For 300 USD I got this on a local auction: 1 chrome MX with a 35-105 Tokina (perhaps for me :-) 1 chrome ME with a 200mm Pentax lense (don't know which) and a Osram Studio flash (for sale) 1 chrome MG with a SMC-M 1.2/50mm and a Hanimex flash (for sale)
Any pre-ebay offers on these cameras, with or without glass? If I can make a buck it's fine, if not I geuess they are still nice cameras :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. februar 2005 18:04 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Alternatives to vuescan --- John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm. My calculator spreadsheet says that a 24x35mm frame scanned > > at 2438ppi nets an image 2304x3455 pixels in size, or 7.6 > > Mpixel. Something's off by a little bit somewhere... ;-) > > Never calculated it just reading from the manual, shouldn't > that be 24mm x 36mm ? Typo on my part, the spreadsheet is correct. If you got the numbers from the scanner specification sheet, that's more accurate as the scanner's maximum scannable area is likely not exactly 24x36mm. > > RAW is really the name of a format type, a "RAW file" means a > > different thing for every device that can create it. Vuescan > > simply encode the metadata and sensor data into a very simple > > TIFF format. If you analyze a Pentax .PEF file, it also is > > essentially a TIFF file with embedded metadata, a couple of JPEG > > low rez renders, and the sensor data in a tagged structure. > > Right, so a raw file might have any file extension (propriety) > depending on the device that created it. When looking at the files > yesterday at work it was just (obviously) an exact scan of the negative (when > viewed with Photoshop CS) no rotation or anything. I tried inverting to > give me a positive and that gave me an image that would require a lot of > editing, I'm missing something...yes? Vuescan's RAW has minimal metadata (he generates the processing parameters by analyzing the scan data on the fly) and the sensor data is basically just a row x column matrix of RGB pixel data with linear gamma, that's typically what scanners produce as straight output. Processing RAW output from B&W negative scans means doing the inversion required and then adding the gamma curve conversion to what our eyes like to see... relatively simple to do. Processing RAW output from color positives is somewhat trickier as color positives have a higher gamma than negatives to begin with. Processing color negatives to RGB positives ... well, you have to invert it, remove the crossover mask per the particular film's profile, then gamma correct it. I'll let Vuescan do that for me. ;-) Godfrey __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
