensor might introduce a new form of aberration it is 
unlikely to be very large in magnitude.

As for depth of focus, we're only talking a few microns difference in depth 
between the sensors, that won't be visible. 

On Monday 11 Feb 2002 6:23 pm, Todd Flashner wrote:
> on 2/11/02 12:27 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Also, it would appear to me there may possibly be a depth of focus issue
> > with this sensor...
> >
> > I would understand a sensor array that has three sensors per pixel...with
> > a triple filter over each of the three sensors (the three sensors on the
> > same plane), but I don't understand the stacked sensors...  What IS good
> > about their discussion though, is they separate out sensors vs pixels ;-)
>
> I'm way out of my depth here (what else is new), but as each color is of a
> different wavelength, don't you stand more of a chance of getting them all
> in registration if the sensors are stacked to be at the right distance from
> the wave?
>
> God, I can't even phrase the question intelligently. I'm thinking of light
> passing through a prism. As each color comes out it gets "projected" to a
> different location. If you were trying to record each of those colors most
> sharply, wouldn't you want each color specific sensor to be in line with
> it's color as it comes through the prism? Does a similar thing happen to
> light as it comes through a lens?
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

This is a factor if you already own a Contax 645 and a set of even more 
fabulously expensive lenses for that camera.

It's also the only option at the moment if you want a long telephoto for the 
N digital, as the only available one is the 350mm for the 645.

However I'm worried about focus speed. The N1 already has a repurtation for 
slow focusing, and the even larger scale 645 lenses might be worse still.

Have you got the 350mm?

On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:17 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> Austin,
>
> Being away for a few days, I may have missed this but the Contax 645 lenses
> can be used with the new N Digital. Thta is one reason why I was
> considering the N Digital, the price made be think again.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Did I hear right? Austin seems to like a
> Digital SLR
>
> > That is correct, and my hesitation to buy an N1 at this point in
>
> time...and
>
> > the lense selection is very very very limited.
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > > Er buy brand new Zeiss lenses you mean - Austin owns a
> > > conventional Contax
> > > outfit and his existing lenses won't fit the N digital.
> > >
> > > On Sunday 10 Feb 2002 11:53 am, qdfb wrote:
> > > > Or you could stump up the extra for the Contax, if it ever appears,
> > > > and continue using those cool Zeiss lenses.
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> > keep
>
> them short.
>
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>
> resources on the homepage.
>
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > I do have questions on the diagrams they show in that
> > referenced link.  I am
> > NOT a physicist...but I am an engineer with varying degrees.
> > They show on
> > the top, that blue filter blocks green and red, and green
> > filter blocks red
> > and blue etc.
> >
> > Well, on the bottom, they show blue passes green and red, and
> > green passes
> > red only.  How does that work?
> >
>
> Hmmm, maybe here's how . . .the gory details are in the 1998 patent
> #5,965,875

Hi William,

Yep, I read that over, and it's still questionable.  The question, for me at
least, is that colored filters used in cameras/scanners/enlargers etc. are
very precisely colored.  I don't know how they can achieve that in silicon,
uniformly and across an entire die.

Austin

Derek,

No, I don't have the 350, but I would like to. I have the 35mm, 80mm, and
120mm Macro.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Did I hear right? Austin seems to like a
Digital SLR


> Have you got the 350mm?

Did anyone read the article about Foveon chips in the NY Times? A
Japanese company is using this new chip to manufacture a camera.
Kodak was quoted to say that this new invention will allow resolution
better than film. Is this what we are waiting for? The Japanese
camera will be $3,000 and Kodak was quoted to say $1,000. I have
never spent $1,000 on a conventional camera body yet! But I almost
probably will with digital technology, because I find it so
fascinating.

-Della



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom"
<mark@m...> wrote:

> I can't believe I'm jumping into this digital talk too, but this 
> announcement this morning seems pretty exciting. Better 
> resolution, and very affordable.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/
> http://www.foveon.com/
> 
> It's a color chip, not B/W, but the camera body is at least black. 
> Does that count for anything, to remain on topic?...

Peter Jennings mentioned the foveon chip on the abc news show. Spoke all of 10 seconds on it, I thought It would be a feaurette later in the
show, but he never returned to it.

What is the resolution of this chip? It would have to be in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 megapixels, no?

Jerry

dellaellingson wrote:

> Did anyone read the article about Foveon chips in the NY Times? A
> Japanese company is using this new chip to manufacture a camera.
> Kodak was quoted to say that this new invention will allow resolution
> better than film. Is this what we are waiting for? The Japanese
> camera will be $3,000 and Kodak was quoted to say $1,000. I have
> never spent $1,000 on a conventional camera body yet! But I almost
> probably will with digital technology, because I find it so
> fascinating.
>
> -Della
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom"
> <mark@m...> wrote:
> > I can't believe I'm jumping into this digital talk too, but this
> > announcement this morning seems pretty exciting. Better
> > resolution, and very affordable.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/
> > http://www.foveon.com/
> >
> > It's a color chip, not B/W, but the camera body is at least black.
> > Does that count for anything, to remain on topic?...
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

The first commercial use of the technology will be in a Sigma digital SLR.

The particular chip will be circa 3 megapixels, but the essence of this chip 
is that those are true RGB pixels, not R or G or B ones.

There's a lot of info at http://www.dpreview.com

On Wednesday 13 Feb 2002 4:02 am, Jerry Olson wrote:
> Peter Jennings mentioned the foveon chip on the abc news show. Spoke all of
> 10 seconds on it, I thought It would be a feaurette later in the show, but
> he never returned to it.
>
> What is the resolution of this chip? It would have to be in the
> neighborhood of 6 to 8 megapixels, no?
>
> Jerry

That makes you the natural audience for the N digital then!

How fast is the AF on the Contax 645?

On Wednesday 13 Feb 2002 12:56 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> Derek,
>
> No, I don't have the 350, but I would like to. I have the 35mm, 80mm, and
> 120mm Macro.
>
> Mike

At 10:02 PM 2/12/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter Jennings mentioned the foveon chip on the abc news show. Spoke all of
10 seconds on it, I thought It would be a feaurette later in the
>show, but he never returned to it.
>
>What is the resolution of this chip? It would have to be in the
neighborhood of 6 to 8 megapixels, no?
>
>Jerry
>
>dellaellingson wrote:
>
>> Did anyone read the article about Foveon chips in the NY Times? A
>> Japanese company is using this new chip to manufacture a camera.
>> Kodak was quoted to say that this new invention will allow resolution
>> better than film. Is this what we are waiting for? The Japanese
>> camera will be $3,000 and Kodak was quoted to say $1,000. I have
>> never spent $1,000 on a conventional camera body yet! But I almost
>> probably will with digital technology, because I find it so
>> fascinating.
>>
>> -Della
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom"
>> <mark@m...> wrote:
>> > I can't believe I'm jumping into this digital talk too, but this
>> > announcement this morning seems pretty exciting. Better
>> > resolution, and very affordable.
>> >
>> > http://www.dpreview.com/
>> > http://www.foveon.com/
>> >
>> > It's a color chip, not B/W, but the camera body is at least black.
>> > Does that count for anything, to remain on topic?...
>>


The NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/technology/11FOVE.html?ex=1014446313&ei=1&

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

Perhaps, but with the price tag I think the camera is a wee bit too
expensive. Besides, I still prefer shooting my 4x5 with T-Max 100 or Tri-X.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Did I hear right? Austin seems to like a
Digital SLR


> That makes you the natural audience for the N digital then!
>

> How fast is the AF on the Contax 645?

The AF on the Contax 645 is more than adequate for my type of shooting which
does not include birds, dogs, cats, or sports... ;-)

I shoot landscapes, still life, portraits, etc. It helps with my poor close
up eyesight (Read....getting old )

Seriously, I would say that it is relatively fast. Not a Nikon F5, but very
good. It does search in very low light levels, but nothing that bothers me.

Mike