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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...
So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?
Has Kodak in fact begun supplying different/non-problematic sensors to Leica? In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all known problems now? "RichA" wrote in message oups.com... Kodak, Kodak, Kodak...What IS going on? This thing looked really good. The filter to fix the IR problem (if that will be their fix) is going to cost at least as much as a high quality IR filter, around $200-$300. Sensor replacement will likely wipe out any profit Kodak saw from this endevour. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/...Specifications |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...
Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera consumer."????? Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer? "Rich" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 6:27 pm, "Leica" wrote: So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem? Has Kodak in fact begun supplying different/non-problematic sensors to Leica? In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all known problems now? No idea, but apparently, they are selling. Kodak's sensors are probably better from a technical standpoint than any of the sensors in cameras from Canon, Nikon, etc, but better in spec from Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera consumer. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...
John Smith wrote:
Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera consumer."????? Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer? No. He means actual "industrial" use ... not taking photos. Some uses want no anti-aliasing at all, indeed, they want complete independence of pixels. I have had some such uses. Doug MCDonald |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...
What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
other that for taking photos? "Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera consumer."????? Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer? No. He means actual "industrial" use ... not taking photos. Some uses want no anti-aliasing at all, indeed, they want complete independence of pixels. I have had some such uses. Doug MCDonald |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...
John Smith wrote:
What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be other that for taking photos? "Industrial" or "scientific" use usually implies that no person would look at the result. Only a computer. It could be, for example, a photo-like use, like computerized face recognition. Or it could be quite unlike a plain photo use, such as using it to measure dimensions and color of rocks passing down a conveyor at a mine. Or it could be character recognition. None of these need antialiasing. Doug McDonald |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...
acl wrote:
You mentioned that there are applications that need complete independence of pixels; what would those be? Measuring the intensity of light emission from small areas, or what? I'm curious. That's right. Many of these uses don't use color, but some do. For example, cell counting. You have a microscope slide with randomly placed cells on it, dyed to fluoresce. Each cell fluoresces the same amount. Hence by looking at the image on a computer you count cells in each pixel. If a cell overlaps two or four pixels, you can usually assign the center of it to one of the pixels. Having no anti-aliasing helps this. You could use color if you had two or three cell types, dyed to fluroresce red, green, or blue. There are very common dyes that actually do this. Doug McDonald |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Any experience with Noiseware from Imagenomic Software?
I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to use. http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case. -- Frank ess |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Any experience with Noiseware from Imagenomic Software?
In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote: I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software. The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to use. http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case. I have been using the commercial version of Noiseware and am completely satisfied. Using it as a plug-in with PSE 4. As far as the learning curve, there is a simple method available that requires no "learning". That said, there are several other applications that do the same thing which may be better or easier to use (though I doubt it). -- Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Any experience with Noiseware from Imagenomic Software?
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:53:14 -0800, "Frank ess"
wrote: I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software. The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to use. http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case. I switched to Noise Ninja... Noiseware seemed to emphasise jpeg artifacts a bit more when I was using it with scanned 35mm film. NN as a Photoshop plugin is quite easy to use, especially if you simply profile each shot individually. Not much of a learning curve to be honest. Jim http://www.jamesphotography.ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper... | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 18 | December 18th 07 08:26 PM |
Interesting sensor white paper from DALSA | Rich | Digital Photography | 0 | October 29th 06 06:29 PM |
Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | October 19th 05 10:44 PM |
Kodak's DSLR sales are good! (From dpreview site) | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | May 1st 05 03:08 AM |
Anyone try Kodak's Digital B&W paper | Josh | Digital Photography | 8 | January 6th 05 01:35 AM |