|
| 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 |
|
#622
June 22nd 04, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
David J. Littleboy wrote:
Since when has this become a digital 35mm group? Can y'all find a room or something? It's been a digital 35mm group since about a year ago when people discovered that 11MP digital provides the one thing that makes MF meaningful: significantly better image quality than 35mm. And whether that last bit be true or not, the market is showing that many MF and would-be MF photographers are agreeing. 
|
|
#623
June 22nd 04, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
MF DIGITAL DEF (was why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better)
In article , "Q.G. de Bakker"
wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: Since when has this become a digital 35mm group? Can y'all find a room or something? It's been a digital 35mm group since about a year ago when people discovered that 11MP digital provides the one thing that makes MF meaningful: significantly better image quality than 35mm. And whether that last bit be true or not, the market is showing that many MF and would-be MF photographers are agreeing. So is it official now? Medium-Format photography includes digital camera work? How do we make that distinction? MF has traditinally meant a camera that uses film of approximately 70mm x whatever (6x45 being the lower limit). What's the pixel count/bit-depth/pixel-size/pixel-shape requisite for a MF digital camera? ====== I'm probabably signing off this group pretty soon. It no longer has valuable content, just the same old same-old over and over and the new digital-impressionistic opinions which I've no interest in outside of the day-jobs. At work I have all the digital I can use. It's a given there, perfectly pragmatic. No bull****, no arguments neccessary. It amazes me that y'all go on and on over digital vs. film.
|
|
#624
June 22nd 04, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.
Gordon Moat wrote:
Ahh . . . yes . . . . the power behind an endless marketing onslaught that makes people think something is "garbage" or another thing is "better" . . .. trying to fake rational looking arguments posing as "facts" to convince and opinion . . . so will the Chinese be sold on this . . . I think it is far too early to tell about that. I don't. ;-) You are already convinced that film is "garbage", No, no, no, no, no... Sigh... It's the general principle i'm explaining: if some group is proclaiming something new is the thing to have, other groups, ***even without knowing what and why***, will want the same and ***not want*** (!) the other, known, "old" stuff anymore. Not want = refuse = garbage. See? so obviously you think you already know this answer. Obviously i believe that Chinese are no different from the rest of us, yes. I'm willing to be surprised. I have no hopes that will happen, though. I would rather wait a few months, and observe what actually happens. Recall that people do not always choose the "better" technology, just the one that is marketed "better". There are many examples of this, though the most prominent are computer based technologies. Doesn't matter one bit whether something really is better or just perceived as being better, for whatever reason, true or false. Why, do you think, advertising works at all? ;-) 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? They have not been marketed (sold) on the idea that direct digital imaging is "better", nor that film is "garbage". Yes, they have! Also, they have been sold on the idea that wireless imaging is great, which makes me think they will embrace that technology, rather than backtrack three years to direct digital imaging. ;-) Replace cameras with phones? Or cameras with cameras in phones? Those cameras in phones which "do" direct digital imaging? 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? ;-) Silly me . . . I forget that you think film is "garbage". [...] Funny how you can believe that. And build a case on it... ;-) Not likely in my opinion. I think direct digital imaging will remain a high end niche, as will medium format in China. I think the mass market will be camera phones. [...] .... Which do direct digital imaging in a way worse, and (more importantly) more expensive (!!!) than consumer digital cameras. I don't think your point is very sound. Is it? [...] While I am not sure about the density of home darkroom equipment, it does appear that film processing is readily available in most cities in China. The way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you think no photography exists in China currently. Oh sure! No doubt about the wet-photography infrastructure already being there in China! Of course it is! But, if correctly identified as a growth market, there is room left for growth. And that's what we're talking about: growth into what direction, into what? Yes. Or the digital equivalent of our one-hour photo-stores. That's what's we see in "the West" too, right? Sure, and in the US, very few people are printing images from digital cameras. Look at the usage patterns, and you find most people using digital images for e-mail, or showing "slide" shows to their friends on the back LCDs of these digital cameras. When you look at the usage patterns in "the West", you find these usage patterns are dominant, and can be well addressed by wireless imaging. Next consider that internet usage and e-mail are very restricted in China. So the people there have not adopted the western practice of computer usage. Camera phones perfectly address the digital imaging need in China, and are already a hot seller. My opinion is that the introduction and establishment of wireless imaging in mainland China has already doomed any large success in digital imaging. To use your phrase, they are throwing out our "garbage", and getting the latest . . . wireless imaging. You sound just like Bob: no end to the "camera-phone" theme. ;-);-) Let's put a stop to that: noone i know or know of is happy with the quality of cell-phone digital cameras. They're a gimmick, and an very expensive one too (not just the phones, but also the online-time needed to send them somewhere). Current camera phones do not address the needs of anyone except those who dote on gadgets. Things may change, yes. But when? So lets keep a bit more in touch with the world as it is today! ;-) Yes, the internet provides a way to share photos. But even without people were and are taking photos, and do whatever they do with them. The development we have seen is that consumers (and now many professionals too) have switched to digital, replacing (!!!) their old film P&Ss. This has resulted in "wet" one-hour labs being replaced by digital one-hour labs. People still want prints. What can you do...? ;-) 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. We differ greatly here. My opinion is that wireless imaging will be the predominant technology. Ah well... ;-) Well you've come around quite a bit. Good. ;-) Sure, nothing wrong with niche and speciality markets. Leica is a niche player, and so are most medium format companies. What we should wonder about is whether or not Hasselblad and others can sell 10000 new cameras in China. Again that "niche" thing. Digital imaging is not a niche thing, and will not be one in China or anywhere else either. You're sure you're not a board member of one of those MF companies who only know wake up to see where their market is moving off to? ;-) Next, you must stop saying "niche market" and start saying "growth market"! No . . . I don't think it will ever be more than a niche market. It will. "Trust me." ;-) Things that begin can't be "big" right away. But one mustn't confuse "still small" with "niche". Okay, then I feel that the direct digital imaging market will remain "still small". But why? What is new is that access to capitol, investments, and underwriting (insurance) are strictly controlled by the central government in China. This is very different to the way things function in the West, and greatly limits the scope of large endeavours. You're not saying they can't work with that, are you? 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. Though the central Chinese government wishes to have Chinese businesses retain control of industries, and not be overrun by foreign companies. [...] Yet those foreign companies have, or are in the process of gaining, foothold over there. But granted, mostly those that come to benefit form low labour costs. Not very many yet (!) whose aim it is to find a new market for their products. But how have we ended up here? All i was hoping to bring to our attention was that MF manufactuers are in deep trouble. Not in the near future, but right now. And that that is so because of the present deluge of 35 mm based digital products. And that if they don't do something and do it right now, we MF photographers will all be holding "classics", no-longer-available-in-any-shop-near-you-or-wherever products in the very, very near future. There. I have said it again. ;-) The sad thing: it's not speculation about things that might be, but an observations of things that are unfolding before our very eyes right now.
|
|
#625
June 22nd 04, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
MF DIGITAL DEF (was why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better)
|
|
#626
June 22nd 04, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
MF DIGITAL DEF (was why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better)
one_of_many writes:
I'm probabably signing off this group pretty soon. Bye. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
|
|
#627
June 22nd 04, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . Obviously i believe that Chinese are no different from the rest of us, yes. I'm willing to be surprised. I have no hopes that will happen, though. Okay, I am willing to be surprised as well. If I could actually predict the future, I would have those lottery winnings already. ;-) I would rather wait a few months, and observe what actually happens. Recall that people do not always choose the "better" technology, just the one that is marketed "better". There are many examples of this, though the most prominent are computer based technologies. Doesn't matter one bit whether something really is better or just perceived as being better, for whatever reason, true or false. Why, do you think, advertising works at all? ;-) Quite simply, it just provides a compelling distraction. I work mainly with the advertising industry, though business has been a little down lately. 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? They have not been marketed (sold) on the idea that direct digital imaging is "better", nor that film is "garbage". Yes, they have! Care to share some ads in China that you have found? I have not found any examples yet, but I would enjoy seeing some. Also, they have been sold on the idea that wireless imaging is great, which makes me think they will embrace that technology, rather than backtrack three years to direct digital imaging. ;-) Replace cameras with phones? Or cameras with cameras in phones? Those cameras in phones which "do" direct digital imaging? Absolutely. Remember, this refers only to the mass market, not to high end digital SLR buyers. . . . . . . . . . . . Not likely in my opinion. I think direct digital imaging will remain a high end niche, as will medium format in China. I think the mass market will be camera phones. [...] ... Which do direct digital imaging in a way worse, and (more importantly) more expensive (!!!) than consumer digital cameras. Actually, the cost structure is lower than consumer level P&S digital cameras. This cost structure even holds in the US, where mobile phone service providers charge higher rates than in Europe or Japan. In fact, the US market is actually behind other western countries in mobile phone technology. I don't think your point is very sound. Is it? Sure it is . . . there are 2 MP phone cameras already, with better just waiting in the wings. Many P&S digital camera users have already found that 3 MP solves their e-mail needs more than enough. There are also camera phones that have zoom lenses, and LED flash systems, that will soon enter the larger world market. Nokia just started marketing a video capable camera phone in the US, which surprises me a bit, since this is about one year earlier than I expected to see anything like that. A camera phone exactly meets the needs of about 90% of the digital imaging users. It provides a quick way to share images, or send images by e-mail. I doubt many will ever try to print a picture from one, but the images can look good on a computer monitor. Where does that leave low end consumer digital P&S cameras, especially when phone service providers cut the costs of the camera phones to get people into a one year plan? [...] While I am not sure about the density of home darkroom equipment, it does appear that film processing is readily available in most cities in China. The way you phrased your response leads me to believe that you think no photography exists in China currently. Oh sure! No doubt about the wet-photography infrastructure already being there in China! Of course it is! But, if correctly identified as a growth market, there is room left for growth. And that's what we're talking about: growth into what direction, into what? Hard to tell on that. It appears that photo finishing in China is mostly in the larger cities. I am not even sure about smaller cities in China, though that might be another direction. If tourism increased to China, that could allow an expansion. Other factors would be increases in public resources to outlying areas (like electricity to farm areas), though that is really long term. Yes. Or the digital equivalent of our one-hour photo-stores. That's what's we see in "the West" too, right? Sure, and in the US, very few people are printing images from digital cameras. Look at the usage patterns, and you find most people using digital images for e-mail, or showing "slide" shows to their friends on the back LCDs of these digital cameras. When you look at the usage patterns in "the West", you find these usage patterns are dominant, and can be well addressed by wireless imaging. Next consider that internet usage and e-mail are very restricted in China. So the people there have not adopted the western practice of computer usage. Camera phones perfectly address the digital imaging need in China, and are already a hot seller. My opinion is that the introduction and establishment of wireless imaging in mainland China has already doomed any large success in digital imaging. To use your phrase, they are throwing out our "garbage", and getting the latest . . . wireless imaging. You sound just like Bob: no end to the "camera-phone" theme. ;-);-) Who do you think got him started on camera phones and wireless imaging? ;-) I really do believe that wireless imaging is the next big thing in mass market imaging, and I have been stated that for nearly two years. I think the sales volumes and density of users now back me up on that claim. Anyway, as I tried to state, the mass market is very different from niche markets. Direct digital SLR cameras are a niche market. That niche market seemingly intrudes on the medium format niche market, or at least that is one reason we are having this discussion. So China fits in a way that it might allow one, or both, of those niche markets to grow slightly, or just continue at current levels. Let's put a stop to that: noone i know or know of is happy with the quality of cell-phone digital cameras. They're a gimmick, and an very expensive one too (not just the phones, but also the online-time needed to send them somewhere). Current camera phones do not address the needs of anyone except those who dote on gadgets. Things may change, yes. But when? I was supposing two years, though with the introduction this month of the latest Nokia in the US (that does video and still images), it could be sooner. Sure, I think they are gimmicks. I might even get one at some point in the near future. They are actually fun for people photos, especially the ones that go "Say Cheese!" instead of making a click shutter sound. So lets keep a bit more in touch with the world as it is today! ;-) Yes, the internet provides a way to share photos. But even without people were and are taking photos, and do whatever they do with them. The development we have seen is that consumers (and now many professionals too) have switched to digital, replacing (!!!) their old film P&Ss. This has resulted in "wet" one-hour labs being replaced by digital one-hour labs. People still want prints. What can you do...? ;-) I am glad some people still want prints. I doubt many professionals use one-hour labs. Anyway, professional photographers are a niche market with many subdivisions, and not likely to act in the same way a mass market will. 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. We differ greatly here. My opinion is that wireless imaging will be the predominant technology. Ah well... ;-) Well you've come around quite a bit. Good. ;-) Sure, nothing wrong with niche and speciality markets. Leica is a niche player, and so are most medium format companies. What we should wonder about is whether or not Hasselblad and others can sell 10000 new cameras in China. Again that "niche" thing. Digital imaging is not a niche thing, and will not be one in China or anywhere else either. I don't lump P&S digital in the same grouping with direct digital SLR cameras, nor even those with digital backs. Thus, I look at the digital still imaging market as three groups, consumer P&S, digital SLR, and digital backs. You're sure you're not a board member of one of those MF companies who only know wake up to see where their market is moving off to? ;-) Funny, I think if you were on the Hasselblad board, you would shut down the company. ;-) Next, you must stop saying "niche market" and start saying "growth market"! No . . . I don't think it will ever be more than a niche market. It will. "Trust me." ;-) Hah hah . . . that funny phrase again. Obviously, if no devices were sold in one year, and then some devices sold the next year, that could be called a "growth" market. Bentley recently opened up an outlet in Russia, where there was not one previously . . . so that must be a "growth" market for Bentley cars. ;-) Things that begin can't be "big" right away. But one mustn't confuse "still small" with "niche". Okay, then I feel that the direct digital imaging market will remain "still small". But why? Costs, market restrictions unique to China, and an already existing wireless imaging market. What is new is that access to capitol, investments, and underwriting (insurance) are strictly controlled by the central government in China. This is very different to the way things function in the West, and greatly limits the scope of large endeavours. You're not saying they can't work with that, are you? Unfortunately, that is an area in which change is very slow, and the Chinese government has not done anything to indicate a future policy change. I hope they will change this policy, but I have no basis on which to believe that they will do so. 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. Though the central Chinese government wishes to have Chinese businesses retain control of industries, and not be overrun by foreign companies. [...] Yet those foreign companies have, or are in the process of gaining, foothold over there. But granted, mostly those that come to benefit form low labour costs. Not very many yet (!) whose aim it is to find a new market for their products. Yes, but I do hope that will change. But how have we ended up here? All i was hoping to bring to our attention was that MF manufactuers are in deep trouble. Not in the near future, but right now. Sure, I think we agree on that. I think we arrived at China in the hopes that some new sales might happen there, especially that new sales in the west are likely under 40000 new units a year. And that that is so because of the present deluge of 35 mm based digital products. And that if they don't do something and do it right now, we MF photographers will all be holding "classics", no-longer-available-in-any-shop-near-you-or-wherever products in the very, very near future. I think a worse case would be a few companies, with special orders only, much like large format photography. However, that would place the market in the west at barely 20% of what it is currently, so obviously some companies would disappear. There. I have said it again. ;-) The sad thing: it's not speculation about things that might be, but an observations of things that are unfolding before our very eyes right now. Sure, which is why we are having this conversation. So let us simplify this a bit, and only speculate on Hasselblad, which seems to be in trouble. They are already doing marketing and showcase appearances in China. They are able to sell products in China. Based on some figures, it seems that they are selling just under 10000 new cameras a year in the west. Worst case is that number being reduced to 3000 new cameras a year in the west, and maybe not enough to continue. How many cameras would they need to sell in China to continue the company? So here is my worse case vision: If I were to guess about Hasselblad, I would think the made in Sweden cameras would disappear, maybe as early as next year. I would also think that the Zeiss lenses would disappear, which would also kill off Rollei medium format, and make them a consumer P&S company. Anyway, only engineering services would continue for Hasselblad in Sweden, with the only cameras being made and sold as Hasselblad, the products now from the co-operation with Fuji, the Xpan and H1. My guess is that even with Hasselblad branded Fuji products, less than 5000 H1 cameras would sell world-wide in a year. Okay, so Zeiss stops making lenses for medium format, which leaves Rollei with Schneider. Schneider is low volume, which would mean the Rollei 6000 series would be a special order boutique item only. Rollei essentially leaves the medium format market to become a consumer digital P&S company. Pentax and Bronica would already have sold off most of their inventory and stock by next year. Then they would announce that only spare parts would be available, until remaining stocks were sold. While Pentax may continue with 35 mm and small digital, I think Bronica would disappear entirely. That leaves Mamiya, who may be the only company left. They would offer 645 sized bundles, as they do now, with digital backs from Leaf, to address the perceived needs of a few. My guess is that even with a drop out of other medium format companies, they would have less than 12000 new unit sales a year (barely what they do now) for all camera body production. I think for those who want film medium format, only the large 6x7 cameras, RZ67 and rangefinder model 7 II, would continue, though their 645 would have an optional film back. So taken together, this would place medium format at 10000 to 20000 new units annually world-wide. This is substantially lower than the current 40000 to 50000 annual units, and nearly the same as large format sales volume. Of course, I should state again this is the worse case scenario I can imagine, though it might become reality. I don't think either of us really believes that the current 40000 to 50000 new unit sales can continue into the future. Where we might differ is that I doubt medium format backs will suddenly drop substantially in price to suddenly support the current new unit sales volume. I think the proof of that is the Mamiya 645 and Leaf back bundle now selling for just under $7000 in the US. Even with a price close to the top of the line Canon direct digital SLR, sales of this Mamiya are barely 2% of the sales of the Canon. The Leaf back even provides slightly better colour quality, though apparently that is just not enough to entice buyers . . . and I doubt a digital back ever will do better in sales. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!
|
|
#628
June 22nd 04, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
... Roger's a friend of mine, we've photographed together in New Mexico and a .... He has a Ph.D. from MIT and I rarely disagree with him on photo matters, .... I was not clear in my writing. BobM points to Roger's page as substantive evidence that an 8x10 crop from 35mm Velvia has 28 MP of printable image detail. I don't read it that way, and I don't believe Roger intended to make that statement. I don't have a problem with Roger's observations about his printer and print quality. My only objection is Bob taking that incidental Velvia comment out of context, and using it as primary basis for his latest wild goose romp.
|
|
#629
June 22nd 04, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
|
|
#630
June 22nd 04, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "MikeWhy" A few short comments on Mr. Clark's article. 1) Mr. Clark states that "in good lighting ... 600 ppi prints are noticeably sharper" than the same image printed at 300 ppi. He also says "Every printer has different capabilities" and that his could just resolve the lines in his test pattern at 1200 dpi output. A lot of printers can do better than that, I think. Roger's a friend of mine, we've photographed together in New Mexico and a couple weeks ago he showed me a good place to photograph mountain goats near his home in Colorado and we shot them together. We're also leading a fly-in camping trip to Alaska this fall to photograph grizzly bears at close range. He has a Ph.D. from MIT and I rarely disagree with him on photo matters, but it's worth pointing out that he's using his home gear for these tests and his printer is an HP 1220C, which isn't as good as the better Epson or Canon photo printers. He gets his "keepers" printed locally on a LightJet. By chance I had recently printed the test pattern on his web site, using it to test lens resolution as we compared different lenses ( http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...ens-sharpness/ ) ... with my Epson 2200 I can print this target at 2,880 x 1,440 dpi on premium glossy paper (and then photograph it for the lens tests) and I can see every line down to the 1 pixel gradation for the horizontal lines (the 2880 side), so I'd expect different results if I printed his same file on my printer or something like the Canon S9100 model. Or even the HP 7960, which is a true photo printer, unlike the 1220C. Bill I am just a bit confused why these are GIF files. A printer test pattern, especially one comprised of vector artwork, would be better originated as an EPS file. Any PostScript capable printer should be able to do a good job with an EPS. Just in case anyone wants to try an EPS file on their inkjet, I am providing a link to a printers target that I use on some commercial work. It is a bit large for some desktop printers, so there may be some need to cut it up in Adobe Illustrator, and make it fit a smaller paper size. http://www.allgstudio.com/support_files/ The file is named "ColorBars.eps". It might actually be easier to just turn the ClarkVision GIF file into an EPS. Any idea why that is a GIF, and not an EPS? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!
|
| 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 |
Linear Mode
