Re: Macros at full aperture (was: Re: Quality of Sigma's Macro Lenses?)
Sorry if my post appeared to critisise the photo, I like it a lot too. Bjørn has this irresistable urge to try all sorts of odd techniques. He delivers the goods, as a good photographer should, but I frequently get the impression that he's basic attraction is the tech stuff. He's the most die-hard Nikon fan I have ever come across, and a devoted collector as well. Interestingly, however, he's also on a crusade to try to renew Norwegian nature photography. His credo is that everyone should break barriers, find new angles, develop a personal style, etc. :-) Jostein Quoting Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I like this. A very narrow depth of field can lead to a very > interesting image. > Nice work. > Paul > On Oct 10, 2004, at 4:10 PM, Jostein wrote: > > > lol... > > > > Bjørn is a good photographer, but he's basically trying out things > > like that just for the heck of it. > > Jostein > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 1:25 AM > > Subject: Re: Macros at full aperture (was: Re: Quality of Sigma's > > Macro Lenses?) > > > > > >> f0.75 macro shots, wide open: > >> http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html#top > >> > >> mishka > >> > >> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:16:32 +1000, Rob Studdert > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Just to provide a counterpoint I often find myself shooting macros > > at wide > >>> apertures, it really depends what you want to portray, the largest > > DOF isn't > >>> always desirable from an artistic perspective. > >> > > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OT - Supercomputers
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, John Francis wrote: > That suggests 2048-bit keys should be secure for maybe the next 20 years. > Adding two bits per year to the key length should more than keep up with > the increases in processor speed, if you're really being paranoid. Still, this whole discussion is based on the assumption that brute force -- trying every possible combination -- is the only way to break the code, and that there is no mathemathical shortcut. Think of what would happen if one day, some seventeen year old math genious exclaims "yes, THAT'S the way to do it". It is also based on the assumption that you actually have to try all possible combinations (or at least half of them) before finding the right one, and that you don't get lucky and actually find the right combination early on. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset"
This is absolutely awesome, David. Beautiful work. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. oktober 2004 05:52 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset" You're seeing this a day late as my ISP has been having server problems... I think the file could use a little more work but here it is anyway. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=9-Oct-2004 Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
SV: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset"
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. oktober 2004 05:52 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset" You're seeing this a day late as my ISP has been having server problems... I think the file could use a little more work but here it is anyway. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=9-Oct-2004 Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: When good photographers do bad things
Just started to look but shouldn't that be "When good things happen to "bad" photographers"? William Robb wrote: Or not. Anyway, here is a random sampling of my escapade yesterday. Before commenting cruelly, please consider that the girls are not professional models, and the entire affair was somewhat underorganized. Also, these pictures are of young women wearing little (very little in some pictures) clothing. If partial nudity and suggestive posing offends you, don't click the link. http://www.komkon.org/~wrobb/ William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: OT - Supercomputers
I guess if youre really paranoid, 2048 bits might be taking a risk at some point. But I'm truly skeptical. 10^12 is a big factor. I suspect that most of our computational performance is now going to come from massive parallelism, and not processor frequency. We still have a little room in processor frequency, but not a whole lot, certainly not 1000x, much less 10^6. If you made 2048 bit (or more) processors, that would certainly help alot, and if you could build lots of them in 3D instead of close to 2D like we currently do, then that would buy you some more power. But getting a million million times more I just dont see it in 25 to 30 years. More like 200 to 300 years. But technology is always finding new ways to keep up with Moore's law isn't it? rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gonz mused: Just sit back and enjoy the security. That little 36.1 Tera-FLOP is just a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of power it would take to crack the 2048 code, much less the 4096 one. 36.1 Tera-FLOPS is 36.1 x 10^15 flops. If you remember that post before, if each quark in the universe was able to run at 10^15 flops (1 Teraflop), then all the quarks in the universe could not crack the 4096 (or 2048) code before it went cold. You might want to check *your* figures again, too. 4096-bit DES is computationally unattainable, but to crack 2048-bit RSA inside a year is only beyond current state-of-the-art computers by around a factor of one million million. Assuming that processor speed increases continue at approximately the current rate, we'll probably get there in 25 or 30 years, more or less. That suggests 2048-bit keys should be secure for maybe the next 20 years. Adding two bits per year to the key length should more than keep up with the increases in processor speed, if you're really being paranoid.
When good photographers do bad things
Or not. Anyway, here is a random sampling of my escapade yesterday. Before commenting cruelly, please consider that the girls are not professional models, and the entire affair was somewhat underorganized. Also, these pictures are of young women wearing little (very little in some pictures) clothing. If partial nudity and suggestive posing offends you, don't click the link. http://www.komkon.org/~wrobb/ William Robb
Re: Sunday afternoon spider
This one time, at band camp, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anyone know if the istDs will take the same remote as the istD? > If so, it is a fairly safe bet that a new high end camera would as > well. Also, is this the same remote as for the previous flagship, the MZ-S? Kind regards Kevin - "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: OT - Supercomputers
Gonz mused: > > Just sit back and enjoy the security. That little 36.1 Tera-FLOP is > just a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of power it would take > to crack the 2048 code, much less the 4096 one. 36.1 Tera-FLOPS is > 36.1 x 10^15 flops. If you remember that post before, if each quark in > the universe was able to run at 10^15 flops (1 Teraflop), then all the > quarks in the universe could not crack the 4096 (or 2048) code before it > went cold. You might want to check *your* figures again, too. 4096-bit DES is computationally unattainable, but to crack 2048-bit RSA inside a year is only beyond current state-of-the-art computers by around a factor of one million million. Assuming that processor speed increases continue at approximately the current rate, we'll probably get there in 25 or 30 years, more or less. That suggests 2048-bit keys should be secure for maybe the next 20 years. Adding two bits per year to the key length should more than keep up with the increases in processor speed, if you're really being paranoid.
Re: Was this a good deal on a Sigma macro?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Was this a good deal on a Sigma macro? Isnt a MANUAL focus (only) lens preferrable for macro rather than an AF lens used manually? I don't have any experience witht eh lens pictured, but it looks to have a decent focusing ring at least. As long as it doesn't creep to badly.. I'm pretty much with you on this one though. William Robb
Re: Shooting with the istD
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Shooting with the istD Is that sorta like "shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!" Pretty much. It is way to easy to shoot way too many pictures with a DSLR. At least with film, you have to stop more often. William Robb
Re: Digital is Awesome!
- Original Message - From: "Steve Pearson" Subject: Digital is Awesome! I figured out how to cut and paste him from another photo where he was looking at the camera, and I must say I'm pretty impressed with my work. Digital is so cool! I shot an obedience trial this past February, and ran into a similar situation. One of the award shots, I had a great shot of the dog, bwith the handler looking not so good, and another with the handler looking good and the dog looking dumb. I cloned the handler's head from one image to the other and sold it. William Robb
Re: Supercomputers
Graywolf mused: > > I just did a little research (very little actually). The current fastest > supercomputer is made by IBM and just beat out NEC at 36.1 Tera-FLOPS (trillion > floating point opreations per second). Next year they will be delivering one > with almost 10 times that power. Even a little 1 cabinet Cray XD1 does 5 G-FLOPS > (billion flops) and will only set you back $100K or so. > > Tell me again how secure your cipher is from brut force decryption (grin). Next > year's IBM should be able to do that 2048 bit jobby in one year all by its lonesome. 360 TeraFlops? Well, assuming FLOPS & IPS are roughly comparable, that machine will do roughly 360 million MIPS-years in a year of operation. So, by the figures quoted in the document you cited, it should be able to complete the 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 MIPS-years needed to break 2048-bit RSA encryption in, more or less, one million million years. Sounds pretty secure to me. You want to check those calculations again? > BTW the IBM uses AMD processors and most likely runs Linux. I find it amazing > that current state of the art supercomputers are just like our desktops only > they have a few more proccessors (16000 or so). That's been the fastest way to make computers for some time. For some classes of problems (which includes factorisation, weather forecasting, aerodynamics, and simulating nuclear explosions) this kind of approach works really well, becaise it's easy to break the problem into small pieces with only limited communication between the individual parts. For other problems the biggest problem is moving data between the different processors. This is why SGI (and IBM) manage to sell 4000-processor machines which cost a great deal more than 4000 times the price of a single processor; the extra cost is in the massive crossbar data switches, multi-port data cacheing systems, etc.
Re: OT - Supercomputers
Just sit back and enjoy the security. That little 36.1 Tera-FLOP is just a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of power it would take to crack the 2048 code, much less the 4096 one. 36.1 Tera-FLOPS is 36.1 x 10^15 flops. If you remember that post before, if each quark in the universe was able to run at 10^15 flops (1 Teraflop), then all the quarks in the universe could not crack the 4096 (or 2048) code before it went cold. So tell us again how many of these computers are you going to use? Even if you built one 100x faster tomorrow, it still wouldnt matter. Somewhere you must be doing linear math when it takes exponential formulas to make the right estimates. I.e. a 2048 bit cipher of this type is 2^1024 times more computationally complex than a cipher with 1024 bits, not twice as complex, as would be estimated by an erroneous linear guess. That means adding just 7 more bits gives you a 100 fold (128 to be exact) increase in the amount of computations, accounting for the next generation of computers quite easily. Believe us when we say that brute force is not going to cut it. The government is much more likely to put a bug in your computer to get the key or the data than to try to crack the code, which is for all intents and purposes impossible. I'm telling you that even if Al-Queda was communicating their next terrorist plans via a 2048 PGP or RSA cipher, there is nothing the NSA/CIA/FBI could do about it, except try and get the info some other way. Luckily it appears that they may not be that smart or trusting, so they communicate via old fashion ways, which are succeptible to interception. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just did a little research (very little actually). The current fastest supercomputer is made by IBM and just beat out NEC at 36.1 Tera-FLOPS (trillion floating point opreations per second). Next year they will be delivering one with almost 10 times that power. Even a little 1 cabinet Cray XD1 does 5 G-FLOPS (billion flops) and will only set you back $100K or so. Tell me again how secure your cipher is from brut force decryption (grin). Next year's IBM should be able to do that 2048 bit jobby in one year all by its lonesome. BTW the IBM uses AMD processors and most likely runs Linux. I find it amazing that current state of the art supercomputers are just like our desktops only they have a few more proccessors (16000 or so).
Re: Supercomputers
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:38:54 -0400, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just did a little research (very little actually). The current fastest > supercomputer is made by IBM and just beat out NEC at 36.1 Tera-FLOPS (trillion > floating point opreations per second). [EMAIL PROTECTED] does twice that number. for free. > Next year they will be delivering one with almost 10 times that power. good for them > Even a little 1 cabinet Cray XD1 does 5 G-FLOPS > (billion flops) and will only set you back $100K or so. ... and just imagine a beowulf cluster of those > Tell me again how secure your cipher is from brut force decryption (grin). Next > year's IBM should be able to do that 2048 bit jobby in one year all by its lonesome. it's as secure as it gets. just use 4096 bit keys for the next year. as simple as that. mishka
RE: PEF or DNG?
I think the idea behind it all is to have the camera makers OUTPUT a DNG file only from the camera as the "raw" file. there would be no point in outputting a propriatary RAW file from the camera and then using special software to convert it to DNG later. JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PEF or DNG? well... no. the idea (as i understand it) behind DNG is to make pentax et al create the proprietory "converters", or, better yet, use DNG itself as a raw format. the 3rd party (adobe in this case) raw-to-DNG converter is useful only as a toy to give people some sense of what is should look and feel like. best, mishka On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:36:01 -0400, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >First and foremost: the DNG converter doesn't preserve all the > >Pentax-private data from the MakerNote tag (including, amongst other > >things, the code identifying the lens mounted on the camera). I would > >strongly recommend any *ist-D owner save a copy of the PEF file, even > >if you decide to use DNG as a raw file format. > > Doesn't that obviate one of the main reasons for the existence of the > DNG format?
RE: Was this a good deal on a Sigma macro?
Isnt a MANUAL focus (only) lens preferrable for macro rather than an AF lens used manually? Once again, the DOF on Macro is very shallow and I don't think you would want to rely on AF for that so a very smooth Manual Focus would be very high on the list of features you would want in a Macro lens if you are going to use it at high magnifications JCO -Original Message- From: Steve Pearson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Was this a good deal on a Sigma macro? Hi aagin, You probably rememeber that I'm giving some thought to a macro lens. Was this a "good" deal: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=384402 9025&rd=1 ??? Thanks! __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: eBay auction
from another auction of that same seller: "GREAT ENTRE LEVEL GUITAR" -- just add cheese mishka On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:43:46 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Oct 2004 at 20:30, Joseph Tainter wrote: > Just save some money, I'm sure the following camera would negate your need for > the 600mm and just look how inexpensive it is :-) > > http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3844857364 > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
Supercomputers
I just did a little research (very little actually). The current fastest supercomputer is made by IBM and just beat out NEC at 36.1 Tera-FLOPS (trillion floating point opreations per second). Next year they will be delivering one with almost 10 times that power. Even a little 1 cabinet Cray XD1 does 5 G-FLOPS (billion flops) and will only set you back $100K or so. Tell me again how secure your cipher is from brut force decryption (grin). Next year's IBM should be able to do that 2048 bit jobby in one year all by its lonesome. BTW the IBM uses AMD processors and most likely runs Linux. I find it amazing that current state of the art supercomputers are just like our desktops only they have a few more proccessors (16000 or so). -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: PEF or DNG?
well... no. the idea (as i understand it) behind DNG is to make pentax et al create the proprietory "converters", or, better yet, use DNG itself as a raw format. the 3rd party (adobe in this case) raw-to-DNG converter is useful only as a toy to give people some sense of what is should look and feel like. best, mishka On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:36:01 -0400, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >First and foremost: the DNG converter doesn't preserve all the > >Pentax-private data from the MakerNote tag (including, amongst > >other things, the code identifying the lens mounted on the camera). > >I would strongly recommend any *ist-D owner save a copy of the > >PEF file, even if you decide to use DNG as a raw file format. > > Doesn't that obviate one of the main reasons for the existence of the > DNG format?
Was this a good deal on a Sigma macro?
Hi aagin, You probably rememeber that I'm giving some thought to a macro lens. Was this a "good" deal: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=3844029025&rd=1 ??? Thanks! __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Digital is Awesome!
Hi everyone, I know you purists will hate to hear this. But, I just got thru shooting my family's Christmas card. The beauty of digital, when working with 3 kids, 1 dog, and 1 cat is the ability to cut & paste. I've never done this before, but out of 50 some shots, of course it was impossible to get a shot with everyone looking at the camera. Our final choice had only the dog looking away. I figured out how to cut and paste him from another photo where he was looking at the camera, and I must say I'm pretty impressed with my work. Digital is so cool! Just thought I would share. Hopefully this doesn't start a huge "bashing". Thanks! ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: eBay auction
Actually I wonder if it's really worse than getting sucked in a FA 600 buy ;-) Rob Studdert wrote: Just save some money, I'm sure the following camera would negate your need for the 600mm and just look how inexpensive it is :-) http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3844857364
Re: eBay auction
On 10 Oct 2004 at 20:30, Joseph Tainter wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1523&item=5525211815&rd=1 > > Oh, my. Look at how many have bid and how high the bidding has gone. > Just think -- the people who have bid on this are allowed to drive. They > are allowed to vote. They are even allowed to reproduce. > > I should try this scam. It looks like 2 or 3 ghost bottles could finance > my FA 600 f4. Just save some money, I'm sure the following camera would negate your need for the 600mm and just look how inexpensive it is :-) http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3844857364 Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Shooting with the istD
Is that sorta like "shoot 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!" JCO -Original Message- From: Sid Barras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Shooting with the istD On Oct 10, 2004, at 12:49 AM, William Robb wrote: > > On the other hand, I am now cursed with having to go through almost 10 > gigs of image files to see what I managed to accomplish. > At least the subject matter is pleasing... > Sid replies, I'm sure I speak for many of the testosterone enabled pdmlers in saying we'd be happy to help with that tedious task. In fact, why not a special PUG gallery? Post 'em all, and we'll do the rest. Sid
Re: The Mail Archive on hold this week
- Original Message - From: "jtainter" Subject: Fw: The Mail Archive on hold this week For those who, like me, participate in PDML through Mail-Archive.com. As so many times before, I have subscribed temporarily to the digest. We love ya, Joe. b...
Re: Shooting with the istD
On Oct 10, 2004, at 12:49 AM, William Robb wrote: On the other hand, I am now cursed with having to go through almost 10 gigs of image files to see what I managed to accomplish. At least the subject matter is pleasing... Sid replies, I'm sure I speak for many of the testosterone enabled pdmlers in saying we'd be happy to help with that tedious task. In fact, why not a special PUG gallery? Post 'em all, and we'll do the rest. Sid
Re: eBay auction
> I know I'm breaking the rules by posting this but I know how many of you want to photograph something unique. This is your opportunity to get a ghost on film! Not for the weak of wallet. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1523&item=5525211815&rd=1 Oh, my. Look at how many have bid and how high the bidding has gone. Just think -- the people who have bid on this are allowed to drive. They are allowed to vote. They are even allowed to reproduce. I should try this scam. It looks like 2 or 3 ghost bottles could finance my FA 600 f4. Joe
Fw: The Mail Archive on hold this week
For those who, like me, participate in PDML through Mail-Archive.com. As so many times before, I have subscribed temporarily to the digest. Joe -Forwarded Message- From: Jeff Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Oct 10, 2004 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Mail Archive on hold this week Since yesterday morning, incoming mail processing has been on hold. All mail is queueing and will be processed when we can turn things back on. Unfortunately, we won't be able to turn the mail processing back on for the whole week. We had hoped we would've had our new large capacity drives installed by now, but the drives were back-ordered and haven't shown up yet. We found a new vendor that has them in stock and are rushing the delivery this week so we can get them in next weekend. As part of our preparation for the new drives, we are creating brand new filesystem partitions. We usually do partition copies when moving data around because it's fast (on the order of 5 to 8 hours). However, the filesystem partitions for The Mail Archive have existed and been moved around for years. We want to have a clean partition for the first time in a long time and this requires a slower recursive file copy. We started the file copy yesterday to a large raid partition. At its current rate, we're projecting it to take another 5 to 7 days to finish. As soon as it is done we will install the new 400GB drives in the disk array and move the new partition over. Once that is done, we will begin processing the mail that has been on hold. Therefore it might take an additional couple days to catch up on the mail backlog. Again, we're sorry about having the system on hold for such a long period of time. We tried setting up a few alternate solutions to make the transition seamless but we ran into problems with those options. This will be good for the long-term health of the service. Jeff Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PEF or DNG?
Mark Roberts mused: > > "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I've just taken my first look at what the Adobe DNG converter > >does when you give it a Pentax PEF file from the *ist-D > > > >First and foremost: the DNG converter doesn't preserve all the > >Pentax-private data from the MakerNote tag (including, amongst > >other things, the code identifying the lens mounted on the camera). > >I would strongly recommend any *ist-D owner save a copy of the > >PEF file, even if you decide to use DNG as a raw file format. > > Doesn't that obviate one of the main reasons for the existence of the > DNG format? Not really - I'd expect that more software will support DNG, eventually, than will support PEF; that's the primary reason I can see for it. I'd also expect Adobe to fix the MakerNote issue; they have indicated they know of the problem. In fact the release notes for this version of the DNG converter recommend not destroying the original raw files (and hint that this could improve in future releases). My biggest concern is with the colour differences between the Pentax software and the DNG (and, presumably, PhotoShop) conversion. I've got some ideas I'm working on to address that, but I'm somewhat restricted in what I can investigate, because I don't have PhotoShop CS.
Re: PEF or DNG?
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've just taken my first look at what the Adobe DNG converter >does when you give it a Pentax PEF file from the *ist-D > >First and foremost: the DNG converter doesn't preserve all the >Pentax-private data from the MakerNote tag (including, amongst >other things, the code identifying the lens mounted on the camera). >I would strongly recommend any *ist-D owner save a copy of the >PEF file, even if you decide to use DNG as a raw file format. Doesn't that obviate one of the main reasons for the existence of the DNG format? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
FS:sorry so late/early
MG with M50/2 Working fine. Good condition. with original manual. $50 SMC Pentax-A 70-210/4. The good one. but it needs repairing. Aperture won't close & "A" pin spring missing. $20. AF200T flash. Works fine. One spring needs cleaning from a battery leak. Just use an emery board to scrape it clean. $15 72mm Red filter, Sunpak branded. NIB $15 77mm Red filter, Bower branded. NIB $15 Stack of used 55mm filters $10 81A,B,C,EF, 80A,B,C, 82,A,C, 85C,1A (Vivitar, Tiffen, Hoya) with rear screw cap & front lens cap. ... and last but not least ... Dietzgen Maniphase slide rule. VGC with case. $15. + shipping. PayPal. Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks
Re: Intersting point of view
Could be, but that's not the error message I'd expect in that case. In any case, it's available again, at least from my neck of the Internet woods. On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:08:19 -0400, Graywolf wrote: > It worked fine when I looked at it yesterday. Now I can not connect. Perhaps we > ran him over his bandwidth for the month? > >>>http://henrystop.port5.com/ > > Same here. "Could not locate remote server". TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PEF or DNG?
Thanks John. I had converted some of my PEF files to DNG for archiving. That seems to be okay. But I was about to edfelete all my PEFs in favor of their DNG counterparts. Now, thanks to your input, that sounds like a poor choice. Thanks again for watching out for us. Paul On Oct 10, 2004, at 7:57 PM, John Francis wrote: I've just taken my first look at what the Adobe DNG converter does when you give it a Pentax PEF file from the *ist-D First and foremost: the DNG converter doesn't preserve all the Pentax-private data from the MakerNote tag (including, amongst other things, the code identifying the lens mounted on the camera). I would strongly recommend any *ist-D owner save a copy of the PEF file, even if you decide to use DNG as a raw file format. THe release notes that come with the converter indicate that Adobe is aware of this shortcoming, and may address the issue in a future release. So: how does the converter create the DNG file? o Data copied from the PEF file o The raw (12-bit) sensor data o Most of the EXIF tags Some of these values are copied over into EXIF data, while some are copied into equivalent DNG tags. There are also a couple of new EXIF tags which don't hold any new data, but simply give the APEX-standardised format for shutter speed and lens aperture. o Data *NOT* copied from the PEF file o All the JPEG images (thumbnails and full-size) o The private settings from the MakerNote tag o New data added to the DNG file o A reduced-size (256 x 171) RGB TIFF image o DNG-specific data (I'm not sure whether some of this information is taken from equivalent values in the MakerNote tag, or whether it reflects best-guess settings from Adobe. I'm inclined to suspect the latter) o Sensor-to-RGB conversion matrices (for two different, idintified, colour temperatures) o Black level & White level o Auto-White-Balance scaling factors o Sensor crop region (offset & dimensions) o Tags describing sensor layout, strength of the anti-aliasing filter, etc. o Data *NOT* found in the DNG file o Linearization tables This was a considerable surprise to me. The DNG file format contains specifications for a tag to describe the response curve of the sensor. I expected to see this tag in the created file, because both the Pentax Photo Laboratory and the in-camera image processing algorithms appear to use such a curve; it's probably the single largest factor in explaining the different in appearance of Pentax-created images as compared to those from any other software. Bottom line: this looks very much like a work in progress. I'd expect to see a future release of the DNG converter preserve more of the Pentax-specific information from the MakerNote tag, and perhaps even use the same linearization curve as the Pentax software. Until then I wouldn't use DNG, even if I had any software that could read it.
Re: PEF or DNG?
On 10 Oct 2004 at 19:57, John Francis wrote: > Bottom line: this looks very much like a work in progress. > I'd expect to see a future release of the DNG converter > preserve more of the Pentax-specific information from the > MakerNote tag, and perhaps even use the same linearization > curve as the Pentax software. Until then I wouldn't use > DNG, even if I had any software that could read it. Thanks for the report John, much as I had suspected, even the PS CS RAW convertor hasn't the control of colour offered by the Pentax RAW convertor. I intend to stay well away from it until it's adopted as the preferential RAW file format by the camera manufacturers. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Wow!
The list is back! The list is back! Looks like I missed the conversation about my "model". :) Thanks to whomever for the energies expended. I know it's not easy. This week I have to interface DB2 to Notes via DECS and generate some suitable HTML/JS/CSS along with it. So much fun, this blasted technology. But it pays the bills. Collin "You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the relationship the greater the impact." Howard Hendricks
Re: a really big lens
Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mishka wrote: >>> from a different list >>> >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? >> ViewItem&item=3842947706&category=30076 >> >Looks like a Cotty project in the making... He's working on a fitting for the Pentax 110. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
PEF or DNG?
I've just taken my first look at what the Adobe DNG converter does when you give it a Pentax PEF file from the *ist-D First and foremost: the DNG converter doesn't preserve all the Pentax-private data from the MakerNote tag (including, amongst other things, the code identifying the lens mounted on the camera). I would strongly recommend any *ist-D owner save a copy of the PEF file, even if you decide to use DNG as a raw file format. THe release notes that come with the converter indicate that Adobe is aware of this shortcoming, and may address the issue in a future release. So: how does the converter create the DNG file? o Data copied from the PEF file o The raw (12-bit) sensor data o Most of the EXIF tags Some of these values are copied over into EXIF data, while some are copied into equivalent DNG tags. There are also a couple of new EXIF tags which don't hold any new data, but simply give the APEX-standardised format for shutter speed and lens aperture. o Data *NOT* copied from the PEF file o All the JPEG images (thumbnails and full-size) o The private settings from the MakerNote tag o New data added to the DNG file o A reduced-size (256 x 171) RGB TIFF image o DNG-specific data (I'm not sure whether some of this information is taken from equivalent values in the MakerNote tag, or whether it reflects best-guess settings from Adobe. I'm inclined to suspect the latter) o Sensor-to-RGB conversion matrices (for two different, idintified, colour temperatures) o Black level & White level o Auto-White-Balance scaling factors o Sensor crop region (offset & dimensions) o Tags describing sensor layout, strength of the anti-aliasing filter, etc. o Data *NOT* found in the DNG file o Linearization tables This was a considerable surprise to me. The DNG file format contains specifications for a tag to describe the response curve of the sensor. I expected to see this tag in the created file, because both the Pentax Photo Laboratory and the in-camera image processing algorithms appear to use such a curve; it's probably the single largest factor in explaining the different in appearance of Pentax-created images as compared to those from any other software. Bottom line: this looks very much like a work in progress. I'd expect to see a future release of the DNG converter preserve more of the Pentax-specific information from the MakerNote tag, and perhaps even use the same linearization curve as the Pentax software. Until then I wouldn't use DNG, even if I had any software that could read it.
Re: a really big lens
Looks like a Cotty project in the making... On Oct 10, 2004, at 3:48 PM, Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote: But will it fit on the istD? :-) Maris Mishka wrote: from a different list http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=3842947706&category=30076
Re: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset"
I agree. The blue coloration is an interesting touch. While it may look more like dawn than sunset, it's a very nice image. paul On Oct 10, 2004, at 4:25 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Well done. The shore line really sucks you in so to speak. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset" You're seeing this a day late as my ISP has been having server problems... I think the file could use a little more work but here it is anyway. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=9-Oct-2004 Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Macros at full aperture (was: Re: Quality of Sigma's Macro Lenses?)
I like this. A very narrow depth of field can lead to a very interesting image. Nice work. Paul On Oct 10, 2004, at 4:10 PM, Jostein wrote: lol... Bjørn is a good photographer, but he's basically trying out things like that just for the heck of it. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Macros at full aperture (was: Re: Quality of Sigma's Macro Lenses?) f0.75 macro shots, wide open: http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html#top mishka On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:16:32 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just to provide a counterpoint I often find myself shooting macros at wide apertures, it really depends what you want to portray, the largest DOF isn't always desirable from an artistic perspective.
Re: istD Owner's Survey
Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:18:16 -0400, Daniel Matyola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I also have not used a protector, nor have I noticed any problem. > >Just wait until the paternity suits start coming. :) So that's why everyone was referring to the "Baby D". -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW - spider
Thanks everyone for responding. Yes, I we call this spider the kruisspin (Cross spider) here in the Netherlands. You are correct, it was facing down, so I should rotate it 90 degrees. I'll rotate it and crop it to make it symmetrical. It was moving out of the center of the frame all the time because the wind had an input, The spider itself sticks to the center of the web, and I notes it had its claws on the web trying to feel a movement caused by a fly or so. It helped me to use the flash to take out unsharpness of movement, but I had to dial in 3 stops of correction to stop overexposing. I am not really pleased by the flash result myself either. It was a lot harder to get it sharp without the flash and also have enough DOF. On Thursday 07 October 2004 23:09, The Diabolical Dr Z wrote: FJW> FJW> >Fred wrote: FJW> > FJW> >Any arachnologists amongst us who can tell us more about this critter ??? FJW> FJW> I'm not exactly an arachnologist, but FWIW, in both your and Frits' case it FJW> is likely to be female Araneus diadematicus (Dutch name translates to FJW> "Cross Spider", in North America -well, not in Mexico, probably- it's known FJW> as the Garden Orb Weaver). The species occurs on both sides of the big pond FJW> and in apparently equally common here and over there, although there are FJW> some related species that resemble it. I'm not too familiar with North FJW> American species, so it might be one of those related ones, although they FJW> are less common than this one. Big beasts, completely harmless so you can FJW> get really close, they sit still, are nicely patterned... good macro subjects. FJW> FJW> FWIW, Frits, I also much prefer the daylight one. Beautifully lit and each FJW> hair visible. But: the orientation of the spider seems a bit odd to me. Was FJW> it sitting like this, or hanging head-down? That is their typical FJW> behaviour, and therefore the current position strikes me as weird, FJW> especially since the stretched legs seem to be in an odd position for a FJW> spider hanging sideways. But it may just be my imagination based on the FJW> prejudice that spiders are supposed to sit head-down ;-). FJW> FJW> Also, as I admitted earlier, I'm completely crap at composition, but for FJW> some reason it seems to me like this would be one of those rare cases in FJW> which the composition of the image would improve by putting the spider's FJW> longitudinal body axis dead straight in the center of the frame. The spider FJW> is sitting (or hanging ;-)) so beautifully symmetrically (each leg is held FJW> as the exact mirror image of the opposite leg) that it almost asks for FJW> being framed completely symmetrically, especially because it fills up most FJW> of the frame already. It might have been another matter if the FJW> magnification had been less, so more of the web could have been visible. FJW> At any rate, I'd be curious to see what the picture looks like if you FJW> rotate the picture about 90 deg CCW and then crop it a bit to center the FJW> spider. FJW> FJW> Z. FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: Sunday afternoon spider
This one time, at band camp, "Leon Altoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have mae up an adaptor for my double shutter release for use with my > bellows. Basically it's a micro switch in a box with a 2.5mm plug on > it to connect to the *istD. The release screws into a hole in the side > of the box and when the plunger comes out it pushes on the micro switch > and sets off the camera. I've been using it with the Z1-p and MZ-S for > years but have only just changed it to fit the *ist D. Works > wonderfully for one hand operation. Hmm, this has some merit.. I will see what I can put together in the same fashion. I would like to continue to use the *istD for macro. Any who, what did you think of spidey? Kevin - "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: a really big lens
But will it fit on the istD? :-) Maris Mishka wrote: > from a different list > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3842947706&category=30076
Re: Sunday afternoon spider
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:48:43 +1000, Kevin Waterson wrote: >This one time, at band camp, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Pick up the remote cord for the istD. It makes life much easier. > >I would still need to hold down the button for the lens though. Thus >still requireing two hands. Another thing that stops me is that I >have a rather large job in April to do. This will require me to >purchase another *istD for backup body. In the next 6 months, I >dont know that Pentax will release a new model that accessories >will be compatible with. I do need a remote cord and the cord >to plug it into the mains electricity. But before I start buying >these toys, I need to know if I will still be using the *istD for >the job. If a new model is available, I may simply purchase two >of the newer models and accessories to go with that. Kevin, I have mae up an adaptor for my double shutter release for use with my bellows. Basically it's a micro switch in a box with a 2.5mm plug on it to connect to the *istD. The release screws into a hole in the side of the box and when the plunger comes out it pushes on the micro switch and sets off the camera. I've been using it with the Z1-p and MZ-S for years but have only just changed it to fit the *ist D. Works wonderfully for one hand operation. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset"
Well done. The shore line really sucks you in so to speak. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: PAW - "Lake Pukaki at Sunset" > You're seeing this a day late as my ISP has been having server > problems... > > I think the file could use a little more work but here it is anyway. > > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=9-Oct-2004 > > Cheers, > > - Dave > > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ >
Re: PESO - Smokin' city
John, thanks for the explanation. >"Sometimes, we just have to take what is there!" Or not take the image at all. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PESO - Smokin' city > Ken, the occasion is unrepeatable, of course, as we seldom have such > dramatic smoke coverage. The view in that direction is dominated by the > bridge, and the only way I could have got just the skyline, for example, > would have been to walk to the bridge itself, by which time the sun would > have gone - and the viewpoint would have been too low. I did take a couple > of shots looking in the other direction, and I'll see if there is anything > worth posting there. Unfortunately, I suspect that the very flat light, the > time of day, and the effects of the smoke itself will mean that there is > nothing dramatic there. > > Sometimes, we just have to take what is there! > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > - Original Message - > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 6:04 AM > Subject: Re: PESO - Smokin' city > > > > John, I hope you shot variations on this or can get back to try again. I > > think you have the elements for the making of a fine image, but as posted > > it > > misses the mark for me. I like the skyline and I like the Bridge > > silhouette > > but together they are competing for attention. The time of day and > > smokiness > > really add character. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: PESO - Smokin' city > > > > > >> Another in my occasional series - shot from the roof yet again! > >> http://tinyurl.com/6dara > >> > >> Comments welcomed - good or bad! > >> > >> John Coyle > >> Brisbane, Australia > >> > > > > >
Re: Macros at full aperture (was: Re: Quality of Sigma's Macro Lenses?)
lol... Bjørn is a good photographer, but he's basically trying out things like that just for the heck of it. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Macros at full aperture (was: Re: Quality of Sigma's Macro Lenses?) > f0.75 macro shots, wide open: > http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html#top > > mishka > > On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:16:32 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just to provide a counterpoint I often find myself shooting macros at wide > > apertures, it really depends what you want to portray, the largest DOF isn't > > always desirable from an artistic perspective. >
