Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:01:53 +0000, Bill Hilton wrote:

From: Elemental lid

A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the ppi
output of the printer.

You are confusing the input file resolution (which is *not* dpi, it's
ppi) with the printer's output resolution. They are two different
things.

Sorry, got them backwards. Here is a page that illustrates that it is
image resolution (ppi), not printer dpi that counts:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/

Note that in this case, the number of dots that the printer is using for
dithering is the same in each case, but the input resolution of the image
goes up. This reveals more detail.

This is in contrast to your argument that increasing printer dpi is a
factor in increasing detail in the final output.

Look at a LightJet print and compare it directly to a wet print ... the
input files to the LightJet are all 304.5 ppi (rez 12 ... well, you can
give it rez 8 or 203.2 ppi and it will rez up for you, but let's not go
there) yet the output looks as good as or better than a conventional
print (see the Ketchum post). Clearly ~300 ppi input file rez is enough
to generate great looking output prints. See Bart's posts for more
details on how this takes place ... or even better, look at a LightJet
print from a well-scanned digital file before you lock yourself in to a
point of view.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about here, nothing that was in my post.

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .


It is not a time related thing.

My comments reflects that China is an emerging market, and not enough
information is available to draw conclusions. The only time needed is
enough
time to collect more data, though I could just make guesses, but I would
rather
wait and see. This should be months, not years.

Now what extra information do you think we need?

Film volume sales. Computer sales. Number of photography labs, and the volume
of their businesses. Camera sales in China, with breakdown by type (P&S, SLR,
high end, larger than 35 mm, etc.) and imaging interface (film or digital).
Memory storage sales volumes.

They are human, like us,
aren't they?

Sure, but to consider any one market to be exactly like an existing market
could be an error on the part of companies. So as individuals able to monitor a
market, I think we are better viewing actual patterns, rather than guessing
what they might become, or transferring our own experience directly to China.
Do you even think the usage and buying patterns in the US are exactly the same
as in Japan, or any part of Europe?



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.

Support and infrastructure needed to define a market, are also necessary
to
grow a market. [...]

Right.

But how does that make "newcomers" want to start "at the bottom"? Believe
me, they don't.

Do you think they will be buying $1000 on up direct digital SLRs first? Just to
give you a number, it has been found that the average computer purchase in the
US brings an average expenditure of nearly $2000. So to jump directly into
direct digital imaging, one would need a computer too.

Most newcomers would start at a lower dollar level. To get back to our original
discussion, that low dollar entry point would not sell any medium format, other
than Seagull, which those individuals probably already purchase. Medium format
will never be more than a niche market, even in China, so that aspect has
nothing to do with convenience, since other photography choices could easily be
more convenient.

The bottom of digital is P&S digital, which again almost requires a computer.
When you consider that camera phones are already selling in China, how could
the introduction of P&S digital hope to gain any market share? Here is an
example where the market in China could skip the bottom entirely, and move on
to the "next great thing", which is wireless imaging.



They certainly do not want to set up the infrastructure needed to serve
outdated technology when they could spend the same effort setting up the
same for new technology.

The film infrastructure already exists in China, yet the digital support
infrastructure does not. Wireless imaging already enjoys an infrastructure that
is continuing to grow on the back of high volume sales. Digital imaging is the
infrastructure that needs to be set up.

If you look at statements from computer makers about the market in China, you
find two often stated concerns. One is the low density of individuals and
businesses able to afford computers. The other is the high density of pirated
software amongst current computer users in China. Both those factors make China
a somewhat risky market, and limit potential profits.

And consequently they do not.

So direct digital imaging will begin in a new market, and immediately become
the only choice? The predominant choice? Or an instant niche?

Trust me.

Funny term used by car salesmen . . . not trying to sell me a used Hasselblad
are you? ;-)



[...]
And what's the reason for that?

Phones are relatively low cost, and very useful items. They also only need
a
service provider infrastructure. Internet usage in mainland China is often
restricted in many ways, and computers are just not that available,
largely due
to costs, but also somewhat to a lack of support infrastructure. [...]

See? Not even once you mentioned they would want to use technology now
obsolete first. ;-)
Now why do you think things would be different when it comes to photography?

China has an existing film infrastructure. The first high technology
alternative infrastructure already present is for wireless imaging. With the
high cost and low computer density in China, I only see direct digital imaging
as a niche market in China, especially because there is little to no existing
infrastructure.

It is substantially more difficult to establish infrastructures and related
businesses in China, because their risk management infrastructure is not
established. There are a few outside companies being allowed to test risk
management within China, yet the central Chinese government has not yet
determined if they will continue allowing the outside support of risk
management to continue on future projects, or to let it grow to help smaller
projects. The aspects of risk management, and the accompanying financial basis,
and the predominant fundamental difference between infrastructure establishment
and support in China, as compared to western countries.



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

Yeah . . . okay. I am marking my Palm Pilot for this date in two years
time.
:-)

Why?

My earlier statement was:
"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?"


You can sent me that disposable P&S digital camera today!

The first part clearly states two years. However, if China is mainly digital
imaging, in which case you would be correct, then you would not get the
disposable digital P&S.


After all, if China will "not" be "predominantly digital imaging", i win.

You win the argument, but don't get a disposable digital P&S. :-(


And "if they are mostly a film imaging centre", they are "not predominantly
digital imaging", and i win again.

The second part states that is they are mostly a film imaging centre, then you
"buy me a P&S film camera". I should state that a disposable is fine to honour
that.


So get out your credit card and go shopping. Today!
;-)

So the reverse is that China would be mostly digital, meaning no disposable
digital P&S for you, though that would also mean that they would not be a
predominantly film market, meaning I would not get a P&S either. Guess we will
need to wait two years and see what happens.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

In article , Elemental
wrote:

[...] Maybe B&W prints will
have another chance, if I stop reading here.

See http://www.inkjetmall.com

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

[...]
And yet of course you know you can do projection printing and still get
excellent prints, right? If you print 10x15" you've blown up the film area by
100x (10x each side) and yet most would agree you can make a very nice print
this size from 35 mm film.

Small point to clarify: What you describe is, by convention, considered a
10x, not 100x enlargement.

Gordon Moat wrote:

Now what extra information do you think we need?

Film volume sales. Computer sales. Number of photography labs, and the
volume
of their businesses. Camera sales in China, with breakdown by type (P&S,
SLR,
high end, larger than 35 mm, etc.) and imaging interface (film or
digital).
Memory storage sales volumes.

I see.
You just don't believe that...

They are human, like us,
aren't they?

;-)

Sure, but to consider any one market to be exactly like an existing market
could be an error on the part of companies. [...]

Nobody is suggesting that one market will be exactly like any other market.

Don;t forget, we're talking about that fact (!) that people aren't different
enough for one group to accept the "garbage" disposed of by an other group
while they could have the "new stuff" anybody else wants.
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?

One group could be forced to make do with less than what they would want,
yes. By economics, mostly. But that's another, albeit related, matter.

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? ;-)

Just to
give you a number, it has been found that the average computer purchase in
the
US brings an average expenditure of nearly $2000. So to jump directly into
direct digital imaging, one would need a computer too.

Good point. So they'll get a $500 computer (most are made in China anayway
;-)) too.
;-)

No. The thing is, China nor any other "growth market" in photography
(India?) is going to set up private dark rooms and a network of one-hour and
professional wet-labs.
Instead, the infrastructure needed to serve gazillions of consumer's digital
cameras and a significantly less number of professional digital image
producers and consumers will be created.
You know, the thing we see happening in "the West" today.

[...]
The bottom of digital is P&S digital, which again almost requires a
computer.

Yes. Or the digital equivalent of our one-hour photo-stores.
That's what's we see in "the West" too, right?

[...] Digital imaging is the
infrastructure that needs to be set up.

Now you're cooking!
Exactly!

If you look at statements from computer makers about the market in China,
you
find two often stated concerns. One is the low density of individuals and
businesses able to afford computers. The other is the high density of
pirated
software amongst current computer users in China. Both those factors make
China
a somewhat risky market, and limit potential profits.

Ah well, the computer business is in dire need of a restructuring anyway.
Things are produced incredibly cheap, yet we're still asked to pay too much.
;-)

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.

Trust me.

Funny term used by car salesmen . . . not trying to sell me a used
Hasselblad
are you? ;-)

Hm... the phrase "trust me, i'm a doctor" is more familiar to me (no, i'm
not).
And no, i wouldn't dream of it.
;-)

China has an existing film infrastructure. The first high technology
alternative infrastructure already present is for wireless imaging. With
the
high cost and low computer density in China, I only see direct digital
imaging
as a niche market in China, especially because there is little to no
existing
infrastructure.

Well you've come around quite a bit. Good. ;-)

Next, you must stop saying "niche market" and start saying "growth market"!

Things that begin can't be "big" right away. But one mustn't confuse "still
small" with "niche".

It is substantially more difficult to establish infrastructures and
related
businesses in China, because their risk management infrastructure is not
established. [...]

Yes, starting new things would be easier of these things could materialize
over night, auto-magically.
And yes, insecure people would feel more at ease if there was some
security-blanket-fairy-godmother saying "there, there" every once and again.
So what's new?
;-)

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.

Oh, and i'll be generous about your "one conditional - you (GM) cannot win"
bet, and let you off the hook.
;-)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:14:06 -0500, one_of_many wrote:

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

[...]
And yet of course you know you can do projection printing and still get
excellent prints, right? If you print 10x15" you've blown up the film
area by 100x (10x each side) and yet most would agree you can make a
very nice print this size from 35 mm film.

Small point to clarify: What you describe is, by convention, considered a
10x, not 100x enlargement.

Terminology is really tricky in this area, isn't it? Bill misses my point
again, but I have to agree, upsampling does produce some remarkable
images. But don't expect the fine detail that was in the original
subject, however.

I have chosen the detail oriented direction, which is why the move to MF.
In the past, 35mm offered me lots of detail, sometimes at the expense of
grain, and now I want more, more, more.

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

If you print 10x15" you've blown up the film area by 100x (10x each
side) and yet most would agree you can make a very nice
print this size from 35 mm film.

From: (one_of_many)

Small point to clarify: What you describe is, by convention, considered a
10x, not 100x enlargement.

I know, but I did say "film AREA by 100x" ... you even quoted it that way

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

If you print 10x15" you've blown up the film area by 100x (10x each
side) and yet most would agree you can make a very nice
print this size from 35 mm film.

From: (one_of_many)

Small point to clarify: What you describe is, by convention, considered a
10x, not 100x enlargement.

I know, but I did say "film AREA by 100x" ... you even quoted it that way

It's still 10X.

Recently, Bill Hilton posted:

You're right that it's a "wet print" but I thought we were discussing
whether or not a digital file with 300 ppi rez contained enough
information to make an excellent print. Since the LJ takes EXACTLY
300 ppi (on the newer Anglicized models) or 304.8 ppi (on the earlier
rez 12 metric models like the 5000) I thought it was the perfect
example to show that yes, you can get a great print from 300 ppi.

So it seems like you are at least coming around to the idea that 300
ppi isn't such a bad number after all? Which is what I was trying to
show to Bob.

I'm not "coming around"; I stated early on that it is the image that
determines the best output media, not the media per-se. Resolution isn't
the whole story any more than a number of other descriptors of image
quality.

As for the inkjets, the Epson professional series produces output
that looks very close to the LightJet.

Well, we'll just have to disagree about that. They look fine for some
images, but not for others. The LightJet is generally better, but not
necessarily the best in all cases.

One of the reasons LJ prints
dropped from $70 to $30 was because so many pros bought their own
Epson 9600 and 7600 models a couple of years ago and LJ print volume
dropped off. A pro doing his own prints can afford the $5,000 or
$3,000 that the Epsons cost while the LJ was out of range at $150,000.

This is a simple example of supply and demand. All it suggests is that
"good enough" has been achieved at a lower level for enough photographers
that the price for better quality was more than the market would bear.

I know you doubt that the Epson 9600 prints (or any inkjet prints) are
comparable to LJ prints, but you can get free samples of the same
image from WCI (or least you could, if they thought you were a
potential customer) and compare them for yourself.

I think you have me wrong, Bill. I've bought plenty of large-format inkjet
ouptut from a variety of units (Roland, Epson, Encad, et al) over the last
decade or so. They're good for some images, and Duraflex / Duratrans are
better for others. The most I'll say about them is that the inkjet prints
are relatively cheap.

As another indication of the print quality of the Epsons, Calypso
Labs has both a LightJet 5000 (calibrated by Bill Atkinson) and an
Epson 9600 ... prints from their LJ cost LESS to the customer than
Epson prints, ie, $9 sq/ft from the LJ and $10 sq/ft from the Epson.
If the LJ prints were night-and-day better than the Epson prints then
why would someone spend more money on the lesser print?

I think you may be looking at cost factors, here. It takes a lot longer to
print a large format inkjet than a LightJet print. Materials costs and the
scrap rate is likely to be higher as well.

Neil

probably easier and cheaper to just ask Solms/Leica about the coverage; my
bet would be that getting 400 lpmm (aerial?) resolution would require
Leica to optimize the lens for the smaller format, yes? ;-)

now if you are really looking for a unique leica mount tele-lens, see
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...1317 427&rd=1

it was $98,000 in 1970 dollars, about $700,000 today's dollarettes (?) ;-)
this one is under $2k, a fixer upper though ;-)

grins bobm

PS thanks to Dave Ez2cDave for pointing this lens out to me ;-)
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************