Digital vs Film Resolution

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:55:45 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
wrote:


And to complicate matters, the human eye does that
(http://webvision.med.utah.edu/KallSpatial.html#csf) even before the
brain starts inventing/expecting things like in this fill-in-the
blanks example:

I will check that out tommorow after a long sleep, lol. At this time
on a sunday evening my brain has switched off!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Triangle-or-not.gif
There is of course no triangle, but we want to see it due to clues
from the cut-out sectors. We may even briefly imagine the "triangle"
is darker than pure white. IMO that can also help apparent (not real)
resolution when we add noise/grain to an image, as long as the signal
to noise ratio is high enough.

Yeah, I keep seeing the triangle "darken" and almost a thin black line
between the circle cutouts on the edge of the triangle.

Thanks for showing that, my lad thinks its great :-) and so do I,
"tricks" like that fasinate me.


Bart

--
Jonathan Wilson.
www.somethingerotic.com

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 17:55:45 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
wrote:


And to complicate matters, the human eye does that
(http://webvision.med.utah.edu/KallSpatial.html#csf) even before the
brain starts inventing/expecting things like in this fill-in-the
blanks example:

I will check that out tommorow after a long sleep, lol. At this time
on a sunday evening my brain has switched off!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Triangle-or-not.gif
There is of course no triangle, but we want to see it due to clues
from the cut-out sectors. We may even briefly imagine the "triangle"
is darker than pure white. IMO that can also help apparent (not real)
resolution when we add noise/grain to an image, as long as the signal
to noise ratio is high enough.

Yeah, I keep seeing the triangle "darken" and almost a thin black line
between the circle cutouts on the edge of the triangle.

Thanks for showing that, my lad thinks its great :-) and so do I,
"tricks" like that fasinate me.


Bart

--
Jonathan Wilson.
www.somethingerotic.com

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in news:41602101$0$568
:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Triangle-or-not.gif

WOW - three packman in the same game.
But - where is the triangle you are talking about?

Just kidding - yes the brain is cheating all the time
while we are using our sight. Many people think that
cameras are lousy because they cannot catch what we
see. But -- we "see" much more than is possible to catch.
One example is low light. It is very difficult to take
pictures in low light (without a flash). You need tripods.
And even then the picture is low res and grainy. But - I
was there you say - and it looked much better. OK - it
is partly true - the eye is very efficient. But - it is
also true that you use your memory a lot - both from
previous experience and to integrate the picture over
several seconds. Integrating moving objects in your
camera over several seconds will get you unsharp pictures.
But the brain can integrate over moving pictures.


/Roland

Bruce Murphy wrote:
Dick LeadWinger writes:


I have commercial CD's that are as old as Sony's first CD player. At
least 20 years old. I see no signs of deterioration.


WHereas quite a lot of early CDs did see various delamination and
oxidisation problems.

I agree with you Bruce, I had a full box of 20 unused Sony CD's become
unusable. The forgotten box was mistakenly placed in an area where most
most storage items are kept, for almost two years. When found, the
coating had a mild feeling of being gummy and sticky. There were
crinkles in the shapes of *C's* all over the CD's. There were beyond use
and were discarded.

nick



I would expect
them to last at least another 20 years. Are home-burned CD's inferior
to commercial CD's?


Yes, they're a liquid dye layer rather than a metal film embedded in
plastic.

B

Bruce Murphy wrote:
Dick LeadWinger writes:


I have commercial CD's that are as old as Sony's first CD player. At
least 20 years old. I see no signs of deterioration.


WHereas quite a lot of early CDs did see various delamination and
oxidisation problems.

I agree with you Bruce, I had a full box of 20 unused Sony CD's become
unusable. The forgotten box was mistakenly placed in an area where most
most storage items are kept, for almost two years. When found, the
coating had a mild feeling of being gummy and sticky. There were
crinkles in the shapes of *C's* all over the CD's. There were beyond use
and were discarded.

nick



I would expect
them to last at least another 20 years. Are home-burned CD's inferior
to commercial CD's?


Yes, they're a liquid dye layer rather than a metal film embedded in
plastic.

B

Jer wrote:
wrote:


I currently back up to regular IDE hard drives that are unplugged in
between
backups.

--
Eric
http://canid.com/



Interesting someone finally mentioned this method. Hard drives are like
eggs - cheaper by the dozen. I have 20+ hard drives dedicated to
archival usage stored in a data safe, and all are reformatted on their
5th birthday. The cost of this method is comparatively less than
others, significantly more robust, and a huge time saver. In the odd
event one won't spin up (which happened once) it was sent to a data
retrieval firm. Their technology and methods will be around a lot
longer than I'll be. I refuse to **** around with anything less and I
dropped my last CD on the floor a long time ago.


I don't care to continue using CD's to store my photo's. About a year or
so ago, I started cataloging and storing them on external hard drives. I
keep untouched originals, same photos that have been worked, same photos
altered as in making montages and/or other pictorial effects, and same
photo's sized to specific dimensioning, all in each photo's tagged
folder. I find it very easy to extract a photo, use it to do whatever i
want to do with it then return it to it's folder. I also store seemingly
senseless scenes taken randomly to be later considered for use as
backgrounds for people photos whose backgrounds need changing or in
creating montage photo effects.

I have, of late, been considering using PCMCIA cards as a means to store
random photos taken when traveling and downloading them through the lap
top. By using PCMCIA cards, which are easily carried, I can work on
photos using other computers of friends when visiting their facilities
and gaining their helpful criticism and upon arriving home, place them
in the much larger external drives used for photo storage.

I don't consider storing photos on CD's, regardless of how many are made
for backup or stored in different areas as a means to protect them, as
being a good way to store photo's. I found using such methods to satisfy
my needs to be more of a time consuming pain rather than an asset.

Though I have not tried this method, I have been thinking about buying
used low capacity laptop hard drives, that people no longer want because
they had bought much larger capacity hard drives to use in their lap
tops. Then placing them in an external case and storing photos on them.
They take up much less room in a desk drawer and even the small capacity
10~20 GB drives are capable of storing thousands of photo's.

The bottom line for me is that CD's are out (way out) for storage
purposes and hard drives/PCMCIA cards are in. In not too often cases, I
may use CD's to send a photo series to friends and relations who want
them. But most of the time, my friends and relations just want to see
them and have them sent to them via the Internet.

nick

On 3 Oct 2004 20:20:14 GMT, Roland Karlsson
wrote:

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in news:41602101$0$568
:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Triangle-or-not.gif

WOW - three packman in the same game.
But - where is the triangle you are talking about?

Just kidding - yes the brain is cheating all the time
while we are using our sight. Many people think that
cameras are lousy because they cannot catch what we
see. But -- we "see" much more than is possible to catch.
One example is low light. It is very difficult to take
pictures in low light (without a flash). You need tripods.
And even then the picture is low res and grainy. But - I
was there you say - and it looked much better. OK - it
is partly true - the eye is very efficient. But - it is
also true that you use your memory a lot - both from
previous experience and to integrate the picture over
several seconds. Integrating moving objects in your
camera over several seconds will get you unsharp pictures.
But the brain can integrate over moving pictures.

In dark situations I tend to see "noise" in my vision (I'm partially
night blind)... mottled patterns very similar to really bad noise in
high ISO colour digital (when you've pushed the camera way beyond its
best high ISO and gone into the last ditch attempt to get something,
lol) but the patterns shift and move, so I can work out what I'm
seeing based on the latent images and my brain putting in the missing
information,

I think one of the most interesting things I find about vision over
photography is that they eye and brain can totaly remove any idea of
DOF and what is in or out of focus as it scans between many points and
produces a "picture" where everything is (apparently) in focus; or it
works in reverse and that one item you notice becomes the only thing
that seems in focus (Usually some stunning woman that has caught my
attention.... or at least used to when I was young, lol)

I've also noticed that some photographic methods seem to be more used
within the film/TV industry... especially graduated filters of a
blue/purple tinge in documentarys; also just how much barrel
distortion there is on a lot of film cameras has really caught my eye
reciently. I have no idea if its always been there, or because I know
about it and sometimes correct it in my photographs I see it more
readily.





/Roland

--
Jonathan Wilson.
www.somethingerotic.com

nick c wrote:


I don't care to continue using CD's to store my photo's. About a year or
so ago, I started cataloging and storing them on external hard drives. I
keep untouched originals, same photos that have been worked, same photos
altered as in making montages and/or other pictorial effects, and same
photo's sized to specific dimensioning, all in each photo's tagged
folder. I find it very easy to extract a photo, use it to do whatever i
want to do with it then return it to it's folder. I also store seemingly
senseless scenes taken randomly to be later considered for use as
backgrounds for people photos whose backgrounds need changing or in
creating montage photo effects.

I have, of late, been considering using PCMCIA cards as a means to store
random photos taken when traveling and downloading them through the lap
top. By using PCMCIA cards, which are easily carried, I can work on
photos using other computers of friends when visiting their facilities
and gaining their helpful criticism and upon arriving home, place them
in the much larger external drives used for photo storage.

I don't consider storing photos on CD's, regardless of how many are made
for backup or stored in different areas as a means to protect them, as
being a good way to store photo's. I found using such methods to satisfy
my needs to be more of a time consuming pain rather than an asset.

Though I have not tried this method, I have been thinking about buying
used low capacity laptop hard drives, that people no longer want because
they had bought much larger capacity hard drives to use in their lap
tops. Then placing them in an external case and storing photos on them.
They take up much less room in a desk drawer and even the small capacity
10~20 GB drives are capable of storing thousands of photo's.

The bottom line for me is that CD's are out (way out) for storage
purposes and hard drives/PCMCIA cards are in. In not too often cases, I
may use CD's to send a photo series to friends and relations who want
them. But most of the time, my friends and relations just want to see
them and have them sent to them via the Internet.

nick



I've never had a CD actually fail on me, but friends have. One in
particular, while attempting to remove the disk from it's spindled box,
appeared to bend the CD quite a bit. Upon attempting to read it, you
bet, drive error. Armed with my trusty dusty magnifier, we learned what
happened - delamination. Looking back, I suppose this was at least one
incident that got me to thinking about my own long term plan. I also
still have a CD/DVD burner in this system for the same reasons as you.

Your idea of used laptop drives seems like a good one if you freshly
format them beforehand. Format tracks age too, and even if the data
sectors are fresh, if the format dies, it's gone.

My hard drives are stored in anti-static wrappers and individually
boxed. Within reason, temperature/humidity isn't much to get wrapped
around the axle about, but commercial archival vaults account for this.

Yup, time being an issue, pop one in - baddabing - 120Gb of hi-speed R/W
storage. At $80 per, there is no equal.

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

"nick c" wrote in message
news:vL_7d.408988$8_6.385462@attbi_s04...
Bruce Murphy wrote:
Dick LeadWinger writes:


I have commercial CD's that are as old as Sony's first CD player.
At
least 20 years old. I see no signs of deterioration.


WHereas quite a lot of early CDs did see various delamination and
oxidisation problems.

I agree with you Bruce, I had a full box of 20 unused Sony CD's
become
unusable. The forgotten box was mistakenly placed in an area where
most
most storage items are kept, for almost two years. When found, the
coating had a mild feeling of being gummy and sticky. There were
crinkles in the shapes of *C's* all over the CD's. There were beyond
use
and were discarded.

I've yet to have it happen to me with CDs that I keep vertically in
open frames (no plastic jackets or envelopes) but it certainly seems
possible. A surprising number of plastic things a decade or so old
feel sticky. A random check of some older floppies did not show any
troubles but, again, I would not trust them. I may have mentioned
previously, IMHO, for archival purposes, the best thing seems to be to
copy archives to whatever is then regarded as the best medium every
few years.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

Jer wrote:
nick c wrote:


I don't care to continue using CD's to store my photo's. About a year
or so ago, I started cataloging and storing them on external hard
drives. I keep untouched originals, same photos that have been worked,
same photos altered as in making montages and/or other pictorial
effects, and same photo's sized to specific dimensioning, all in each
photo's tagged folder. I find it very easy to extract a photo, use it
to do whatever i want to do with it then return it to it's folder. I
also store seemingly senseless scenes taken randomly to be later
considered for use as backgrounds for people photos whose backgrounds
need changing or in creating montage photo effects.

I have, of late, been considering using PCMCIA cards as a means to
store random photos taken when traveling and downloading them through
the lap top. By using PCMCIA cards, which are easily carried, I can
work on photos using other computers of friends when visiting their
facilities and gaining their helpful criticism and upon arriving home,
place them in the much larger external drives used for photo storage.

I don't consider storing photos on CD's, regardless of how many are
made for backup or stored in different areas as a means to protect
them, as being a good way to store photo's. I found using such methods
to satisfy my needs to be more of a time consuming pain rather than an
asset.

Though I have not tried this method, I have been thinking about buying
used low capacity laptop hard drives, that people no longer want
because they had bought much larger capacity hard drives to use in
their lap tops. Then placing them in an external case and storing
photos on them. They take up much less room in a desk drawer and even
the small capacity 10~20 GB drives are capable of storing thousands of
photo's.

The bottom line for me is that CD's are out (way out) for storage
purposes and hard drives/PCMCIA cards are in. In not too often cases,
I may use CD's to send a photo series to friends and relations who
want them. But most of the time, my friends and relations just want to
see them and have them sent to them via the Internet.

nick



I've never had a CD actually fail on me, but friends have. One in
particular, while attempting to remove the disk from it's spindled box,
appeared to bend the CD quite a bit. Upon attempting to read it, you
bet, drive error. Armed with my trusty dusty magnifier, we learned what
happened - delamination. Looking back, I suppose this was at least one
incident that got me to thinking about my own long term plan. I also
still have a CD/DVD burner in this system for the same reasons as you.

Your idea of used laptop drives seems like a good one if you freshly
format them beforehand. Format tracks age too, and even if the data
sectors are fresh, if the format dies, it's gone.

My hard drives are stored in anti-static wrappers and individually
boxed. Within reason, temperature/humidity isn't much to get wrapped
around the axle about, but commercial archival vaults account for this.

Yup, time being an issue, pop one in - baddabing - 120Gb of hi-speed R/W
storage. At $80 per, there is no equal.


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