Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview

Bryan Olson wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

Ryadia wrote:
[...]
This just a tiny peek at potential image size. [...]
http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/
[...]
That's a
reduction, not an enlargement.

So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination. Otherwise it's
giving as much consideration as I care to for dial up visitors. Not
everyone has broadband connections, you know?

Well, if you want to show something convincing, you might post a
small crop of the enlarged version. Up to you of course. The
fact that you're being considerate to dial-up users has nothing
to do with whether the page makes its case.



This is precisely where the problem with Internet credibility exists.
I took a photo of a small (marked) area of the print with a digicam.
This is the pic I posted. It has a real human finger in it. This is as
far as I go.

In a perfect world you'd get the whole file. You'd also just accept that
I did this in my free time instead of doing something else I enjoy...
Like going out to dinner or having a few drinks with friends. I don't
make a habit of photographing every job I do and making a web page out
of it.

You'll just have to satisfy yourself with what there is. Sorry if this
is not what you want but I'm sure you could download some trial software
and interpolate one of your files just to see how it works. Use my site
as the beginning of the idea, not a solution to your needs.

Ryadia

Bryan Olson wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

Ryadia wrote:
[...]
This just a tiny peek at potential image size. [...]
http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/
[...]
That's a
reduction, not an enlargement.

So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination. Otherwise it's
giving as much consideration as I care to for dial up visitors. Not
everyone has broadband connections, you know?

Well, if you want to show something convincing, you might post a
small crop of the enlarged version. Up to you of course. The
fact that you're being considerate to dial-up users has nothing
to do with whether the page makes its case.



This is precisely where the problem with Internet credibility exists.
I took a photo of a small (marked) area of the print with a digicam.
This is the pic I posted. It has a real human finger in it. This is as
far as I go.

In a perfect world you'd get the whole file. You'd also just accept that
I did this in my free time instead of doing something else I enjoy...
Like going out to dinner or having a few drinks with friends. I don't
make a habit of photographing every job I do and making a web page out
of it.

You'll just have to satisfy yourself with what there is. Sorry if this
is not what you want but I'm sure you could download some trial software
and interpolate one of your files just to see how it works. Use my site
as the beginning of the idea, not a solution to your needs.

Ryadia

Bryan Olson wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

Ryadia wrote:
[...]
This just a tiny peek at potential image size. [...]
http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/
[...]
That's a
reduction, not an enlargement.

So if you'd like a 3 minute download instead of a 2 minute one, I'll
happily send you the full 25# meg file for examination. Otherwise it's
giving as much consideration as I care to for dial up visitors. Not
everyone has broadband connections, you know?

Well, if you want to show something convincing, you might post a
small crop of the enlarged version. Up to you of course. The
fact that you're being considerate to dial-up users has nothing
to do with whether the page makes its case.



This is precisely where the problem with Internet credibility exists.
I took a photo of a small (marked) area of the print with a digicam.
This is the pic I posted. It has a real human finger in it. This is as
far as I go.

In a perfect world you'd get the whole file. You'd also just accept that
I did this in my free time instead of doing something else I enjoy...
Like going out to dinner or having a few drinks with friends. I don't
make a habit of photographing every job I do and making a web page out
of it.

You'll just have to satisfy yourself with what there is. Sorry if this
is not what you want but I'm sure you could download some trial software
and interpolate one of your files just to see how it works. Use my site
as the beginning of the idea, not a solution to your needs.

Ryadia

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:qI74d.330413$Oi.171955@fed1read04...

"Dallas" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:42:21 +0000, RSD99 wrote:

I'd hate to know what the RAW
conversion to TIFF on this thing will come in at. About 100Mb's per file?

According to Canon, uncompressed tiff files converted from RAW come in at
a
little more than 50MB. They made a special ponit of this fact, since many
agency's image requirements call for files of at least 50MB.


That's true, but they often stipulate the 50MB minimum as a native file size
for film scans. With D capture they're often OK with a 17MB file well
interpolated to 50MB
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/phoenikz

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Cy/mm 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.6 2.3 1.2

5-8 cycles/mm equals visual acuity limit at reading distance.

Bart

The larger the image the further the viewing distance. I don't read
photos.

Exactly, that's why a 33.3x22.2 inch at 20 inch will look as good as a
16.6x11.1 inch at 10 inch (5.2 = on lower boundary of visual acuity, I
can
see 8+ cycles/mm).

Bart

In article , Bart van der Wolf
writes

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Cy/mm 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.6 2.3 1.2

5-8 cycles/mm equals visual acuity limit at reading distance.

Bart

The larger the image the further the viewing distance. I don't read
photos.

Exactly, that's why a 33.3x22.2 inch at 20 inch will look as good as a
16.6x11.1 inch at 10 inch (5.2 = on lower boundary of visual acuity, I
can
see 8+ cycles/mm).

Bart

Unfortunately (if that's the right word) many people, myself included,
just love to get closer and closer to a landscape until we can't see any
more detail. If that happens when my eye runs out of resolving power,
I'm happy; if the picture gets fuzzy first, I'm frustrated. So I always
try, if possible, to produce prints which give maximum visual resolution
at closest viewing distance, regardless of size.

That's not to say "I'm right, you're wrong"; it's just a personal
choice. And, BTW, I don't always manage to achieve the goal either.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , Bart van der Wolf
writes

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Cy/mm 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.6 2.3 1.2

5-8 cycles/mm equals visual acuity limit at reading distance.

Bart

The larger the image the further the viewing distance. I don't read
photos.

Exactly, that's why a 33.3x22.2 inch at 20 inch will look as good as a
16.6x11.1 inch at 10 inch (5.2 = on lower boundary of visual acuity, I
can
see 8+ cycles/mm).

Bart

Unfortunately (if that's the right word) many people, myself included,
just love to get closer and closer to a landscape until we can't see any
more detail. If that happens when my eye runs out of resolving power,
I'm happy; if the picture gets fuzzy first, I'm frustrated. So I always
try, if possible, to produce prints which give maximum visual resolution
at closest viewing distance, regardless of size.

That's not to say "I'm right, you're wrong"; it's just a personal
choice. And, BTW, I don't always manage to achieve the goal either.

David
--
David Littlewood

"angryfilmguy" writes:

firstly for $8000 you're better off comparing the camera to a large or med
format.

Depending, of course, on how much film you use. For some
photographers, the $8K can be paid off pretty rapidly in savings on
film and processing costs.

"TP" wrote in message
...
Deryck Lant wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

Obviously the excitement created by Nikon had to be diverted a little
before
Photokina.


At last, a DSLR to rival 35mm film for most applications - and I say
that having carefully studied all four of Canon's sample images.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

"angryfilmguy" writes:

firstly for $8000 you're better off comparing the camera to a large or med
format.

Depending, of course, on how much film you use. For some
photographers, the $8K can be paid off pretty rapidly in savings on
film and processing costs.

"TP" wrote in message
...
Deryck Lant wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

Obviously the excitement created by Nikon had to be diverted a little
before
Photokina.


At last, a DSLR to rival 35mm film for most applications - and I say
that having carefully studied all four of Canon's sample images.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

"Tony" writes:

Even if you don't end up using them, the more pixels you have the finer you
can adjust masks etc. Which is why 4000 dpi scans are helpful on 400 speed
film. People who've never done serious Photoshop work will not realise this,
but those of us who put in long days making masks prefer more pixels.

OK. But why scan those pixels, rather than just upsizing in Photoshop?
Meant as a real question rather than a challenge.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.