A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old June 19th 04, 01:16 AM
Fernando
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?

the key here is again that such large images will benefit greatly from
larger MP quality from MF scanned film (with better scanners, anyway) and
larger (64MP?) digital backs with MF bodies etc.
This might not be a big market, but if it is a niche market with good
sales it could easily sustain the present 50,000 MF cameras/worldwide
sales that is the current industry, yes? Or at least, I hope so? ;-)


Me, I'll have my SS120 serviced once more, and then I'll probably sell
it and look into a new LS-9000.
Last time I compared a 12x18" digital print from my scanned 645 film
and from a Fuji S2Pro, I smiled and ordered another stock of Kodak
E100G... ;-)

BTW, Bob: I completed another round of MF lens testing. This time with
more Vega 120/2.8 MC numbers as well.
Still interested in getting the results? :-)

Have a nice day,

Fernando
  #552  
Old June 19th 04, 02:03 AM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.

Gordon Moat wrote:

Actually, I would more expect that they would not follow the same market
direction as other countries. I believe that each individual region needs

to be
considered on the basis of its' own culture. With that in mind, China is a

very
large place with many differing cultures, ethnic groups, and population
densities. I would imagine the start of marketing any product in China

might be
in the major cities, and there again you would have several cultures
intermingled in any large city in China.


Yes, you're right. But consider this: photography is not a traditional thing
belonging to a particular culture, nowhere in this world; globalization, and
the fact that though we humans display wide a variety of differing habits,
customs, likes, etc., we are still more alike than different, i.e. have the
same needs, wants, desires etc. We all use pens and pencils to write on
paper, we all use pots to cook in, we ... etc.
The appeal of creating images (especially recordings of ourselves and things
close to ourselves), and that of toys (for instance those with which to
create/record images), plus the wish for doing thingsthe convenient way is
pretty well universal.

Now why would that be? Why would those newcomers not get in at the point

we
are today?


Too early to give an answer on that.


It is not a time related thing.
People simply do no want to be "lumbered" with that which other people
discard as "old hat". And they're right, there is no reason why they should.
(That alone, without even knowing what the thing involved is, is probably
enough to create an instant dislike of the one thing c.q. a want for the
other. Girard's "mimetism", and all that. ;-))
Anyway, it's the way history has shown us things have a tendency to go: new
markets will embrace new technology, leaving the old markets struggling
behind, because the money there is already/still tied up in old technology.

They are apparently picking up on mobile
phone usage, and on text messaging. However, internet, e-mail, and

personal
computer usage are much lower percentage saturation in China than in

western
economies.


And what's the reason for that?
Not because they rather do long division on scraps of paper than use a
computer to do their accounting, is it? ;-)

Okay, I will take that bet. In two years, if China is not predominantly

digital
imaging (not camera phones), then I will buy you a disposable P&S digital
camera. If they are mostly a film imaging centre in two years, then you

buy me
a P&S film camera. Fair enough?


:-)))

Done! Strange bets you come up with...
"if China is not predominantly digital imaging", you'll have won too.
So if you win, i win. Good!



But you make it sound like it's a gamble. It's not. It's a "cert". ;-)


  #553  
Old June 19th 04, 02:08 AM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)

In article , wrote:
How has Fuji duped people into thinking that Frontier prints are the "gold"
standard of digitial printing? Inkjets look better.


There's really not a lot to choose between the Frontier and inkjet prints I
have, to be honest. The Frontier stuff is probably on better paper, but the
image quality doesn't seem to be a whole lot different. Having said that, my
inkjet (Espon 1290) is getting a bit long in the tooth now.
  #554  
Old June 19th 04, 02:27 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better


Hi rafe,

Do the math on a 300 dpi vs. Leica standard print (which is 392 dpi), viz:

Leica standard print is 8 lpmm on the print, that's equiv. to 16 dots/mm
(one black and one white line, one dot width minimum); 16 d/mm * 24.5
mm/inch = 392 dpi

More importantly, 392*392=153664 vs 90,000 for 300 dpi print, the ratio of
153664/90000= 1.71, so the wet print has at least 70% more information on
it than any 300 dpi "photorealistic" print of the same size and area

And of course, many wet prints can be above the Leica standard of 8 lpmm,
depending on the degree of enlargement etc., reaching 12 lpmm or even 16
lpmm on some printing papers.

In short, the simple math analysis makes it clear that wet prints to the
70+ year old Leica standard will be at least 70% more info and about 1/3rd
more resolution (392 vs 300 dpi) of the standard printer.

My analysis doesn't allow for the spreading of effective dot sizes under
many s/w and printer smoothing algorithms (and interpolation..), so this
would be a "best case" analysis for digital prints (at 300 dpi claimed)

hth bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #555  
Old June 19th 04, 02:41 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default is film < 42 lpmm? MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)

google will turn up lots of pages (many from engineering school labs ;-)
try for example
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd....e?OpenDocument

basically, one interpretation is that you have to sample at least twice
the rate of the maximum frequency you want to characterize. For us, it
means that a fixed sensor with say 100 pixels per mm can only respond at a
50 lpmm or lower rate.

So when a sensor that has say 124 pixels per mm is in a DSLR, it can
respond to 124/2 or 62 lpmm. Claims that it is recording 75 lpmm or any
higher value have to be challenged on the basis of the Nyquist theorem -
you aren't sampling fast enough to "see" a 75 lpmm image.

Even the maximum 62 lpmm would be hard to support, because the effects of
other system elements like the anti-aliasing low-pass filter and optics
and so on would likely reduce the system response below that of the sensor
alone. Most anti-aliasing cutoff filters are very sharp, and made just at
or above the Nyquist limit for the given sensor, another reason to doubt
higher lpmm (frequency) claims. This is done to prevent aliasing and moire
patterns and other image faults...

hth bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #556  
Old June 19th 04, 02:50 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?


Hi Fernando;

yes, but like you I am hoping scanners _do_ get better, and they are doing
so slowly (but getting cheaper faster too ;-)

lens test data

Yes!! ;-) I would be interested in the test data, esp. since there are so
many controversies over the reported lens tests on these lenses (largely,
I think, because the original Soviet lens tests were often of the lens at
wide open apertures with grainy B&W films, while more modern tests at
various apertures show how well these lenses often really perform ;-)

regards bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #557  
Old June 19th 04, 03:04 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)


Hi again Mike,

Yes, but I will add that the reason underlying this "convergence" is that
the human eye in older folks (ahem) drops from 8+ lpmm (younger) to 6 lpmm
(older) or so. So when folks can't see the differences between a 5.6 lpmm
print from a 6MP camera and an 8 lpmm print from a wet negative print,
they may well be right ;-) The differences are still there, and some folks
can see them ;-)

Similarly, the 8x10" print size is probably related to such quality
issues, rather than being its own thing? ;-) We print to 8x10" because it
was found in early testing (Barnack at Leica?) that 35mm could just barely
support high quality prints to that size which were no worse than LF or MF
images of the same size (again, due to the Leica standard, which in turn
goes back to the human eye and 1 arc-minute resolution etc yielding 8 lpmm
on the print standard ;-)

And of course, 300 DPI was picked because of this 6 lpmm range result,
yes?

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #558  
Old June 19th 04, 03:08 AM
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

I can easily understand that, from a marketing perspective. Fuji has
considerable penetration into the world of film. A collaboration
between two major names in film would make the marketing of new
photographic products easier. Panasonic is all but invisible in that
realm.


Ah, no, it wasn't anything involving film that Leica needed Fuji for.

I was *not* suggesting that a Leica/Fuji collaboration would be for a film
camera. I tried to express that Fuji's large presence in the world of film
photographers would make it easier to market *any* photographic product
that the partnership made. Certainly, it would be an easier sell than
products from the Leica/Panasonic collaboration, because Panasonic does
not have as much of a reputation among film photographers.

Neil


  #559  
Old June 19th 04, 03:26 AM
one_of_many
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.

In article , "Q.G. de Bakker"
wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Actually, I would more expect that they would not follow the same market
direction as other countries. I believe that each individual region needs

to be
considered on the basis of its' own culture. [...]


Yes, you're right. But consider this: photography is not a traditional thing
belonging to a particular culture, nowhere in this world; globalization, and
the fact that though we humans display wide a variety of differing habits,
customs, likes, etc., we are still more alike than different,


We are more alike when we look for similarities, and profoundly different
when we look for differences. That is the way people see people. (Mental
trick: think of how your view of a friend becomes when he first runs for
public office. Does not the secret vote suddenly seem to be a great
virtue? You suddenly see differences.)

FWIW, traditional Chinese have a very different concept of personal
photography than we (probably) do. For example, a Chinese citizen might
very well be deeply insulted or offended if she knew she was the object of
a candid picture. A photograph is considered an opportunity to turn one's
'better face' to view; it is a formal situation.

But of course, that's changing some and is most apparent in literature
intended to appeal to westerners.
  #560  
Old June 19th 04, 03:30 AM
one_of_many
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default missing MF converts Not just feared future fate, but present hurt.

In article , "Q.G. de Bakker"
wrote:

People simply do no want to be "lumbered" with that which other people
discard as "old hat". And they're right, there is no reason why they should.
(That alone, without even knowing what the thing involved is, is probably
enough to create an instant dislike of the one thing c.q. a want for the
other. Girard's "mimetism", and all that. ;-))
Anyway, it's the way history has shown us things have a tendency to go: new
markets will embrace new technology, leaving the old markets struggling
behind, because the money there is already/still tied up in old technology.


In part, that explains why we have tens of thousands of miles of dark
cable running all over this country.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.