Digital view camera?

In article ,
"konabear" wrote:

Personally, I'll be satisfied when a single shot digital back gets to about
40-50 Megapixels with 16 bit files. This will let me create giclee output
at 300dpi in the 24x30inch range without scaling the image up. That's what
I've got today with my 4x5 scans. Also the I scaled these scans up to the
30x40 neighborhood with good results. I've heard that direct digital
captures scale up with better quality than a film scan does.

On my bluetooth or wireless comment earlier, my thoughts were along the
lines of another person. If the camera back can buffer 2-4 full res images,
I don't mind if transfer to the laptop takes 1-5 minutes. The only
advantage to near instant download to the laptop is the near immediate
ability to enlarge the image on the laptop's screen and inspect the details.
In that case the laptop is already out of the backpack and a tether is more
acceptable.

My only comment is what if you fall in the river with your backpack?
Regular cameras dry out, and it would be tragic event regardless of the
digital back and all, but my laptop is my life ;-) and prefer to leave it
at home. Oh I forgot I should have a cheap PC laptop instead of the G4
then it would not matter what the heck happens to it-Har har.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Gregory W Blank writes:

Your missing an important factor, a pure digital file
from a digital back produces a much more conservative
file, there would be no noise so the file would be cleaner,
and be much smaller.

No, the file is smaller because the resolution is lower than film. But
if someone develops a one-shot back with the same resolution as film
(I'm not holding my breath), it will produce files of the same size.

There is _no way_ to avoid tremendously large files if you need very
high resolution. This is an unavoidable aspect of information theory.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gregory W Blank writes:

Your missing an important factor, a pure digital file
from a digital back produces a much more conservative
file, there would be no noise so the file would be cleaner,
and be much smaller.

No, the file is smaller because the resolution is lower than film. But
if someone develops a one-shot back with the same resolution as film
(I'm not holding my breath), it will produce files of the same size.

Actually, real noise is random. The closer something is to containing random
information, the less compressable it is.

There is _no way_ to avoid tremendously large files if you need very
high resolution. This is an unavoidable aspect of information theory.

Really? A 1000' square checkerboard will compress down to the same size as a
1" checkerboard, or a .01" checkerboard. And a 1,000,000 mile square blank
wall will compress to zero length data (the information to recreate it can
be held in the file name.) And then there are fractal and vector images....
see how that goes?

jjs writes:

Actually, real noise is random.

So is real information.

The closer something is to containing random
information, the less compressable it is.

The more information something contains, the less compressible it is,
too.

Really? A 1000' square checkerboard will compress down
to the same size as a 1" checkerboard, or a .01"
checkerboard.

Information is not a tangible thing, it's a concept. And the layout of
a checkerboard cannot be compressed beyond a certain point without
losing squares on the board.

And then there are fractal and vector images....
see how that goes?

I know exactly how it all works. The higher the resolution of an image,
the larger the file required to contain it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
jjs writes:

Actually, real noise is random.

So is real information.

Real information is random? Define Real.

Really? A 1000' square checkerboard will compress down
to the same size as a 1" checkerboard, or a .01"
checkerboard.

Information is not a tangible thing, it's a concept. And the layout of
a checkerboard cannot be compressed beyond a certain point without
losing squares on the board.

Here is one of the many ways to compress a checkerboard: "A two-dimentional
plane with sixty-four squares of alternate color"
That's descriptive. And algorithmic. You can create a checkerboard from
that.

The point
And then there are fractal and vector images....
see how that goes?

I know exactly how it all works. The higher the resolution of an image,
the larger the file required to contain it.

If by resolution you mean the number of pixles required to create the image,
you are wrong.

jjs writes:

Real information is random?

Yes, in information theory. Random data = maximum information.

Define Real.

Data that cannot be losslessly compressed.

Here is one of the many ways to compress a checkerboard: "A two-dimentional
plane with sixty-four squares of alternate color"
That's descriptive. And algorithmic. You can create a checkerboard from
that.

No, you cannot. You need a knowledge base to create the checkerboard.
The description is just a key into the knowledge base.

If by resolution you mean the number of pixles required to create the image,
you are wrong.

By resolution I mean the amount of detail containable and contained in
the image.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The troll is still at it!

From: Mxsmanic
Organization: None
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:27:43 +0100
Subject: Digital view camera?

jjs writes:

Actually, real noise is random.

So is real information.

The closer something is to containing random
information, the less compressable it is.

The more information something contains, the less compressible it is,
too.

Really? A 1000' square checkerboard will compress down
to the same size as a 1" checkerboard, or a .01"
checkerboard.

Information is not a tangible thing, it's a concept. And the layout of
a checkerboard cannot be compressed beyond a certain point without
losing squares on the board.

And then there are fractal and vector images....
see how that goes?

I know exactly how it all works. The higher the resolution of an image,
the larger the file required to contain it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
Jon wrote:

The troll is still at it!

Yes you are!

They've been available, and fairly widely used by "pros" since the mid-1990's, although
mostly "in the studio" where lugging things around and hooking them up to a computer isn't
so much of a problem.

Some manufacturers include

Phase One

Better Light (Calumet)

Leaf (probably the one used by Johnson ... IIRC it's marketed by Sinar)




"William D. Tallman" wrote in message
...
December 2003 issue of Outdoor Photographer covered Steven Johnson's work.
He's got a Sinar something with a digital scanner back, exposures take over
a minute to make. Hard to tell what sort of work from magazine photos, or
from jpegs, for that matter, but apparently he's setting a new benchmark in
terms of tonal range and color accuracy.

Question: Anybody familiar with this? If so, I'd be interested in
comments.

Thanks,

Bill Tallman

No, Johnson use the BetterLight products. -
http://www.sjphoto.com/project-tools.html


Leaf (probably the one used by Johnson ... IIRC it's marketed by Sinar)