Digital vs Film Resolution

nick c wrote:


I now have the opportunity to try storing my photo's on a small laptop
drive. I bought a used 20 GB drive from a friend who has used it mildly
for about 7 months and replaced it with an 80 GB drive. The 20 GB drive
was used as an internal drive so I had to buy a case from Fry's and use
it externally. This evening, I reformatted the drive and moved some
photo's that I've stored on CD's two years ago over into the drive.

My brother gave me one of his desk top classy looking varnished wooden
cigar boxes to use as a drive storage box. I emptied the humidity
chamber (may even remove it) and placed a thin rubber cushion on the
bottom. There appears to be enough room for me partition the box to
sizes of cased hard drives and still fabricate a small equally
partitioned shelf to lay on top of the lower layer, if I elect to remove
the unused humidity chamber. It looks good sitting there in the corner.

I paid $20 for the used laptop drive and $30 for a plastic external
laptop drive case. For the convenience of easily moving photo's in and
out of it, it's worth the price. Next project, when I get around to it,
will be to compile an associated categorical list of photo folders
contained in the drive and store the list on the drive and on a 3 cent
computer diskette. I like the ease of revising these things without
having to continually burn disks when I've changed or moved images. For
the past year, that's been my practice using standard size external
drives. My storage method may not suit others but it sure works for me,
big time.

nick


You got a pretty boxes? Nick, I can't even imagine the WOW quotient for
that! My archival drives are stored in the vault using the sacks/boxes
they came in, each with a scrummy hand-written volume label. The power
and data cables for attaching archival drives are hanging from the front
of the tower, and I just lay the drive on the desk for the short time
I'm using it. Oh, the ubiquitous anti-static wrist strap is hanging
too. As far as my humidor being empty is concerned, that would be a
global catastrophe of endemic proportions. Pretty boxes... jeez!


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

nick c wrote:


I now have the opportunity to try storing my photo's on a small laptop
drive. I bought a used 20 GB drive from a friend who has used it mildly
for about 7 months and replaced it with an 80 GB drive. The 20 GB drive
was used as an internal drive so I had to buy a case from Fry's and use
it externally. This evening, I reformatted the drive and moved some
photo's that I've stored on CD's two years ago over into the drive.

My brother gave me one of his desk top classy looking varnished wooden
cigar boxes to use as a drive storage box. I emptied the humidity
chamber (may even remove it) and placed a thin rubber cushion on the
bottom. There appears to be enough room for me partition the box to
sizes of cased hard drives and still fabricate a small equally
partitioned shelf to lay on top of the lower layer, if I elect to remove
the unused humidity chamber. It looks good sitting there in the corner.

I paid $20 for the used laptop drive and $30 for a plastic external
laptop drive case. For the convenience of easily moving photo's in and
out of it, it's worth the price. Next project, when I get around to it,
will be to compile an associated categorical list of photo folders
contained in the drive and store the list on the drive and on a 3 cent
computer diskette. I like the ease of revising these things without
having to continually burn disks when I've changed or moved images. For
the past year, that's been my practice using standard size external
drives. My storage method may not suit others but it sure works for me,
big time.

nick


You got a pretty boxes? Nick, I can't even imagine the WOW quotient for
that! My archival drives are stored in the vault using the sacks/boxes
they came in, each with a scrummy hand-written volume label. The power
and data cables for attaching archival drives are hanging from the front
of the tower, and I just lay the drive on the desk for the short time
I'm using it. Oh, the ubiquitous anti-static wrist strap is hanging
too. As far as my humidor being empty is concerned, that would be a
global catastrophe of endemic proportions. Pretty boxes... jeez!


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"jjs" wrote in :

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message
...

In the case 1, the only way graininess can be controlled is by using
a diffuse lightsource enlarger. It also changes contrast depending on
density (and paper choice combined with processing).
Both cases 2 and 3 allow to reduce noise/graininess by using noise
reduction software, which can be very effective.

In many subjects fine grain defeats *accutance to a remarkable degree.
Grain is your friend in that regard, even if it is not apparent. That
is, unless we are talking about recon photography, and we aren't.
When consumer digital cameras (not current scanning backs) equal
medium format (which I mean to be a minimum of 6x6cm) I predict there


I sort of don't think consumer digital cameras will ever equal medium
format, because consumers aren't going to be willing to pay for the
lenses, regardless of how the sensors improve.

will be a rise in popularity of an 'add grain' filter - I mean one
beyond "add noise". People will want a digital filter that actually
creates film-like grain to simulate boundary effects without USM.

*I know that you understand the term Accutance, Bart, but for the
rest: Accutance is 'perceived sharpness', or the impression of
sharpness, and not lp/mm metrics.

There's a great book, called Image Clarity, I think, which has a plate
that illustrates accutance. It is two side by side reproductions of a
playing card. One is clearly fuzzy, while the other is sharp. Both are
perfectly in focus, btw. The lens that took the fuzzy photo has higher
resolution, as measured by lp/mm, but it's still not as sharp as the
lower resolution lens.

Bob


--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

bob wrote in news:Xns957D690657F10bobatcarolnet@
207.69.189.191:

I sort of don't think consumer digital cameras will ever equal medium
format, because consumers aren't going to be willing to pay for the
lenses, regardless of how the sensors improve.

Lenses also improve. Todays consumer digital cameras
have more aspheric surfaces than totally out of reach
lenses contained some years ago.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson writes:

bob wrote in news:Xns957D690657F10bobatcarolnet@
207.69.189.191:

I sort of don't think consumer digital cameras will ever equal medium
format, because consumers aren't going to be willing to pay for the
lenses, regardless of how the sensors improve.

Lenses also improve. Todays consumer digital cameras
have more aspheric surfaces than totally out of reach
lenses contained some years ago.

But those are also plastic molded aspherics that could be said to
create as many problems in sample variation and low-quality materials
as they solve.

B

Roland Karlsson writes:

bob wrote in news:Xns957D690657F10bobatcarolnet@
207.69.189.191:

I sort of don't think consumer digital cameras will ever equal medium
format, because consumers aren't going to be willing to pay for the
lenses, regardless of how the sensors improve.

Lenses also improve. Todays consumer digital cameras
have more aspheric surfaces than totally out of reach
lenses contained some years ago.

But those are also plastic molded aspherics that could be said to
create as many problems in sample variation and low-quality materials
as they solve.

B

Roland Karlsson wrote in
:

bob wrote in
news:Xns957D690657F10bobatcarolnet@ 207.69.189.191:

I sort of don't think consumer digital cameras will ever equal medium
format, because consumers aren't going to be willing to pay for the
lenses, regardless of how the sensors improve.

Lenses also improve. Todays consumer digital cameras
have more aspheric surfaces than totally out of reach
lenses contained some years ago.


/Roland

Is your point that some day all lenses will be cheap? That there will be
no lenses that cost more than others? Today a "good" Leica lens costs 100
times more than some other lens choices.

Do you speculate that some day all lenses will be equal?

Some how I doubt that fine optics will *ever* be in the realm of
"consumer" anything.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

bob wrote in
:

Is your point that some day all lenses will be cheap? That there will
be no lenses that cost more than others? Today a "good" Leica lens
costs 100 times more than some other lens choices.

Do you speculate that some day all lenses will be equal?

Some how I doubt that fine optics will *ever* be in the realm of
"consumer" anything.



Nope - but optics that previously was by far too
expensive or even "impossible" to make you now
can buy at a reasonable price. Look at those 10x
zooms you see in many consumer digitals today.
They are really good.


/Roland

bob wrote in
:

Is your point that some day all lenses will be cheap? That there will
be no lenses that cost more than others? Today a "good" Leica lens
costs 100 times more than some other lens choices.

Do you speculate that some day all lenses will be equal?

Some how I doubt that fine optics will *ever* be in the realm of
"consumer" anything.



Nope - but optics that previously was by far too
expensive or even "impossible" to make you now
can buy at a reasonable price. Look at those 10x
zooms you see in many consumer digitals today.
They are really good.


/Roland

Subject: Digital vs Film Resolution
From:
Date: 10/10/2004 5:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In message ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Nope - but optics that previously was by far too
expensive or even "impossible" to make you now
can buy at a reasonable price. Look at those 10x
zooms you see in many consumer digitals today.
They are really good.

Are they? I know that the 5x ones can be pretty good, but I've never
heard any reports that a 10x was as sharp at the long end.
--


John P Sheehy



No 10X zoom is sharp hand held. But slap it in a tripod and it becomes
amazingly good. Or as the old adage goes, "The sharpest lens is a tripod".



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer