Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

Do the math on a 300 dpi vs. Leica standard print (which is 392 dpi), viz:

Bill Hilton wrote:

"300 dpi" is not the right number. 300 ppi (pixels per inch) is a common
digital input file resolution but that gets rasterized by the printer
software


From: Nick Zentena

If the input is 300DPI then how could the output being anything else?

First, as explained before, the input is not dots (dpi), it's pixels (ppi).
This gets translated into dots of ink by the printer firmware.

If you think 300 ppi input means you can only get 300 dpi output (a novel
concept) then run this simple test on a good inkjet like an Epson 1280 or later
.... print the same 300 ppi input file on glossy paper at 360x360 dpi output
rez, then 720x720 dpi, then at 1,440x1,440 dpi ... there's a big jump in print
quality from 360 to 720 and a noticeable but smaller increase from 720 to
1,440.

GIGO? No?

Sure, but why would you ship garbage files to your printer? Send a printer an
excellent digital file at 300 ppi and you'll get an excellent print. All these
LightJet 5000 prints the fine art photographers have been raving about for
years are from 304.5 ppi input files (12 lines/mm is the native rez), for
example.

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
If you think 300 ppi input means you can only get 300 dpi output (a novel
concept) then run this simple test on a good inkjet like an Epson 1280 or
later
... print the same 300 ppi input file on glossy paper at 360x360 dpi
output
rez, then 720x720 dpi, then at 1,440x1,440 dpi ... there's a big jump in
print
quality from 360 to 720 and a noticeable but smaller increase from 720 to
1,440.

I'm curious if you know, Bill, how the printer manages the dithering matrix
at lower print resolutions. A 360 ppi image printed at 1440 dpi seems to
have only a 4x4 matrix to dither in. I'm guessing each image pixel has to
bleed into adjacent ones to make a large enough matrix. This won't have much
effect on smooth tone areas, but edge detail would seem to have to suffer
some smoothing and softening. I don't see enough of a difference between
2880 dpi and 1440 dpi to bear this out, though. Maybe it would on high
contrast test targets?

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Actually, I would more expect that they would not follow the same market
direction as other countries. I believe that each individual region needs
to be
considered on the basis of its' own culture. With that in mind, China is a
very
large place with many differing cultures, ethnic groups, and population
densities. I would imagine the start of marketing any product in China
might be
in the major cities, and there again you would have several cultures
intermingled in any large city in China.

Yes, you're right. But consider this: photography is not a traditional thing
belonging to a particular culture, nowhere in this world; globalization, and
the fact that though we humans display wide a variety of differing habits,
customs, likes, etc., we are still more alike than different, i.e. have the
same needs, wants, desires etc. We all use pens and pencils to write on
paper, we all use pots to cook in, we ... etc.

True . . . . .


The appeal of creating images (especially recordings of ourselves and things
close to ourselves), and that of toys (for instance those with which to
create/record images), plus the wish for doing thingsthe convenient way is
pretty well universal.

Convenience is not the same for all. Of course, in photography, those little
one-time-use cameras are the single largest volume of film sales, and perhaps
the ultimate in convenience.



Now why would that be? Why would those newcomers not get in at the point
we
are today?

Too early to give an answer on that.

It is not a time related thing.

My comments reflects that China is an emerging market, and not enough
information is available to draw conclusions. The only time needed is enough
time to collect more data, though I could just make guesses, but I would rather
wait and see. This should be months, not years.


People simply do no want to be "lumbered" with that which other people
discard as "old hat". And they're right, there is no reason why they should.
(That alone, without even knowing what the thing involved is, is probably
enough to create an instant dislike of the one thing c.q. a want for the
other. Girard's "mimetism", and all that. ;-))

Sure . . . . . . . .


Anyway, it's the way history has shown us things have a tendency to go: new
markets will embrace new technology, leaving the old markets struggling
behind, because the money there is already/still tied up in old technology.

Support and infrastructure needed to define a market, are also necessary to
grow a market. Examples of that in the US direct digital imaging market have
been demonstrated by trying to sell cameras as peripherals to computers, then
trying to sell printers on the back of computers, and now trying to sell
printers on the backs of sales of direct digital cameras.

Also, the "latest" technology is wireless imaging. Mobile phones are currently
selling well in China, and services to support wireless imaging are already in
place. While I don't have figures on this yet, it is a guess on my part that
wireless imaging will take off in China. The point here is where does that
leave P&S digital cameras, most of which cost more than camera phones? Consider
also that e-mail and sending images by e-mail are not as popular past times in
China as in the western world. Some of that might be due to the low density of
computer users per population, though the restrictions on internet access in
China could also be a factor.

Without P&S digital sales, how much of a market is there for $1000 to $8000
direct digital SLRs. Add the cost of a computer good enough to handle the
larger images, a nice enough printer, pirated copy of PhotoShop, and supplies,
then it looks like China is a low volume market for direct digital. Compare
that to those already using Seagull TLR or similar low cost Chinese made medium
format. Would those users spend a little more for a non-Chinese (and maybe
non-Japanese) medium format camera, or would they rather spend money on
electronics . . . I think we will know the answer to this early next year.



They are apparently picking up on mobile
phone usage, and on text messaging. However, internet, e-mail, and
personal
computer usage are much lower percentage saturation in China than in
western
economies.

And what's the reason for that?

Phones are relatively low cost, and very useful items. They also only need a
service provider infrastructure. Internet usage in mainland China is often
restricted in many ways, and computers are just not that available, largely due
to costs, but also somewhat to a lack of support infrastructure.


Not because they rather do long division on scraps of paper than use a
computer to do their accounting, is it? ;-)

Ever seen a Chinese person use an abacus . . . some of these people are faster
with that, than with a calculator, or a computer. Anyway, adding machines are
much lower cost and easier to use than computers. Larger companies undoubtedly
use computers for larger level accounting, but how many home users need a
computer to balance their chequebook, or write out a receipt.



Okay, I will take that bet. In two years, if China is not predominantly
digital
imaging (not camera phones), then I will buy you a disposable P&S digital
camera. If they are mostly a film imaging centre in two years, then you
buy me
a P&S film camera. Fair enough?

:-)))

Done! Strange bets you come up with...
"if China is not predominantly digital imaging", you'll have won too.
So if you win, i win. Good!

But you make it sound like it's a gamble. It's not. It's a "cert". ;-)

Yeah . . . okay. I am marking my Palm Pilot for this date in two years time.
:-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

Bob Monaghan wrote:

yes, you have to think that Solms/Leica HQ has to loathe and fear Fuji due
to the relative success of its Xpan panoramic 35mm film format camera and
wide angle lenses project with Hasselblad (and it is marketed as a
separate Fuji camera elsewhere in the world IIRC?). Lots of folks and
Leica saw this as stealing market share for high end 35mm RF users from
Leica etc.


Of course, that was around 1999. By 2002, Leica had there best sales volume
since 1968. If you look at the Hasselblad information on the Xpan, and this
is echoed in other commentary, you would find they imply that they created a
market where none existed.


In fact, whatever happened to Leica's planned MF camera, which was
revealed in a press conference see URL ;-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...says/index.htm
quoting:
Spurred in part by Swedish camera-maker Hasselblad's recent introduction
of its XPan 35mm rangefinder/panorama camera - a move that threatens to
cost Leica customers - the German firm is beginning to look seriously at
trying to take market share away from its Swedish competitor by
introducing its own high-end entry into the hot medium-format market.
endquote:

Guess that hot MF market kinda cooled off? ;-) ;-)

Actually, take a look at financial data for Leica, and you would see that
they just do not have the reserves for undertaking such a development. I
doubt many of their lenses would have the coverage needed even for 645,
meaning a new family of lenses would be needed to support any such camera.

It also seems that they may have considered medium format due to the somewhat
successful Mamiya 7 and 7 II, and the introduction of the Bronica RF645.
However, given the problems of sales volume of the Bronica, it seems a wiser
decision not to enter any medium format rangefinder market.

Leica are well known as 35 mm specialists. It would have been an uphill
battle to get into medium format, and not at all complimentary to their
philosophy and approach to smaller format cameras and photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

In article , Elemental
wrote:

A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the ppi
output of the printer. By going to 1440 ppi output, you give the printer
more room to do its dithering, and thereby produce a print that is closer
to 300 dpi in output resolution (at 1440 ppi printing output, say).

Your confidence in the downsampling built into the printers firmware is
rather optomistic. 1440 - 300 is just too much, IMHO.

In article , wrote:

[...] but how many home users need a
computer to balance their chequebook [...]

A hell of a lot of the newer generation doesn't balance their checkbooks;
they let the bank balance at the ATM be the rule. No kidding. I have seen
cases where register clerks _cannot make change_ without the register's
help. One day you will come about a case like that and be just
dumbfounded.

In article , wrote:

Actually, take a look at financial data for Leica, and you would see that
they just do not have the reserves for undertaking such a development. I
doubt many of their lenses would have the coverage needed even for 645,
meaning a new family of lenses would be needed to support any such camera.

Probably true. I'm anxious to get my hands on Leica's most recent long
lens that is supposed to put out 400lpmm wide open, just to see if it will
cover 6x6cm. I pray that the rear lens is way up the tube. Yes, I will
take a lathe to a new Leitz lens. In a heartbeat.

one_of_many wrote:

In article , wrote:

[...] but how many home users need a
computer to balance their chequebook [...]

A hell of a lot of the newer generation doesn't balance their checkbooks;
they let the bank balance at the ATM be the rule. No kidding. I have seen
cases where register clerks _cannot make change_ without the register's
help. One day you will come about a case like that and be just
dumbfounded.

I had a friend of mine who believed that as long as there were checks in the
check book, there was still money in the account . . . no kidding . . . . .
.. . .

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

Gordon Moat wrote:

Convenience is not the same for all. Of course, in photography, those
little
one-time-use cameras are the single largest volume of film sales, and
perhaps
the ultimate in convenience.

Convenience really is the same for all.
It can be (if must be) simply described in terms of the number and intricacy
of acts one has to perform to achieve a given goal. Since people are all the
same (i.e. there are none of us who posses extra limbs or ones that are able
to perform more complex tasks "in one go" than those of others), convenience
is the same.

What's not the same is how much convenience one is prepared to give up to
achieve something or other. Some people don't mind to put a lot of effort
into something other people don't care about at all.
And there may indeed be a cultural factor in that. But i don't know,
regarding this simple art of photography, is there?

It is not a time related thing.

My comments reflects that China is an emerging market, and not enough
information is available to draw conclusions. The only time needed is
enough
time to collect more data, though I could just make guesses, but I would
rather
wait and see. This should be months, not years.

Now what extra information do you think we need? They are human, like us,
aren't they?

Anyway, it's the way history has shown us things have a tendency to go:
new
markets will embrace new technology, leaving the old markets struggling
behind, because the money there is already/still tied up in old
technology.

Support and infrastructure needed to define a market, are also necessary
to
grow a market. [...]

Right.

But how does that make "newcomers" want to start "at the bottom"? Believe
me, they don't.

They certainly do not want to set up the infrastructure needed to serve
outdated technology when they could spend the same effort setting up the
same for new technology. And consequently they do not. Trust me.

[...]
And what's the reason for that?

Phones are relatively low cost, and very useful items. They also only need
a
service provider infrastructure. Internet usage in mainland China is often
restricted in many ways, and computers are just not that available,
largely due
to costs, but also somewhat to a lack of support infrastructure. [...]

See? Not even once you mentioned they would want to use technology now
obsolete first. ;-)
Now why do you think things would be different when it comes to photography?

But you make it sound like it's a gamble. It's not. It's a "cert". ;-)

Yeah . . . okay. I am marking my Palm Pilot for this date in two years
time.
:-)

Why?
You can sent me that disposable P&S digital camera today!
After all, if China will "not" be "predominantly digital imaging", i win.
And "if they are mostly a film imaging centre", they are "not predominantly
digital imaging", and i win again.
So get out your credit card and go shopping. Today!
;-)

From: Elemental lid

A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the ppi
output of the printer.

You are confusing the input file resolution (which is *not* dpi, it's ppi) with
the printer's output resolution. They are two different things.

By going to 1440 ppi output, you give the printer
more room to do its dithering

There is no such thing as "1440 ppi output", the printer does not output
pixels.

Carry home concept: you cannot get more resolution (detail) out than you
put in.

Look at a LightJet print and compare it directly to a wet print ... the input
files to the LightJet are all 304.5 ppi (rez 12 ... well, you can give it rez 8
or 203.2 ppi and it will rez up for you, but let's not go there) yet the output
looks as good as or better than a conventional print (see the Ketchum post).
Clearly ~300 ppi input file rez is enough to generate great looking output
prints. See Bart's posts for more details on how this takes place ... or even
better, look at a LightJet print from a well-scanned digital file before you
lock yourself in to a point of view.

Concept: There are lies, damn lies and then there are specs.

New Concept: There are people who look at the prints and there are people who
don't

As an aside, these threads are most interesting and (sometimes)
informative. Thanks for your time.

I'm trying but this is a tough crowd to convince

Take Bill Atkinson's advanced printing class at Calypso Labs ... Bill was one
of the Apple Computer founders and a software genius, turned digital printing
genius. At the end of the class he'll show you several 20x24" prints of the
same 4x5" trannie, printed using dye transfer (pretty dull but lasts forever),
straight Ilfochrome (pretty contrasty), Type R (not that great), custom masked
Ilfo (looks great) and LightJet 5000 print (looks great too, just like the
masked Ilfo). Seeing is believing ... for some of us anyway.

Bill