Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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't shoot in the rain:), but for sheer image quality vs camera size and ease of use there has never been better IMHO. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Sort of. There were three iterations of this basic design, two as the Leica CL, and last as the Minolta CLE. The first were collaborations between Leica and Minolta with a mechanical shutter and sort of wonky metering mechanics. Never really like that camera personally because of that. Minolta and Leitz parted company in the last design, and Minolta used a modern electronic shutter and added a 28mm lens to the CL's 40 and 90. The whole package was (is) very very pretty if you like efficient design. Unfortunately, Minolta pulled the plug on the CLE after a few years. I suppose it went under appreciated in it's time, and even today Leica aficionado's will distain it as a lady's camera because of it's compact size. Distain away I say, I prefer the Minolta CLE to M Leicas personally. I could go on, but since this is off topic I'll give a 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: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera 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't shoot in the rain:), but for sheer image quality vs camera size and ease of use there has never been better IMHO. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
SNIP 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 be required it would be done via electronic means. Keep in mind film also has a sampling rate, although it is somewhat more randomized and right now, still finer than most electronic sensors made available for mere mortals. No, once you have aliased info in digital form it is indistingusible from real data. Consider stripes that are .6 of the sensor frequency, they will alias to .1 of said frequency and they cannot be distinguished from such a pattern. 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. Art
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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... ;-) Art
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
I wonder if it would be posisble to create a randomized pattern of sensors on a CCD/CMOS chip? /fn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter Bushell Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera SNIP 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 be required it would be done via electronic means. Keep in mind film also has a sampling rate, although it is somewhat more randomized and right now, still finer than most electronic sensors made available for mere mortals. No, once you have aliased info in digital form it is indistingusible from real data. Consider stripes that are .6 of the sensor frequency, they will alias to .1 of said frequency and they cannot be distinguished from such a pattern. 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. Art
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 density? that would require about 1.5GPixels (If I didn't slip a decimal point.) Or even an 8x10? In RAM/CPU technology - a simliar technology - the increase over the years has not just occurred in dimensions, but in performance (speed), power requirements, etc. I will stand by my prediction and be here in 5 years to say I told you so! :-) /fn btw: To paraphrase Robert Heinlein technology will always advance faster than predictions -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Meier Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: 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 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 driven by your complaint and the relative expsense of these heavy long lenses of today.Note that ten years ago a couple of meg of ram was expensive and huge - today I have 1 GB of ram in my PC and it cost me $200 ($US). Assuming that density for memory increases by a factor of 2 every 18 months you will have less then 2*2*2*2=16 times more in 5 years. Assuming that CMOS sensors scale at the same rate we will have 16MPixel*16=256MPixel in 6 years. That is considerable less then 1 GPixel and is still on the high side. Even if it would be possible to get 1 GPixel I still don't think we would have get it. The problem is that the more pixels you squeeze in the same area the smaller the size of the pixel gets. Kind of like getting an extremly slow film. So in order to get a usable output you would need very long exposure times. If you don't then your SNR (Signal-to-Noise-Ratio) will be very low resulting in bad images. That is even more true if you want to decrease the size of the imager. But that's not all. With such high resolution the requirement for lenses will be extremly high. If you really want to take avantage of a GPixel imager whose size is fairly small then you will need lenses with huge lpmm. For all these reasons and many more I do not believe we will get 1 GPixel in 5 years or less. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 production. Technologie is developing really fast but one can also overestimate it. Well, if you have a 4x6 or even 8x10 imager then you definitely don't have super small lenses anymore as you have predicted. I agree that sensitivity can be increased a bit. Nevertheless, you cannot ignor the law of physics. You just do need a certain amount of light (even with ideal sensitivity) the get a good enough exposure. Also I do not see any new technique on the horizon (certainly not one that could take an idea to production within 5 years) that would allow no noise. And noise is everywhere, not only in the imager itself. With the sensitivity (+exposure) and the noise give the SNR is given as well. So my opinion about the above also applies to the SNR. Anyway, it is my strong opinion that we won't have anything close to 1 GPixel in 5 years of less. You have your strong opinion and so I will leave it at this. Robert --- Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 density? that would require about 1.5GPixels (If I didn't slip a decimal point.) Or even an 8x10? In RAM/CPU technology - a simliar technology - the increase over the years has not just occurred in dimensions, but in performance (speed), power requirements, etc. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 limit or eliminate aliasing. The optical equivalent of lowpass filtering would be a diffuser. I'm not aware that any scanner manufacturer uses an optical diffuser in front of the CCD! 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. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 density? that would require about 1.5GPixels (If I didn't slip a decimal point.) Or even an 8x10? In RAM/CPU technology - a simliar technology - the increase over the years has not just occurred in dimensions, but in performance (speed), power requirements, etc. I will stand by my prediction and be here in 5 years to say I told you so! :-) The improvements in silicon technology are mostly improvements in lithography (smaller features, enabling higher densities) and placement of dopants in the silicon (in all three dimensions) via ion implantation. Also, better ways to clean up after masking steps, using plasma etch instead of wet chemistry. There really haven't been that many revolutionary developments in silicon -- mostly evolutionary. At the silicon level, you're still moving electrons and holes across junctions and through FET channels. From time to time, folks figure out clever new technologies that simply make older problems irrelevant. Delta-sigma A/D converters come to mind. There was a time when all A/Ds used resistive networks, and these created an inherent upper-limit on resolution (around 12 bits.) Newer A/Ds simply scrap that approach to achieve real resolutions of 16 bits or more (at high sampling rates) or even up to 20 bits, where bandwidth is not an issue. In terms of CMOS or CCD sensors, I remain convinced that they need to be physically larger before they become interesting to some of us purist photographers. That may yet happen, but only if yields improve. Or, alternatively, firmware steps in to deal with the large number of defective pixels. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 film scanner will be handy while the digicam technology gets to that ideal world I spoke of. :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 the CCD sample pattern with the film pattern, especially with the larger elements of the grain. :-7 Rob
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V, and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi. I recently decided I needed a smaller take it with me at all times camera as I simply wasn't using my SLR enough and bought an old Minolta CLE rangefinger. Nice sharp lens (with the option of using other Leica or new Voigtlander lenses as well), small and light - and great fun to use. I'm sure there is already digital kit that can get close to the quality but not without much more bulk - or without making a bigger dent in the bank balance (even allowing for the cost of a scanner). And a lot of classic camera gear holds its value more than consumer grade digicams... Don't get me wrong, I like new toys as much as anyone else and have been eyeing up each generation of digicams that come out but nothing yet has the right mix of compactness, quality and value to mak me bite. Al Bond
Re: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 around, than a Provia slide, shot on an EOS-1V, and scanned on an Imacon at 3200 dpi. Al Bond wrote: I recently decided I needed a smaller take it with me at all times camera as I simply wasn't using my SLR enough and bought an old Minolta CLE rangefinger. Nice sharp lens (with the option of using other Leica or new Voigtlander lenses as well), small and light - and great fun to use. I'm sure there is already digital kit that can get close to the quality but not without much more bulk - or without making a bigger dent in the bank balance (even allowing for the cost of a scanner). And a lot of classic camera gear holds its value more than consumer grade digicams... Don't get me wrong, I like new toys as much as anyone else and have been eyeing up each generation of digicams that come out but nothing yet has the right mix of compactness, quality and value to mak me bite. 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't shoot in the rain:), but for sheer image quality vs camera size and ease of use there has never been better IMHO. Dave King
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 decisions more difficult than ever. Right now I _don't_ have a bunch of lenses and cameras (well, not entirely true: I have an M6, Hexar RF, and three Leica M lenses, which is investment enough, I suppose), but I'm in the market both for an SLR kit (for macro, telephoto and zoom lenses) and a digital darkroom setup (PC, scanner, software, printers, etc.). 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 if I wouldn't be better off combining those expenses and getting a Nikon D1x, or (better still) waiting another few months to see what Canon and others have to offer. With the near term 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. Dan
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 if I wouldn't be better off combining those expenses and getting a Nikon D1x, or (better still) waiting another few months to see what Canon and others have to offer. With the near term 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. Tough call, eh? 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 provocative. rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 provocative. Yep, I saw that, too, and I _don't_ believe it. But I believe we're not far from it, and will likely get there within the next 5 years. (Digital backs for MF cameras may already be there, but it may take another 5 years for prices to become affordable.) Dan
RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 driven by your complaint and the relative expsense of these heavy long lenses of today.Note that ten years ago a couple of meg of ram was expensive and "huge" - today I have 1 GB of ram in my PC and it cost me $200 ($US). /fn -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch NitikmanSent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:56 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 cameraDan, 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:2.8-4 lens. A gadget bag with a fairly light 80-200 zoom, plus film and miscellaneous is the rest of my kit. If I try to carry that stuff on my shoulder, the shoulder and neck start to ache. As part of your search criteria, ask yourself how much weight you will be wanting to lug on a field trip. HerschAt 04:37 PM 06/29/2001, you wrote: 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 decisions more difficult than ever.Right now I _don't_ have a bunch of lenses and cameras (well, not entirelytrue: I have an M6, Hexar RF, and three Leica M lenses, which is investmentenough, I suppose), but I'm in the market both for an SLR kit (for macro,telephoto and zoom lenses) and a digital darkroom setup (PC, scanner,software, printers, etc.).I figure on spending $10-20k when all is said and done (spaced out over aperiod of 2-3 years). I'm not opposed to spending $3k of that on a veryhigh quality film scanner, and several thousand for a top-notch SLR and prolenses. But I have to wonder if I wouldn't be better off combining thoseexpenses and getting a Nikon D1x, or (better still) waiting another fewmonths to see what Canon and others have to offer. With the near termpossibility of 6 Megapixel CCDs that are the same size as a 35 mm frame, Ihave to wonder if a $3k film scanner is a smart investment right now.Dan
RE: filmscanners: 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 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 driven by your complaint and the relative expsense of these heavy long lenses of today.Note that ten years ago a couple of meg of ram was expensive and huge - today I have 1 GB of ram in my PC and it cost me $200 ($US). Assuming that density for memory increases by a factor of 2 every 18 months you will have less then 2*2*2*2=16 times more in 5 years. Assuming that CMOS sensors scale at the same rate we will have 16MPixel*16=256MPixel in 6 years. That is considerable less then 1 GPixel and is still on the high side. Even if it would be possible to get 1 GPixel I still don't think we would have get it. The problem is that the more pixels you squeeze in the same area the smaller the size of the pixel gets. Kind of like getting an extremly slow film. So in order to get a usable output you would need very long exposure times. If you don't then your SNR (Signal-to-Noise-Ratio) will be very low resulting in bad images. That is even more true if you want to decrease the size of the imager. But that's not all. With such high resolution the requirement for lenses will be extremly high. If you really want to take avantage of a GPixel imager whose size is fairly small then you will need lenses with huge lpmm. For all these reasons and many more I do not believe we will get 1 GPixel in 5 years or less. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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... 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. But *real* progress still hinges on larger CCD or CMOS sensors, and that will be expensive, at least in the short term. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 good 35mm SLR for half the price. The digicams at 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet... Rob
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups, immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box unlike the damn scanner. I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99% will convert to digital. The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film. I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!). Steve - Original Message - 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 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 good 35mm SLR for half the price. The digicams at 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet... Rob
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Steve wrote: A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). Isn't that a little *harsh*, Steve? I suppose the difference between half decent and competent isn't enough to argue over, but I'd submit that Acer scans are at least 85% decent, even though I belly-ache about them often enough. ;-) Depending on what 35mm camera you're talking about (even so-so SLR's are around 200+ $US around here, body only), you're talking $600-850, which will buy a *good* mid-range digital camera from any number of mfgrs, but not a Coolpix. Since I'm planning to get a DC for my daughter, I'm hyper-interested in the subject. Casio doesn'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] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:56:19 +0100 A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups, immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box unlike the damn scanner. I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99% will convert to digital. The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film. I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!). Steve - Original Message - 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 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 good 35mm SLR for half the price. The digicams at 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet... Rob _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
- 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 (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). Isn't that a little *harsh*, Steve? I suppose the difference between half decent and competent isn't enough to argue over, but I'd submit that Acer scans are at least 85% decent, even though I belly-ache about them often enough. ;-) Fair enough, poor use of English. What I really meant was that, judging by opinion here, anything significantly cheaper is so poor in comparison that it is not worth considering. Depending on what 35mm camera you're talking about (even so-so SLR's are around 200+ $US around here, body only), you're talking $600-850, which will buy a *good* mid-range digital camera from any number of mfgrs, but not a Coolpix. Since I'm planning to get a DC for my daughter, I'm hyper-interested in the subject. Casio doesn't quite ring bells, but I might very well be overlooking something. I bought my Casio almost by accident. There were the first round of 3MP cameras being reviewed on the web ( I particularly like Steve's reviews http://www.steves-digicams.com/ ). I decided I'd upgrade my JVC GCS1 which was pretty awful (half-decent would be a gross exageration) but was still good enough to get me hooked. I went for a browse round a few internet sites to see how much the 2MP cameras had dropped in price when I happened across the 3MP QV3000 for more than a £100 less than the cheapest price of the equivalent 2MP model. I couldn't find the credit card quick enough. I have always been delighted with the Casio. Sure the Nikon 990 has very marginally better absolute image quality is probably a bit more solid and it has one of those marvellous twisty lens designs (don't let anyone tell you otherwise) but ultimately it was nearly twice the £430 price and you can't use the wonderful microdrive. Days after purchasing the camera I put these samples on the web (I was one of the first owners). http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/qv3000.htm When I took the samples I was trying to induce the best known digital problems jaggies and purple fringeing. If there is significant interest here e-mail me off list and I will write a mini review and post a few samples and expose what I have found to be the significant problems with the QV3000 much of which applies to many 3MP digicams. In general it has been much better than I ever expected and I use it much more than my two 35mm cameras. Kids in particular love it. Steve 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] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:56:19 +0100 A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups, immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box unlike the damn scanner. I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99% will convert to digital. The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film. I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!). Steve - Original Message - 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 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 good 35mm SLR for half the price. The digicams at 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet... Rob
filmscanners: Digicams again was Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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; just ask my brother who has been losing hair through people trying to submit 75dpi scans for printing in a magazine he produces! I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!). No need for an asbestos suit with respect to me. I don't doubt that digital photography will replace film, but I'm not convinced it will happen as fast or be as good as a lot of people are saying. Someone else just pointed out that the data coming from cameras is only 8 bits per channel, which may be a serious limitation in some cases. I would say that the jpeg compression used in most cameras to save memory is a far worse factor in image quality. But even with 8 bits per channel, give me the same number of pixels as I currently get out of Provia 100F with the LS30 and enough memory to store 36 pictures with lossless compression in removable media that doesn't cost the earth, and a battery system that works... for about US$500... and then I'll happily agree that film is dead. :) 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. :) Rob PS I'll try to stay on topic Tony, honest! Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 camera in Canada is about $1400 right now, that should be well under $1000 US street, and saves the need for the extra interface with the computer, and having to download to write to a CD-RW/R anyway. Of course, since CD-RW is reusable many times, to save money you could write the stuff down to a standard CD-R/RW and reuse the disks. Also, the cost of packing a dozen of these 3 babies is under $60 CAN, and takes up very little space and weight. I used to wonder about Sony when they came out with the floppy disk version of this concept, but now they are getting somewhere. Of course, I imagine that flash memory is a lot more reliable (having no moving parts) than a CD-RW drive in the camera, and also RAM is smaller and must weight a lot less. But one big advantage is at $5 a pop (or less) you also don't really need to bring a laptop with you and can wait to download the images when you get home. Is there enough room under that kitchen table for two? ;-) Art Steve Greenbank wrote: A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740). On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups, immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box unlike the damn scanner. I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99% will convert to digital. The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film. I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK government in the event of nuclear attack!!). Steve
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 problems with CCDs in scanners just think of the problems in cameras. This might be less of a problem than it appears. Imagine you had a film which either had extremely wide exposure latitude, or could change ISO at will. In effect, that is what the MOS/CCD sensors in a digital camera do. They can move sensitivity levels within a wide range (much more than a couple of f-stops film can handle, with current film technology... Agfa and Kodak are working on new chemical techniques that could change this drastically)). Digital sensors could even be set to decrease the exposure range, so that they compressed anything outside of their range. Film can't do this, if you get over it's exposure range it simple blows out to Dmin and vice versa. Photographic papers are even worse for this exposure latitude, which is why modern labs use digital enhancement techniques to improve prints from film. If the exposure itself is bang on center within the sensitivity range of the sensors, then 8 bit/channel is probably al that is needed, as it is 16 million colors and hues, making for pretty much all the human eye can see. The problem occurs when we squeeze this stuff up against one side or the other of the sensitivity range and then need to stretch it back out to fill that histogram space. The we want all those extra levels to make smoother transitions to fix the loss of the color resolution. How long until the selection of lenses for digital cameras matches that of SLRs? For this to happen, digital will have to get to good enough that the format can be frozen long enough for multiple lens types to be developed. I'm not sure this is a problem. Nikon and others have camera bodies which have digital backs which otherwise accept 35mm SLR mounted lenses. A 28-200 zoom, but at what quality level? Remember a lens used for digital work _must_ filter out all detail at less than half the sampling frequency to avoid aliasing. 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 be required it would be done via electronic means. Keep in mind film also has a sampling rate, although it is somewhat more randomized and right now, still finer than most electronic sensors made available for mere mortals. Art
RE: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
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 27, 2001 11:00 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: filmscanners: New: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Film Scanner See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html Medium format, 4800 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire. (zero deleted to avoid further comment..!)
