Sad news for film-based photography

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the placement.
The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28% profit level, and
sitting on some cash. They also hold many large investments in other
companies. The only computer maker with a similar profit level is Sony. All
other computer makers are under 20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a
company does not need to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related
to good management and operating efficiency.

Thats real good, I've heard (somewhere) most US companies are considered
successful with a 2% margin.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the placement.
The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28% profit level, and
sitting on some cash. They also hold many large investments in other
companies. The only computer maker with a similar profit level is Sony. All
other computer makers are under 20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a
company does not need to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related
to good management and operating efficiency.

Thats real good, I've heard (somewhere) most US companies are considered
successful with a 2% margin.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:


With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the placement.
The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28% profit level, and
sitting on some cash. They also hold many large investments in other
companies. The only computer maker with a similar profit level is Sony. All
other computer makers are under 20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a
company does not need to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related
to good management and operating efficiency.


Thats real good, I've heard (somewhere) most US companies are considered
successful with a 2% margin.

Depends entirely on the industry. Run a grocery chain with a 2% net and
you're a genius; run a Hi-Tech with that and you're looking for a job.
(Note: negative returns are fine!)

Of course, the above is itself a generalization of sorts.

--
John McWilliams

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:


With Apple, it is not the volume, nor the ranking, nor even the placement.
The reality is that they are selling near a 24% to 28% profit level, and
sitting on some cash. They also hold many large investments in other
companies. The only computer maker with a similar profit level is Sony. All
other computer makers are under 20% profit levels. The lesson here is that a
company does not need to be huge to have good profits, and it is more related
to good management and operating efficiency.


Thats real good, I've heard (somewhere) most US companies are considered
successful with a 2% margin.

Depends entirely on the industry. Run a grocery chain with a 2% net and
you're a genius; run a Hi-Tech with that and you're looking for a job.
(Note: negative returns are fine!)

Of course, the above is itself a generalization of sorts.

--
John McWilliams

Alan Browne wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html


Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

Okay, so your number for comparison is 44 lp/mm from 645 medium format on film.
Remember that the best the Canon theoretically can achieve is based on the file
size to chip size, not counting any losses from the Bayer Pattern filter, or
anti-aliasing (anti-moiré) filter. Also, the best resolution would be from a
tripod mounted camera at the lowest ISO setting, and somewhat known good
lighting. Hand held shots from the Canon would obviously be lower real
resolution.

Also, if we took that same 44 lp/mm from medium format, we can see that for our
target comparison 42 cm by 28 cm print, going larger than 645 film frame would
need even less resolution to achieve the same printed detail. Having the same 44
lp/mm resolution with a larger medium format frame like 6x7 would allow an even
larger print, with the same detail levels.

I don't think that would be too tough to get that 44 lp/mm, or better, using many
different medium format cameras. Considering the size of that Canon, some medium
format cameras might actually match it in weight and size. In fact, a Mamiya 7
would only need to get 36 lp/mm on film to match that 42 cm by 28 cm comparison
print from the Canon.

That new Canon probably beats my 1937 AGFA folder (645 or 6x6 switchable) on
resolution, though I think it might be close. Not that it matters too much, since
I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Alan Browne wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
I couldn't find any reference to a 14 MP camera on Canon's website. Is
this a real product that I can go out and purchase today?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html


Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

Okay, so your number for comparison is 44 lp/mm from 645 medium format on film.
Remember that the best the Canon theoretically can achieve is based on the file
size to chip size, not counting any losses from the Bayer Pattern filter, or
anti-aliasing (anti-moiré) filter. Also, the best resolution would be from a
tripod mounted camera at the lowest ISO setting, and somewhat known good
lighting. Hand held shots from the Canon would obviously be lower real
resolution.

Also, if we took that same 44 lp/mm from medium format, we can see that for our
target comparison 42 cm by 28 cm print, going larger than 645 film frame would
need even less resolution to achieve the same printed detail. Having the same 44
lp/mm resolution with a larger medium format frame like 6x7 would allow an even
larger print, with the same detail levels.

I don't think that would be too tough to get that 44 lp/mm, or better, using many
different medium format cameras. Considering the size of that Canon, some medium
format cameras might actually match it in weight and size. In fact, a Mamiya 7
would only need to get 36 lp/mm on film to match that 42 cm by 28 cm comparison
print from the Canon.

That new Canon probably beats my 1937 AGFA folder (645 or 6x6 switchable) on
resolution, though I think it might be close. Not that it matters too much, since
I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Gordon Moat wrote:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html



Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

Hi Gordon,

Since even lower res DSLR cameras have definitely been 'encroaching' on MF for a
lot of work, and the quality of the presented images is hardly arguable, and
since the likely near term buyers of such cameras are mostly going to be revenue
making pros, I hardly think my statement is "sweeping". I'm also not alone in
the opinion.

Certainly the proof is in the eating of the pudding and working pros will show
what they can do once the camera is available. So I agree that anyone
interested in this camera should indeed "see more" before buying, and at these
value levels that is likely a given.

From what we have seen to date it is clear that the business decision to buy a
back for an MF v. purchassing this camera 'as is' and some decent lenses, will
tilt a goodly number of pros to looking at the 1Ds m.II. Not all, but a goodly
number. For the current price of a 22mpix MF back one can afford a couple of
these plus some high end primes.


The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.


If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.

There will remain, of course, those who need 6x6 cm reversal drum scanned for
ultimate detail ... but I would hazard the guess that this Canon can do most
commercial photography w/o a hitch ... including large format magazines.

snipped good stuff

I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

That is not precisely what I meant. I meant, quite simply, that this camera is
_encroaching_ on MF (all MF).

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...croach&x=0&y=0
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of
another

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Gordon Moat wrote:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html



Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

Hi Gordon,

Since even lower res DSLR cameras have definitely been 'encroaching' on MF for a
lot of work, and the quality of the presented images is hardly arguable, and
since the likely near term buyers of such cameras are mostly going to be revenue
making pros, I hardly think my statement is "sweeping". I'm also not alone in
the opinion.

Certainly the proof is in the eating of the pudding and working pros will show
what they can do once the camera is available. So I agree that anyone
interested in this camera should indeed "see more" before buying, and at these
value levels that is likely a given.

From what we have seen to date it is clear that the business decision to buy a
back for an MF v. purchassing this camera 'as is' and some decent lenses, will
tilt a goodly number of pros to looking at the 1Ds m.II. Not all, but a goodly
number. For the current price of a 22mpix MF back one can afford a couple of
these plus some high end primes.


The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.


If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.

There will remain, of course, those who need 6x6 cm reversal drum scanned for
ultimate detail ... but I would hazard the guess that this Canon can do most
commercial photography w/o a hitch ... including large format magazines.

snipped good stuff

I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

That is not precisely what I meant. I meant, quite simply, that this camera is
_encroaching_ on MF (all MF).

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...croach&x=0&y=0
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of
another

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

it was just announced, so unlikely to be on the shelves yet, but surely in the
coming weeks you can place orders. 16.7 MP full frame.

for images taken by same... definitely encroaching on MF.
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html



Alan, I am surprised you would make such a sweeping statement without seeing some
real samples. You have to know that company PR sample images are always chosen as
the best they can do, often with a limited range to play it safe. I would rather
see a colour test chart, or even a resolution chart, prior to making such an
assumption.

Hi Gordon,

Since even lower res DSLR cameras have definitely been 'encroaching' on MF for a
lot of work, and the quality of the presented images is hardly arguable, and
since the likely near term buyers of such cameras are mostly going to be revenue
making pros, I hardly think my statement is "sweeping". I'm also not alone in
the opinion.

Certainly the proof is in the eating of the pudding and working pros will show
what they can do once the camera is available. So I agree that anyone
interested in this camera should indeed "see more" before buying, and at these
value levels that is likely a given.

That is a much more reasonable statement. Obviously, a wait and see approach will allow
for better consideration.



From what we have seen to date it is clear that the business decision to buy a
back for an MF v. purchassing this camera 'as is' and some decent lenses, will
tilt a goodly number of pros to looking at the 1Ds m.II. Not all, but a goodly
number. For the current price of a 22mpix MF back one can afford a couple of
these plus some high end primes.

I think most of the medium format backs are not purchased, but on lease plans. These
lease plans allow future updates, and conversion of the lease, to any newer technology
releases. Medium format backs also have much better chip cooling, which means even less
noise. There are still advantages to using medium format digital backs, over 35 mm
sized digital SLRs.




The 4992 by 3328 pixels maximum image file size gives us an idea of the
resolution. With a 24 mm by 36 mm chip size, that gives us 69 1/3 lp/mm
resolution. If one took the offset printing standard of 300 ppi files, then the
4992 by 3328 file gives a 16 2/3" by 11 1/16" (42 cm by 28 cm) final printed
size, quite good enough for two page spreads. That is how some professionals will
judge this camera, though obviously one could get away with larger prints using
the higher dot gain of inkjet printers.

And that is the point, isn't it. And for larger productions, I believe that a
reasonable degree of interpolation will still result in images with enough
quality for many uses.

When the first Kodak DCS 14 came out, the first thing I looked at was the file size.
Just going on a resolution basis, it was indeed good enough for quite a bit of
commercial work. Even larger, and lower price point, later gear is likely to improve
further on this.




If we compare the lp/mm potential and frame size to medium format, then the
magnification, or final printed size, becomes more interesting. Just taking the
long edge of 36 mm, and horizontal resolution, compared to the 56 mm long edge of
a 645 frame, that 42 cm by 28 cm print from 645 film would only need the medium
format film to be about 44.57 lp/mm.

You've probably noticed, as have I, that pure MTF discussions are hard to defend
in the face of the clean digital images that are produced by many 35mm DSLR cameras.

I would put medium format shots on Fuji Astia 100F up against direct digital images.
Clean images is also a strange preference, and strange usage of words by some
individuals in comparisons. I was taking scanned film images and converting them into
areas of smooth colour in 1996, so the look is something I am very familiar with,
though I would rarely claim that I liked it better for all subjects. Here we have a
choice that comes down to aesthetics and taste, rather than technology.

My main gripe with direct digital has always been with the colour range potential. Film
can indeed capture colours outside the range of direct digital. While it is tough to
impossible to see many of those colour ranges on any computer monitor, it is easy
enough to measure them. Also, it is possible to compare a transparency to a final print
to very closely match colours, something not possible with direct digital. If you only
go by making the print look like the monitor, you will miss some colour ranges.

Direct digital is largely biased for nice skin tones, and it does an acceptable job
with those. Many professionals do not need to be so rigid with final printed colours,
so those ranges outside the realm of an imaging chip are just not an issue for some.

We could easily get into another colour discussion, like we had many times in the past
on the medium format news group, though I think you will find that very few of us on
these news groups really need to worry about colours (I am one of the few). I think you
will find more people comparing lp/mm, which makes MTF an entirely valid comparison. If
you want to switch the subject to colour, then do so, otherwise address the "MTF"
comparison as I put it.



There will remain, of course, those who need 6x6 cm reversal drum scanned for
ultimate detail ... but I would hazard the guess that this Canon can do most
commercial photography w/o a hitch ... including large format magazines.

Sure, we will be seeing more of this direct digital all the time. Also, I have been
hearing about more of the issues of advertising photographers with direct digital, and
many of the problems inherent in working that way. In several ways, it requires a
different approach, and can bring up some problems not previously encountered with
film. Those on these groups who are only photography enthusiasts probably will not come
up against these issues, or not consider them important enough to negate the advantages
of direct digital.



snipped good stuff

I now have a large print on exhibit in a gallery from that camera. Anyway, if you
meant that the new Canon digital beats an old folder medium format camera, then I
would probably tend to agree. ;-)

That is not precisely what I meant. I meant, quite simply, that this camera is
_encroaching_ on MF (all MF).

The reality of today is that anything used for imaging can allow one to express a
creative vision. I think you missed that point, and my smiley. There is no good reason
why one capture medium "must" be better than another. It is also interesting that
direct digital tries to look like film imagery . . . if film was really so inferior,
then why bother trying to look like that, or even make comparisons.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...

The reality of today is that anything used for imaging can allow one to
express a
creative vision. I think you missed that point, and my smiley. There is no
good reason
why one capture medium "must" be better than another. It is also
interesting that
direct digital tries to look like film imagery . . . if film was really so
inferior,
then why bother trying to look like that, or even make comparisons.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

I've never understood that "supposed to look like" either. Oil paintings
look like oil, acrylic paintings look like like acrylic, B/W film doesn't
look like color and digital looks like digital. If they want it to look like
something else, then something else is the thing to use. I can see George
Hurrell screaming: "I need more MBs on the cheekbone", or Ansel Adams
complaining about all the whites sliding off the histogram. It used to be a
sure sign of having "made it" to have a look of your own. Gene Smiths were
all his; Kim Westons will never look like Bretts, will never look like
Edwards. I wonder if WeeGee ever lit that cigar? Probably better he didn't.
Did anyone else get the knack of developing LF in the trunk of a Chevy? Can
you do the Zone System with M Class bulbs? Boof..... maybe not. When
does PhotoShop 17 come out? Just in time.
Bob Hickey