Might be intereted in the MX
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:19:03 +0100, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > -- ------------------------ Thibouille
