Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta
Dimage 7 digital camera.
5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499.
Those specs & numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a
skinflint like me...
MarkT
>From: Shough, Dean
>Sent: Wednesday, June
At 01:54 PM 6/28/01 +0930, Mark T. wrote:
>Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta
>Dimage 7 digital camera.
>5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499.
>
>Those specs & numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a
>skinflint like me...
"rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast
> on 35 mm format. In another year or two there really
> won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
Only if the prices also come down. I can't see the point in buying a 3Mpix
digicam when I can buy a g
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> "rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast
> > on 35 mm format. In another year or two there really
> > won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
>
> Only if the prices also come down. I can't see
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> "rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast
> > on 35 mm format. In another year or two there really
> > won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
>
> Only if the prices also come down. I can't se
sage -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
> "rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, indeed. I think digi
't quite ring bells, but I might
very well be overlooking something.
OTOH, we might *both* be under our respective kitchen tables when this
discussion hits the List. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
- Original Message -
From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
> Steve wrote:
>
> >A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (
I note that Sony has a new Digital camera which uses a nice little 3"
CD-RW disk capable of storing about 150 megs of info, and of course, it
is re-writable. The disks are about $5 each here (worth about $1.50, but
that's supply and demand, I guess) Still a LOT cheaper than flash
memory. The
Walter Bushell wrote:
>>
>>
>
> _> AFAIk the cameras only support 8 bit output. Adjusting brightness
> color on 24 bit images does result in artifacts, one can up the bit depth
> for those resolutions to avoid the math problems, but still it's a
> restricted dmax. Then if we are having
> Any filtering of this nature would not be done at the lens level. A
> lens is an optical device, and the best thing it can do is accurately
> translate everything it sees to the sensitive/recording layer. This is
> what all lenses strive toward. If any type of resolution lowering were
> to
Walter Bushell wrote:
> It is precisely the randomized nature of film that alaising does not
> occur. There is no grid, so there is nothing to beat against, so to
> speak.
So maybe the answer is to randomize the sensor array, Captain? Of
course, while keeping the dilithium crystals aligned..
lmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
> Any filtering of this nature would not be done at the lens level. A
> lens is an optical device, and the best thing it can do is accurately
> translate everything it sees to the sensitive/recording layer. This is
> what all len
At 07:43 AM 6/30/01 -0600, Frank Nichols wrote:
>I wonder if it would be posisble to create a "randomized" pattern of sensors
>on a CCD/CMOS chip?
This flies in the face of all known sampling theory!
I suspect that the optical system in most scanners provides
more than enough filtering to lim
"rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also don't really believe in film-grain aliasing --
> film grain is essentially non-periodic, or, more
> accurately "white noise" -- ie, containing
> an even distribution of frequency elements from
> DC to infinity.
I don't see why that excludes aliasing of
Steve wrote:
> The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures -
> I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film.
If all you ever want is screen resolution I'd agree. But most
people want to print things, and that takes more resolution.
The average person doesn't understand this; j
> Right now, I have three film cameras, a bunch of lenses and
> a Nikon LS30 film scanner. I *don't* have thousands of
> dollars to spend on a digicam. So I just want to get the
> best out of the gear I have, and that's why I'm here on
> this list. :)
It's a pivotal time, and it makes buying de
Dan, I don't know how old you are, and what is your
tolerance for lugging heavy stuff. However, there is no way I could use a
D-1x, or an F-5 and a set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering. I
am not carrying a pocket camera, but my main tool is a Pentax
ZX-5N/MZ-5N, with a Sigma 28-105, f:2
At 07:37 PM 6/29/01 -0400, Dan H. wrote:
>I figure on spending $10-20k when all is said and done (spaced out over a
>period of 2-3 years). I'm not opposed to spending $3k of that on a very
>high quality film scanner, and several thousand for a top-notch SLR and pro
>lenses. But I have to wonder
> I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about
> the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a
> better image, all around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V,
> and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi.
>
> Not sure I believe it, myself, but it is very provocati
Based
on the advances in RAM technology over the past 10 years I am predicting a 1Giga
Pixel camera in the not too distant future (5 years or less). The significance
of this camera will be a drastic reduction is the required size of lenses by
using software digital zooming - this will be dri
--- Frank Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the advances in RAM technology over the
> past 10 years I am
> predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too
> distant future (5 years or
> less). The significance of this camera will be a
> drastic reduction is the
> required size of lense
rs: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta
DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
--- Frank Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the advances in RAM technology over the
> past 10 years I am
> predicting a 1Giga Pixel camera in the not too
> distant future (5 years or
>
Frank,
Memory has increased at a rate of about 2 every 1.5
years. There is good reason to believe that this will
not change a lot during the next few years to come.
Even with new technologies being developed (if it
succeeds and can be used for imagers) it takes years
to get it ready for productio
At 07:42 AM 6/30/01 -0600, Frank Nichols wrote:
>Robert,
>
>I understand your hesitancy, however, you make several assumptions that I
>didnt.
>
>1. SNR remains at todays levels.
>2. Sensitivity remains at todays levels.
>3. The array would be small - why not a 4" x 6" with a 10x increase in
>densi
"Dan Honemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snippage]
> possibility of 6 Megapixel CCDs that are the same size as a 35 mm frame, I
> have to wonder if a $3k film scanner is a smart investment right now.
I for one have hundreds of images already on 35mm film I want to translate
to digital, so the f
Herch wrote:
> However, there is no way I could use a D-1x, or an F-5 and a
> set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering.
Rafe wrote:
> I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about
> the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a
> better image, all aro
> Herch wrote:
>
> > However, there is no way I could use a D-1x, or an F-5 and a
> > set of lenses, etc., without pain and suffering.
>
> Rafe wrote:
>
> > I visited Michael Reichmann's web site yesterday (not sure about
> > the spelling) wherein he claims that the Canon D30 produces a
> > better
Am I mistaken, or wasn't the Minolta CLE also sold in a different skin
as a Leica?
Dave King wrote:
>
> I'm a big Minolta CLE fan also. I sold my Leica M camera years ago to
> get one. It doesn't have the build quality of an M, and the auto
> exposure shutter electronics can be finicky (don'
link to a site
with more CLE (and other Leica) info.
http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscan
30 matches
Mail list logo
