Hey Kent, 4x5 scanning backs were 100-150mb ten years ago, that translates to 50MP. I know for a fact that at least one current 4x5 digital back gives 485mb files. A 4x5 CCD back based on the same wafer that is used in the Phillips chip in the prototype MZ-D would give an 80MP (240mb) image. Of course those are for full frame backs. The most popular backs for 2-1//4" sq cameras have about the same size CCD as a full frame 35mm they ain't state of the art.
I guess what I am saying is that what the big boys are using is not the same as what us kids in the playground use. Remember just because we use $1K PC don't mean there aren't any $1,000,000 Super Computers. What we tend to talk about on the list are things we can afford, that doesn't mean there isn't anything better. --graywolf ------------------------------------------------- The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kent Gittings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: RE: The true cost of "free" digital? > While there are people using it in both larger format groups the same can be > said for it's effect in 35mm. My brother, Kirk, the professional, who shoots > mainly 4x5 and some Hassy MF, has taught classes in LF and MF digital, and > teaches the Zone System at both UNM and occasionally at the Art Institute of > Chicago will disagree with you. 6MP MF and 16MP LF backs are readily > available currently. However the main problem is still the amount of info > captured. Both formats suffer from the same lens aspect problem you get with > the latest sub-full frame cameras from Nikon and Canon. He says that without > much exception his major architectural clients are not happy with the amount > of info captured by 16 MP digital backs when a good 4x5 film plate can get > more than 64 MP when scanned if they want a digital product. In MF the > problem is that in effect you are using a full frame 35mm array size. So you > lose any info you might get from the advantage of shooting from 60x45 to > 60x90. While the images are about as good as 35mm film they aren't as good > as medium format film results. Unless of course you are shooting in a field > like PJ in 35mm format where a loss in info capture isn't important due to > the media result it is used in. > My brother is fully ready to use the larger digital formats as soon as they > get digital backs that can provide as much info as film. Till then it is > still not ready for prime time. > Kent Gittings > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > > > In a message dated 11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Subj:Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > > Date:11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Tsai) > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-to: <A > HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "Mafud, > > > > While it might be true that the digital print or picture quality may > > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, cost is definitely > > less of an issue when going digital." > > > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading > then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when > I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time > factor...becomes a factor. > But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. > > > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 then I will even dare > > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own over the last year that > > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper (especially in Japan) > > to shoot digital. > > OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 > keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for > newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). > "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found > one > was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the > "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature > but > thoroughly descriptive. > > " Also, cost of ownership really isn't that bad; so far, > > I've spent: > > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional battery) > > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you describe below... > > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I have, but you know > > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital world and it's taking > > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital SLR because > > technology waits for no one." > > I'll bet, but I probably won't be alive to collect, that you digital dies > out > before (any) PENTAX SLR conks out. Worse, in the near future (3-5 years), > your camera's technology will be superceded, not so your chemical cameras. > As > long as they make film, you'll be able to shoot, especailly with K-1000s and > the like. > > But everyone should ~enjoy~ their choices and their personnal pursuits. My > howling rejection of digital also rests on three important (to me anyway) > facts, other than them being small format: > 1) Digitals cameras take (make) utterly lousy exposures-most of the time. > That's why they all have "do over" buttons. > The problem for a PJ (working or not), is most times there ain't no time to > "do over" nothing. We ~have~ to capture the moment at that moment. I > understand that most of the newer PJs using "pro" digitals, don't even > bother > to look or preview their images, uploading them sight unseen to their > publications. > So much for "do overs," by people who have an interest in the final outcome > of their work: can we say: "Pulitzer"? > 2) Without stand-alone flash, digital SUX > 3) Without interchangeable lenses, digital SUX. > Remember, those are opinions held by a very opinionated person who uses > dinky > digital all the time...just not for important things. > > > On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 10:54 PM, pentax-discuss-digest wrote: > > > > > How much have you spent on "AA" batteries for those dratted, battery > > > chewing > > > digitals? > > - > > Mafud > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > www.mimesweeper.com > ********************************************************************** > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
