-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #217
------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #3 [ Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Phot [ Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: A Question About Macro Lenses [ Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: RL Edition Vivitar? [ Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: 3D quality in a lens? [ Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] RE: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: PESO - let's jazz it up! [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: RL Edition Vivitar? [ "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: hot shoe cover? [ "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: RL Edition Vivitar? [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: OT - Strange eBay listing. [ "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5? [ "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Horrid hot shoes [ "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Reducing File Size with Photosho [ "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: PESO - let's jazz it up! [ "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: how does the ZX-50 do with ttl f [ Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:49:11 -0500 From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #3 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another very nice shot. Your trip was an obvious success, at least in terms of the photography. Thanks for sharing. Paul On Nov 13, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Seems about half of my posts the last day or two have not made it to > the list. So I'm hoping this one does. > > Taken on 17 Mile Drive between Carmel and Monterey. > Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld, Manual Focus > > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0088.htm > > > In case you didn't get the post for the last one: > Pentax *istD, DA 16-45/4, circular polarizer, handheld: > > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0032.htm > > > Comments welcome. > > > Bruce > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:45:50 -0500 From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Really? The Mac jockeys you know must be very deluded. I can't imagine not selecting one's color space or scratch disk. For example, if you don't choose your preferences, the startup disk will be the scratch disk. To get good performance from PS on a Mac you need a firewire hard drive with a lot of empty space as your scratch disk. If you print PS documents from a Mac, you want to set up PhotoShop for ColorSynch. And as noted before, the bicubic interpolation is not always the best. I can't believe that anyone who uses a Mac for photography and has any notion of what they're doing would use all of the default preferences. On Nov 13, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Herb Chong wrote: > the Mac jockeys i know tend not to look for preferences and always > leave > everything just the way it came. Bicubic is the default out of the box > and i > wonder why anyone would ever change it. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 9:09 AM > Subject: Re: OT: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > >> The file size change preference in General Preferences. I think >> everyone knows how to set those. The default is "Bicubic Better." >> "Bicubic Smoother" seems to give better interpolation when upsizing. >> I'm not certain, but I think it's irrelevant when downsizing. However, >> getting back to Shel's question, one step downsizing is better than a >> mutitude of steps. The same is reportedly true of upsizing >> (interpolation). > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:01:11 -0500 From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A Question About Macro Lenses Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit you went like "Try it yourself and then comment. I've done it and the differences don't seem to be that great - hardly noticeable at all in some situations, not at all in others" -- and then revealed that this outburst (pretty arrogant, if you ask me) is based on 5x enlargement (35mm -> 5x7). my point was, that if you use even smaller enlargement, the differences between pretty much all lenses would be negligible, and this "try it yourself and then comment" part was completely pointless, since you haven't tried to do a meaningful comparison yourself. cheers, mishka On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:13:32 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And why was my comment pointless? > > > > > > the point is that your comment that i quoted was pointless. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:04:05 -0500 From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RL Edition Vivitar? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Really Lame"? :) best, mishka On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:11:31 -0600, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I bought this off of eekBay for a couple bucks (literally) > just because I've never heard of an "RL Edition". > > http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/RL.jpg > > Any else heard of this flavor Vivitar? > > Don > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:03:18 -0500 From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit interesting: my SO sees essentially with only one eye too, but she plays tennis (not a pro, but quite OK) and loves downhill skiing (fast). best, mishka On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:09:26 CST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dag said: > > Thatīs not completely true. I lack stereoscopic vision (although both > > eyes work they donīt cooperate). You should try playing tennis with > > one eye :-) The fast 3D vision doesnīt work at all, but in slower > > actions you find ways to compensate like recognizing size of known > > objects, seeing relative movements (normal people use this at larger > > distances), differences is sharpness (at close distances) etc. > > Oh, cool! Someone else who sees the world the same way I do. > (No tennis for me, though. Hopeless at all ball sports throughout school years.) > > ERN > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:13:17 +0100 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Don! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. november 2004 15:03 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Depends very much on the fine detail in the original. A white wall has no detail to lose, a closeup of a hairy, colorful insect has a lot. Also subtle color and tonal transitions will be lost long before actual image detail. Hard to see on a monitor, easier on a good print. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > > I) just did some screen tests compressing jpeg's (from tiff). Until I > compress to more than 6 (12 is min compression, 0 is max, I can't > really se > any difference on the computer screen! Prints may be different, though. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Sam Jost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 13. november 2004 14:03 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > > Yep, 3 for three bytes of color data for each pixel. I usually caculate in > bytes, not bits. :) > > In the ancient times before jpeg every image was uncompressed and huge. In > these ancient times hard discs had been much smaller and storage was > expensive, so a bunch of smart people sat together and invented a storage > format for images to get them a lot smaller without loosing too much image > details -> jpeg > For more information I'd suggest a look at theyr homepage > http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg/index.html > > Sam > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:52 PM > Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > > > Noooo... > > It's 6 040 064 pixel * 24 (colour depth - in bits per pixel) = > 144 961 536 > > bits = 144 961 536/8 = 18 120 192 bytes = > > 18.12 MB. > > > > I you meant 24 bits/8bits pr byte = 3 (explaining the "3" in > your math) - > > it's fine. > > > > I guess I don't understand what a jpeg compression really does! > > But you are right - I saved a jpeg file as a tif and then it > kept the 18MB > > size, showing this in the Path Finder. > > Jens Bladt > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > > Fra: Sam Jost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 13. november 2004 12:10 > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Emne: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > > > > >> Can anyone explain: > >> Why is the file size of an *ist D image say 3.936 MB in the > Path Finder, > >> and > >> 17,3 MB when opened in PS? > > > > I'd guess 3.936MB is the file size, probably jpeg (compressed) > > And 17.3 MB is the uncompressed image data for the image (3008x2008x3) > > > > Sam > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:13:22 +0100 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Great links. Thanks Sam! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Sam Jost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. november 2004 15:11 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop You will see differences if you know what to look for. And someone who knows what the differences look like won't be able to ignore them :) Have a look at this, for example: http://www.photo.net/learn/jpeg/48X32X2_Jpeg_PS.jpg from http://www.photo.net/learn/jpeg/ there are more samples and a lot of explanation about this stuff. Sam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 2:51 PM Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > I) just did some screen tests compressing jpeg's (from tiff). Until I > compress to more than 6 (12 is min compression, 0 is max, I can't really > se > any difference on the computer screen! Prints may be different, though. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Sam Jost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 13. november 2004 14:03 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > > Yep, 3 for three bytes of color data for each pixel. I usually caculate in > bytes, not bits. :) > > In the ancient times before jpeg every image was uncompressed and huge. In > these ancient times hard discs had been much smaller and storage was > expensive, so a bunch of smart people sat together and invented a storage > format for images to get them a lot smaller without loosing too much image > details -> jpeg > For more information I'd suggest a look at theyr homepage > http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg/index.html > > Sam > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:52 PM > Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > >> Noooo... >> It's 6 040 064 pixel * 24 (colour depth - in bits per pixel) = 144 961 >> 536 >> bits = 144 961 536/8 = 18 120 192 bytes = >> 18.12 MB. >> >> I you meant 24 bits/8bits pr byte = 3 (explaining the "3" in your math) - >> it's fine. >> >> I guess I don't understand what a jpeg compression really does! >> But you are right - I saved a jpeg file as a tif and then it kept the >> 18MB >> size, showing this in the Path Finder. >> Jens Bladt >> >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: Sam Jost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sendt: 13. november 2004 12:10 >> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Emne: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop >> >> >>> Can anyone explain: >>> Why is the file size of an *ist D image say 3.936 MB in the Path Finder, >>> and >>> 17,3 MB when opened in PS? >> >> I'd guess 3.936MB is the file size, probably jpeg (compressed) >> And 17.3 MB is the uncompressed image data for the image (3008x2008x3) >> >> Sam >> >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:13:22 +0100 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: PESO - let's jazz it up! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Very nice shot. Grain is great, don't bother getting rid of them :-). Many digital fanatics compalin about grain, only to complain about film stuff...:-) Fiorgive them, just because digital is the new thing, they think film is out dated. It's not, still without real competion AFAIC! Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: michal mesko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. november 2004 15:13 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: PESO - let's jazz it up! Hi, this is my first PESO, first take on concert photography and first time using Delta 3200 film. Too many firsts! :) http://skwid.wz.cz/photo.php?id=57 tech. data: Pentax ME Super, M50/2 @ f2.0, t 1/60, Ilford Delta 3200 developed for 1600. The grain got somewhat bigger by sharpening, have to find a way around it. Mike ________ Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:15:56 -0600 From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: RL Edition Vivitar? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps it's the Rare and Limited Edition and I'm Really Lucky to have it! ;-) Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 2:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RL Edition Vivitar? > > > "Really Lame"? :) > > best, > mishka > > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:11:31 -0600, Don Sanderson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I bought this off of eekBay for a couple bucks (literally) > > just because I've never heard of an "RL Edition". > > > > http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/RL.jpg > > > > Any else heard of this flavor Vivitar? > > > > Don > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:43:18 -0500 From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The jpeg doesn't unpack itself, the viewer software does that, but more or less. That's why if you zip an jpeg file the resulting zip file is bigger than the jpeg. Jens Bladt wrote: >So, a Jpeg is like a zip file, packing itself when saved, unpacking when >opended? > >Jens Bladt >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 13. november 2004 11:40 >Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Emne: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > >Are you referring to a .JPG file? >If so it has to be uncompressed for display/editing. >It is then recompressed when saved as a file again. >A .tif is the same if compression is used. > >Don > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:33 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop >> >> >>Can anyone explain: >>Why is the file size of an *ist D image say 3.936 MB in the Path >>Finder, and >>17,3 MB when opened in PS? >> >> >> >>Jens Bladt >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 13. november 2004 10:06 >>Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Emne: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop >> >> >>What's this "New Image data?" I couldn't find it in any of the menus or in >>the help area. >> >>Shel >> >> >> >> >>>[Original Message] >>>From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> >>>That's right Shel. Provided you have chosen "New Image Data" in >>> >>> >>PS, which >> >> >>>makes the computer calculate new pixels to put in between the original >>>pixels >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:41:08 -0500 From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: hot shoe cover? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <vocal sneer="on">A likely story...<vocal sneer="off"> Anthony Farr wrote: >Pardon my stutter :-) >I somehow inadvertently pasted an earlier version of my text, but I'd swear >it wasn't present when I hit "send". > >regards, >Anthony Farr > > > > > > -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:43:39 +0000 From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apologies Don, but while you're right about the conceptual difference between lossy and lossless compression, your descriptions of neither the zip nor the jpeg compression mechanisms are correct. :-) Further apologies if all you were trying to do was illustrate that coneceptual difference. S Don Sanderson wrote: > .jpeg compression is somewhat like "zipping" a text file, > if there are 100 spaces in a row in the text file then > the zipper stores the number 100 and the ascii character > for "space" so it can reconstruct later. > The difference in .jpeg compression is it is a "lossy" > compression, it guesses how many *similar* pixels it > can make the same color/intensity without the human > eye noticing. > The higher the compression ratio the worse these > guesses are. > Try saving .jpegs at very low quality (high compression) > and you will see what I mean very easily. > Heres one from last night at 75% and 0% quality settings: > > http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/likecats.htm > > > Don > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 5:52 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop >> >> >> >>I guess I don't understand what a jpeg compression really does! >>But you are right - I saved a jpeg file as a tif and then it kept the 18MB >>size, showing this in the Path Finder. >>Jens Bladt >> >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:44:28 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: RL Edition Vivitar? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: RE: RL Edition Vivitar? > Perhaps it's the Rare and Limited Edition and I'm Really Lucky to > have it! > ;-) Absolutely: rare and limited. The royal blue text must indicate it was specially made for someone who is VERY IMPORTANT. Otherwise, why use royal blue? I've never seen one before, anyway. William Robb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:55:39 -0500 From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT - Strange eBay listing. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There's a transaction that will never be completed. Steve Larson wrote: >It's up to $15,099, and the bidder has no feedback. > >Steve Larson >Redondo Beach, California > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 2:15 AM >Subject: RE: OT - Strange eBay listing. > > > > >>It was $2,000 when I first saw it, so I plead not guilty to spruiking for >>the seller :-) >> >>regards, >>Anthony Farr >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Daniel J. Matyola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>>The bidding jumped from $55 to $2,000 with your announcement here. I >>>wonder who bid? >>> >>>Anthony Farr wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Not Pentaxiana, not even photographic, but my apologies if anyone's >>>> >>>> >>bidding >> >> >>>>and wanted it kept quiet ;-) >>>> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/3wapk >>>> >>>>regards, >>>>Anthony Farr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > > > -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:46:52 +0000 From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit William Robb wrote: > Imagine you have 50 identical pennies on a table top. > An uncompressed file describes each penny in detail. > A JPEG describes one penny in detail, and then tells you where the other > 49 are located on the table. Again, I'm sorry, but JPEG doesn't work like that either. Fractal compression algorithms are conceptually similar to the method you describe, but there aren't any popular implementations of those. I could attempt a description of how JPEG "really" works if people are interested? S ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:58:31 -0500 From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frantisek wrote: >RA> the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, >RA> many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont >RA> have the stamina for some excercise anymore. > >"I am a lumberjack and I am ok"... > > > > I sleep all night and I work all day... COME ON EVERYONE... >Good light! > fra > > > > -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:49:24 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Jolly" Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > I could attempt a description of how JPEG "really" works if people > are interested? This should be entertaining. Please, elucidate. William Robb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:02:51 -0500 From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Horrid hot shoes Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The plate on top that usually has a couple of leaf springs attached covers up two, (usually), screws. You can just remove the plate and unscrew the shoe. No need for the grinder. Bill Lawlor wrote: >Thanks to all who shared opinions about hot shoes. I own more than 20 >cameras but have never purchased a new one with or without the hot shoe >cover. Maybe I will just remove the offending item with my bench graider and >cover up the damage with epoxy putty. That can't be any worse than the old >Canon FT /55/1.2 I have that was urtterly mutilated by U.S. Customs >guardians of "intellectual property rights". > >Bill Lawlor > > > > -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:51:53 +0200 From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Steve Jolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > William Robb wrote: > > Imagine you have 50 identical pennies on a table top. > > An uncompressed file describes each penny in detail. > > A JPEG describes one penny in detail, and then tells you where the other > > 49 are located on the table. > > Again, I'm sorry, but JPEG doesn't work like that either. Fractal > compression algorithms are conceptually similar to the method you > describe, but there aren't any popular implementations of those. > > I could attempt a description of how JPEG "really" works if people are > interested? Please do, Steve. And thanks! Lasse ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:06:59 -0500 From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO - let's jazz it up! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is one of the best concert photo's I've seen in a long time. The grain only makes it more "real". michal mesko wrote: >Hi, > >this is my first PESO, first take on concert photography and first time using Delta 3200 film. Too many firsts! :) > >http://skwid.wz.cz/photo.php?id=57 > >tech. data: Pentax ME Super, M50/2 @ f2.0, t 1/60, Ilford Delta 3200 developed for 1600. The grain got somewhat bigger by sharpening, have to find a way around it. > >Mike > > >________ >Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk > > > > -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:06:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: how does the ZX-50 do with ttl flash? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, John Whittingham wrote: > Thanks for the comment, I've just bought one and really like the zoom head, > should work well with the 28-105 FAp and the MZ-3. I've yet to test the AF > assist infrared thingie :) That rocks too. I have managed to get focused pictures with the 500 in almost total darkness. Don't forget to bounce the flash. I also invested in a diffuser (a tenner?) and it's not left the head of the 500. Kostas -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 Issue #217 *********************************************
