Anti-digital backlash continues ...

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:45:52 GMT, Gregory W Blank
wrote:

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:39:48 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

posted:
"... Have you seen any PCs with
interchangeable microprocessors?
..."

Actually yes ... virtually ALL of them (motherboards, that is) can be set up with a rather
large range of microprocessors.

[NOT a good analogy ...]


For any given motherboard, the choice is quite
limited -- that's why boards are built for Socket A,
Socket 370, etc.

You can't put Intel chips into mobos made for
Athlons, or vice versa. Your only real choice
is a faster or slower CPU... or maybe another
"updated" core, as long as it's 100% pin
compatible with the original CPU socket.

Just out of curiousity, why would you expect a manufacturer
to make equipment that had completely compatible hardware
with other manufacturers equipment,.....all periphials aside.



I had no such expectation.

Your question should have been
addressed to "RSD99."

It helps if you pay attention to attributions...
or follow the thread.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:37:45 GMT, Gregory W Blank
wrote:

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Film cameras are only economical if you don't use them. (Which is why
scanning's so great: it takes so long that it prevents you from doing as
much photography as you'd like, thus minimizing wear on one's cameras.)


Hogwash.


Nah. If you work in both camps, you know
Dave speaks the truth.

Film is wonderful when it's all done but it's
a huge amount of work. And at some point,
even for a hobby -- you gotta ask what your
time is worth.

If it's the process that matters to you
(as opposed to the results) that's quite
another matter. Eg., if you wish to
practice alchemy in the darkroom,
versus on a monitor -- who's to argue?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:37:45 GMT, Gregory W Blank
wrote:

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Film cameras are only economical if you don't use them. (Which is why
scanning's so great: it takes so long that it prevents you from doing as
much photography as you'd like, thus minimizing wear on one's cameras.)


Hogwash.


Nah. If you work in both camps, you know
Dave speaks the truth.

Film is wonderful when it's all done but it's
a huge amount of work. And at some point,
even for a hobby -- you gotta ask what your
time is worth.

If it's the process that matters to you
(as opposed to the results) that's quite
another matter. Eg., if you wish to
practice alchemy in the darkroom,
versus on a monitor -- who's to argue?

I shoot a ton of film, my cameras don't get
alot of rest. I personally don't scan or personally print but about
10% if that,..... of the stuff used. I mostly hand my film over as an
end product to several other people and companies and they take on the
scanning and time costs not me. The camera regardless
of which type, is a tool to my money making. Like darkroom work
the scanning eats into shooting so I avoid it.

For this very reason I would like to see more consumer level
automated film scanners, that you set and forget until done.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article , Gregory W Blank
wrote:

For this very reason I would like to see more consumer level
automated film scanners, that you set and forget until done.

FWIW, for 35mm at work we use Nikon's slide feeder which still only does
about 28 slides at a time. It is a compromise that a discriminating
professional might not tolerate. (Average scanning time is about 65
seconds per slide.)

In article ,
(one_of_many) wrote:

In article , Gregory W Blank
wrote:

For this very reason I would like to see more consumer level
automated film scanners, that you set and forget until done.

FWIW, for 35mm at work we use Nikon's slide feeder which still only does
about 28 slides at a time. It is a compromise that a discriminating
professional might not tolerate. (Average scanning time is about 65
seconds per slide.)

Which scanner? I'd like to be able to do 28 whether mounted or not.
Is the resolution that bad,...or other issues/ like lack of getting good
scans across varying exposures?
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Gregory W Blank" wrote:

FWIW, for 35mm at work we use Nikon's slide feeder which still only does
about 28 slides at a time. It is a compromise that a discriminating
professional might not tolerate. (Average scanning time is about 65
seconds per slide.)

Which scanner? I'd like to be able to do 28 whether mounted or not.
Is the resolution that bad,...or other issues/ like lack of getting good
scans across varying exposures?

As I understand it, the problem with all the Nikon scanners is DOF. For my
645 slides, I have to check multiple points in the frame and manually set
the focus so that everywhere in the frame is within 10 focus units of the
set focus. If I want sharp scans. Since I do landscapey things, I need
everything sharp. When I take shots that actually have a subject, it's a lot
easier, since scanner focus doesn't matter for out of focus areas. Sometimes
it takes several tries to get the film flat in the holder.

So three frames a day is par for the course.

My understanding is that the 35mm types just put up with soft edges.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , Gregory W Blank
wrote:

In article ,
(one_of_many) wrote:

FWIW, for 35mm at work we use Nikon's slide feeder which still only does
about 28 slides at a time. It is a compromise that a discriminating
professional might not tolerate. (Average scanning time is about 65
seconds per slide.)

Which scanner? I'd like to be able to do 28 whether mounted or not.
Is the resolution that bad,...or other issues/ like lack of getting good
scans across varying exposures?

Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. We use the film-strip carrier as well as the
mounted-slide feed. (BTW: Don't confuse the film-strip carrier of this
model with the earlier type - totally different. This one is much better.)

The outcomes are good enough, Greg. Autofocus works, range is good,
sharpness is good, automation software is good. When I mention
'compromise' I was speaking to the often neccessary adjustments made on a
per-slide, case-by-case basis - batching naturally obviates that.

RSD99 writes:

Actually yes ... virtually ALL of them (motherboards, that is) can be set up with a rather
large range of microprocessors.

My 8086 won't fit in the socket on any of my current motherboards.

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

Gregory W Blank writes:

Just out of curiousity, why would you expect a manufacturer
to make equipment that had completely compatible hardware
with other manufacturers equipment,.....all periphials aside.

You wouldn't; which is why DSLRs with interchangeable sensors aren't
likely to be forthcoming. After all, interchangeable lenses (across
manufacturers) are still scarce.

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

David J. Littleboy writes:

The cost of the body is a pretty small part of the cost of the system; maybe
1/3 at most.

You don't buy a new system every six months. And with film, you don't
buy anything every six months. But with a DSLR, you shell out $8000 a
year just for an "upgrade."

And consumer bodies have limited shutter cycles, so 18 months
of heavy use, and the body's dead anyway.

Who said anything about consumer bodies? How many consumers are
spending $8000 on a camera body?

We're talking about US$1,000 consumer bodies here.

Are we?

Pros who can get US$8000 use out of a camera in 18 months have
no trouble buying such a camera.

Pros have to show that such an acquisition is cost-effective.

The problem with the US$11 roll of film is that you have to pay that every
time you take the camera out. Shoot a roll a week, and in two years you are
way ahead with digital.

Two years is a long time. You'd go through three digital bodies in that
time.

Again, it's more expensive to put a roll a week through a 20-year old camera
than it is to buy a consumer dSLR.

But you can buy a professional film SLR for the same cost as a consumer
DSLR.

What's wrong with a twenty-year-old camera?

And you also have the problem that shutter and film advance
mechanisms have finite lifetimes.

Which you may never reach on a good SLR. Not everyone has the motor
drive perpetually engaged.

At my current rate of wear and tear on my most heavily used SLR, I still
have more than half a century before the shutter is likely to wear out.

Film cameras are only economical if you don't use them.

I use them all the time, and they still seem economical to me.

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