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 |
#601
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:01:53 +0000, Bill Hilton wrote:
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. Sorry, got them backwards. Here is a page that illustrates that it is image resolution (ppi), not printer dpi that counts: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/ Note that in this case, the number of dots that the printer is using for dithering is the same in each case, but the input resolution of the image goes up. This reveals more detail. This is in contrast to your argument that increasing printer dpi is a factor in increasing detail in the final output. 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. I'm not sure what you are arguing about here, nothing that was in my post. |
#602
|
|||
|
|||
missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . 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? Film volume sales. Computer sales. Number of photography labs, and the volume of their businesses. Camera sales in China, with breakdown by type (P&S, SLR, high end, larger than 35 mm, etc.) and imaging interface (film or digital). Memory storage sales volumes. They are human, like us, aren't they? Sure, but to consider any one market to be exactly like an existing market could be an error on the part of companies. So as individuals able to monitor a market, I think we are better viewing actual patterns, rather than guessing what they might become, or transferring our own experience directly to China. Do you even think the usage and buying patterns in the US are exactly the same as in Japan, or any part of Europe? 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. Do you think they will be buying $1000 on up direct digital SLRs first? Just to give you a number, it has been found that the average computer purchase in the US brings an average expenditure of nearly $2000. So to jump directly into direct digital imaging, one would need a computer too. Most newcomers would start at a lower dollar level. To get back to our original discussion, that low dollar entry point would not sell any medium format, other than Seagull, which those individuals probably already purchase. Medium format will never be more than a niche market, even in China, so that aspect has nothing to do with convenience, since other photography choices could easily be more convenient. The bottom of digital is P&S digital, which again almost requires a computer. When you consider that camera phones are already selling in China, how could the introduction of P&S digital hope to gain any market share? Here is an example where the market in China could skip the bottom entirely, and move on to the "next great thing", which is wireless imaging. 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. The film infrastructure already exists in China, yet the digital support infrastructure does not. Wireless imaging already enjoys an infrastructure that is continuing to grow on the back of high volume sales. Digital imaging is the infrastructure that needs to be set up. If you look at statements from computer makers about the market in China, you find two often stated concerns. One is the low density of individuals and businesses able to afford computers. The other is the high density of pirated software amongst current computer users in China. Both those factors make China a somewhat risky market, and limit potential profits. And consequently they do not. So direct digital imaging will begin in a new market, and immediately become the only choice? The predominant choice? Or an instant niche? Trust me. Funny term used by car salesmen . . . not trying to sell me a used Hasselblad are you? ;-) [...] 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? China has an existing film infrastructure. The first high technology alternative infrastructure already present is for wireless imaging. With the high cost and low computer density in China, I only see direct digital imaging as a niche market in China, especially because there is little to no existing infrastructure. It is substantially more difficult to establish infrastructures and related businesses in China, because their risk management infrastructure is not established. There are a few outside companies being allowed to test risk management within China, yet the central Chinese government has not yet determined if they will continue allowing the outside support of risk management to continue on future projects, or to let it grow to help smaller projects. The aspects of risk management, and the accompanying financial basis, and the predominant fundamental difference between infrastructure establishment and support in China, as compared to western countries. 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? My earlier statement was: "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?" You can sent me that disposable P&S digital camera today! The first part clearly states two years. However, if China is mainly digital imaging, in which case you would be correct, then you would not get the disposable digital P&S. After all, if China will "not" be "predominantly digital imaging", i win. You win the argument, but don't get a disposable digital P&S. :-( And "if they are mostly a film imaging centre", they are "not predominantly digital imaging", and i win again. The second part states that is they are mostly a film imaging centre, then you "buy me a P&S film camera". I should state that a disposable is fine to honour that. So get out your credit card and go shopping. Today! ;-) So the reverse is that China would be mostly digital, meaning no disposable digital P&S for you, though that would also mean that they would not be a predominantly film market, meaning I would not get a P&S either. Guess we will need to wait two years and see what happens. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#603
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
In article , Elemental
wrote: [...] Maybe B&W prints will have another chance, if I stop reading here. See http://www.inkjetmall.com |
#604
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
|
#605
|
|||
|
|||
missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.
Gordon Moat wrote:
Now what extra information do you think we need? Film volume sales. Computer sales. Number of photography labs, and the volume of their businesses. Camera sales in China, with breakdown by type (P&S, SLR, high end, larger than 35 mm, etc.) and imaging interface (film or digital). Memory storage sales volumes. I see. You just don't believe that... They are human, like us, aren't they? ;-) Sure, but to consider any one market to be exactly like an existing market could be an error on the part of companies. [...] Nobody is suggesting that one market will be exactly like any other market. Don;t forget, we're talking about that fact (!) that people aren't different enough for one group to accept the "garbage" disposed of by an other group while they could have the "new stuff" anybody else wants. So why would you think that, given the choice, a "new" market would rather start where we were 50 years ago instead of were we want to be tomorrow? One group could be forced to make do with less than what they would want, yes. By economics, mostly. But that's another, albeit related, matter. Do you think they will be buying $1000 on up direct digital SLRs first? Instead of buying $1000 worth of film equipment? Must you ask? ;-) Just to give you a number, it has been found that the average computer purchase in the US brings an average expenditure of nearly $2000. So to jump directly into direct digital imaging, one would need a computer too. Good point. So they'll get a $500 computer (most are made in China anayway ;-)) too. ;-) No. The thing is, China nor any other "growth market" in photography (India?) is going to set up private dark rooms and a network of one-hour and professional wet-labs. Instead, the infrastructure needed to serve gazillions of consumer's digital cameras and a significantly less number of professional digital image producers and consumers will be created. You know, the thing we see happening in "the West" today. [...] The bottom of digital is P&S digital, which again almost requires a computer. Yes. Or the digital equivalent of our one-hour photo-stores. That's what's we see in "the West" too, right? [...] Digital imaging is the infrastructure that needs to be set up. Now you're cooking! Exactly! If you look at statements from computer makers about the market in China, you find two often stated concerns. One is the low density of individuals and businesses able to afford computers. The other is the high density of pirated software amongst current computer users in China. Both those factors make China a somewhat risky market, and limit potential profits. Ah well, the computer business is in dire need of a restructuring anyway. Things are produced incredibly cheap, yet we're still asked to pay too much. ;-) So direct digital imaging will begin in a new market, and immediately become the only choice? The predominant choice? Or an instant niche? The predominant choice, yes. Trust me. Funny term used by car salesmen . . . not trying to sell me a used Hasselblad are you? ;-) Hm... the phrase "trust me, i'm a doctor" is more familiar to me (no, i'm not). And no, i wouldn't dream of it. ;-) China has an existing film infrastructure. The first high technology alternative infrastructure already present is for wireless imaging. With the high cost and low computer density in China, I only see direct digital imaging as a niche market in China, especially because there is little to no existing infrastructure. Well you've come around quite a bit. Good. ;-) Next, you must stop saying "niche market" and start saying "growth market"! Things that begin can't be "big" right away. But one mustn't confuse "still small" with "niche". It is substantially more difficult to establish infrastructures and related businesses in China, because their risk management infrastructure is not established. [...] Yes, starting new things would be easier of these things could materialize over night, auto-magically. And yes, insecure people would feel more at ease if there was some security-blanket-fairy-godmother saying "there, there" every once and again. So what's new? ;-) Have a look at the number of big and smaller "western" fims that have moved to China the last couple of years. And those who did so before already. They're not overly bothered. Oh, and i'll be generous about your "one conditional - you (GM) cannot win" bet, and let you off the hook. ;-) |
#606
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:14:06 -0500, one_of_many wrote:
In article , dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: [...] And yet of course you know you can do projection printing and still get excellent prints, right? If you print 10x15" you've blown up the film area by 100x (10x each side) and yet most would agree you can make a very nice print this size from 35 mm film. Small point to clarify: What you describe is, by convention, considered a 10x, not 100x enlargement. Terminology is really tricky in this area, isn't it? Bill misses my point again, but I have to agree, upsampling does produce some remarkable images. But don't expect the fine detail that was in the original subject, however. I have chosen the detail oriented direction, which is why the move to MF. In the past, 35mm offered me lots of detail, sometimes at the expense of grain, and now I want more, more, more. |
#608
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: If you print 10x15" you've blown up the film area by 100x (10x each side) and yet most would agree you can make a very nice print this size from 35 mm film. From: (one_of_many) Small point to clarify: What you describe is, by convention, considered a 10x, not 100x enlargement. I know, but I did say "film AREA by 100x" ... you even quoted it that way It's still 10X. |
#609
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
Recently, Bill Hilton posted:
You're right that it's a "wet print" but I thought we were discussing whether or not a digital file with 300 ppi rez contained enough information to make an excellent print. Since the LJ takes EXACTLY 300 ppi (on the newer Anglicized models) or 304.8 ppi (on the earlier rez 12 metric models like the 5000) I thought it was the perfect example to show that yes, you can get a great print from 300 ppi. So it seems like you are at least coming around to the idea that 300 ppi isn't such a bad number after all? Which is what I was trying to show to Bob. I'm not "coming around"; I stated early on that it is the image that determines the best output media, not the media per-se. Resolution isn't the whole story any more than a number of other descriptors of image quality. As for the inkjets, the Epson professional series produces output that looks very close to the LightJet. Well, we'll just have to disagree about that. They look fine for some images, but not for others. The LightJet is generally better, but not necessarily the best in all cases. One of the reasons LJ prints dropped from $70 to $30 was because so many pros bought their own Epson 9600 and 7600 models a couple of years ago and LJ print volume dropped off. A pro doing his own prints can afford the $5,000 or $3,000 that the Epsons cost while the LJ was out of range at $150,000. This is a simple example of supply and demand. All it suggests is that "good enough" has been achieved at a lower level for enough photographers that the price for better quality was more than the market would bear. I know you doubt that the Epson 9600 prints (or any inkjet prints) are comparable to LJ prints, but you can get free samples of the same image from WCI (or least you could, if they thought you were a potential customer) and compare them for yourself. I think you have me wrong, Bill. I've bought plenty of large-format inkjet ouptut from a variety of units (Roland, Epson, Encad, et al) over the last decade or so. They're good for some images, and Duraflex / Duratrans are better for others. The most I'll say about them is that the inkjet prints are relatively cheap. As another indication of the print quality of the Epsons, Calypso Labs has both a LightJet 5000 (calibrated by Bill Atkinson) and an Epson 9600 ... prints from their LJ cost LESS to the customer than Epson prints, ie, $9 sq/ft from the LJ and $10 sq/ft from the Epson. If the LJ prints were night-and-day better than the Epson prints then why would someone spend more money on the lesser print? I think you may be looking at cost factors, here. It takes a lot longer to print a large format inkjet than a LightJet print. Materials costs and the scrap rate is likely to be higher as well. Neil |
#610
|
|||
|
|||
35mm lenses on MF was missing MF converts
probably easier and cheaper to just ask Solms/Leica about the coverage; my bet would be that getting 400 lpmm (aerial?) resolution would require Leica to optimize the lens for the smaller format, yes? ;-) now if you are really looking for a unique leica mount tele-lens, see http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...1317 427&rd=1 it was $98,000 in 1970 dollars, about $700,000 today's dollarettes (?) ;-) this one is under $2k, a fixer upper though ;-) grins bobm PS thanks to Dave Ez2cDave for pointing this lens out to me ;-) -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |