If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:17:59 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: Has anyone tried this? Results? http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. Haven't tried this but have used an old (1997) Polaroid film recorder with excellent results. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Has anyone tried this? Results? http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. I used to have transproofs printed from my medium format negs. Since going to digital and since Kodak stopped making vericolor print film, I no longer have that. Digital projection is relatively low res, mine is XGA, which is step down from my monitor. But you can buy a Polaroid Pallet which is a very hi res image capture onto film, it was intended for their own instant slide film but its not hard to use anybody else's. you can get 4,000 x 2,500 (something like that) pixel images on 35mm film, slide or neg which is much sharper than digital projection. of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's not that hard. come to think of it, that's probably what these guys are doing. this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Has anyone tried this? Results? http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. I used to have transproofs printed from my medium format negs. Since going to digital and since Kodak stopped making vericolor print film, I no longer have that. Digital projection is relatively low res, mine is XGA, which is step down from my monitor. But you can buy a Polaroid Pallet which is a very hi res image capture onto film, it was intended for their own instant slide film but its not hard to use anybody else's. you can get 4,000 x 2,500 (something like that) pixel images on 35mm film, slide or neg which is much sharper than digital projection. of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's not that hard. come to think of it, that's probably what these guys are doing. this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Has anyone tried this? Results? http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. I used to have transproofs printed from my medium format negs. Since going to digital and since Kodak stopped making vericolor print film, I no longer have that. Digital projection is relatively low res, mine is XGA, which is step down from my monitor. But you can buy a Polaroid Pallet which is a very hi res image capture onto film, it was intended for their own instant slide film but its not hard to use anybody else's. you can get 4,000 x 2,500 (something like that) pixel images on 35mm film, slide or neg which is much sharper than digital projection. of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's not that hard. come to think of it, that's probably what these guys are doing. this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Has anyone tried this? Results?
http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. Haven't tried this but have used an old (1997) Polaroid film recorder with excellent results. I'm sure that's what they are doing too. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Has anyone tried this? Results?
http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. Haven't tried this but have used an old (1997) Polaroid film recorder with excellent results. I'm sure that's what they are doing too. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Has anyone tried this? Results?
http://www.iprintfromhome.com/image_...5406&pid=66497 http://www.iprintfromhome.com/ The max res is 2732 x 4096 (11.2 Mpix) $2.49 for 1 slide; 1.25 per additional slide of same image. Haven't tried this but have used an old (1997) Polaroid film recorder with excellent results. I'm sure that's what they are doing too. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
zeitgeist wrote:
of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's not that hard. And SCSI is very good too. Parallel is quite slow in comparison to SCSI. SCSI controllers and other SCSI bits are not very cheap, but have stood the test of time very well indeed. Whereas other computers technologies have come and gone (old tape formats, zip drives, magneto optic drives, 5.25" floppy drives, even to a certain extent 3.5" floppy drive), SCSI is still going very strong, and offers excellent backs compatibility. The latest generation of SCSI disks+controllers can move 320MB/s - yes 320 Mega bytes/second peak. And SCSI is still being improved. Yet those same 320MB/s disks will fit in machines that have old controllers of 5 MB/s. They just run at 5MB/s. SCSI disks made 20 odd years ago are still usable into todays top of the line computers. Of course, you might not feel a great need to use a 1GB SCSI disk in really new PC, but they are usable if you want to get data from them. Likewise I can fit SCSI disks of over 100 GB in my old Sun workstations, which were made over 20 years ago. In practice I do not, but have fitted 36GB disks in machines of 20 years old. Works fine. Of course performance is limited by the old computer, but everything works. I can't predict the future, but I don't see USB staying around as long as SCSI will. Likewise with firewire. Soon I expect all these USB digital cameras will be practically unusable. That was *one* part of my decision to buy a Nikon F6. I suspect 35mm film will be around long after USB has disappeared. Although I have a digital camera (Fuji Finepix 6900), I am well aware of its limitations, and reckon it will have a short lifetime. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
zeitgeist wrote:
of course these things are SCSI or parallel cabled but that's not that hard. And SCSI is very good too. Parallel is quite slow in comparison to SCSI. SCSI controllers and other SCSI bits are not very cheap, but have stood the test of time very well indeed. Whereas other computers technologies have come and gone (old tape formats, zip drives, magneto optic drives, 5.25" floppy drives, even to a certain extent 3.5" floppy drive), SCSI is still going very strong, and offers excellent backs compatibility. The latest generation of SCSI disks+controllers can move 320MB/s - yes 320 Mega bytes/second peak. And SCSI is still being improved. Yet those same 320MB/s disks will fit in machines that have old controllers of 5 MB/s. They just run at 5MB/s. SCSI disks made 20 odd years ago are still usable into todays top of the line computers. Of course, you might not feel a great need to use a 1GB SCSI disk in really new PC, but they are usable if you want to get data from them. Likewise I can fit SCSI disks of over 100 GB in my old Sun workstations, which were made over 20 years ago. In practice I do not, but have fitted 36GB disks in machines of 20 years old. Works fine. Of course performance is limited by the old computer, but everything works. I can't predict the future, but I don't see USB staying around as long as SCSI will. Likewise with firewire. Soon I expect all these USB digital cameras will be practically unusable. That was *one* part of my decision to buy a Nikon F6. I suspect 35mm film will be around long after USB has disappeared. Although I have a digital camera (Fuji Finepix 6900), I am well aware of its limitations, and reckon it will have a short lifetime. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Future of MF | Victor | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 174 | September 19th 04 11:53 PM |
Scanning Film Images into Digital Files | Michael | Digital Photography | 21 | September 18th 04 09:47 PM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |