Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for your point Dave, but I stressed well exposed negative/slide, the inference being not just sharp but well exposed meaning tones and shadows-etc. Your original post was using a disposable camera as an example, saying that there was 60MB of data on the film in a $5 disposable camera. I believe that this is where the confusion is stemming from. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital questions: was: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
William Robb writes: What I would like to know is what sort of dynamic range in stops (a concept I do understand) does a CCD chip have? Is it variable based on software or is it hardware limited? I have no idea. I do wonder if the in-camera exposure compensation is done in the digital domain or if it sets the gain of an analogue amplifier prior to sampling. The second way will result in more useable data provided you've got enough linearity and dynamic range, and a low enough noise floor in the analogue stage. I am of course assuming that the CCD elements are essentially an analogue device with a DAC somewhere either on the CCD chip itself or separately in the camera. Another thing is that the camera firmware can always interpolate. You can easily sample at (say) 8 bits per channel, then when you're interpolating the extra pixels to fill the gaps left by the CCD, you can add a few bits. This would be very similar to the oversampling process used in expensive CD players that use 20-bit DACs. Is it closer to a short range slide film such as Velvia? Or closer to a long range print film such as Portra NC? Or is the question to general to give a specific answer to? It'll depend on the CCD itself. Someone would have to try it out to be sure (unless you want to read some semiconductor datasheets). Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
William Robb writes: In the context of your original post, 60 megabytes of crap is a lot of crap. What we're basically saying is similar to opening a 1Mb image in Photoshop and resampling it out to 60Mb. You get more data but not more detail, which is similar in principle to shooting a disposable camera onto 35mm film: the format stores more data than the optics actually provides. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
William Robb writes: I do have a question about film to digital comparisons. What is the comparative image depth of film to digital capture? I know the digital guys talk about 36 bit depth, but how does that tranlate to the capture depth of a long scale film such as Portra? Is 12 bits per colour the equivalent of 12 stops of tonal range? Not necessarily. Each bit might not represent a doubling of the actual light intensity, even though it will represent a doubling of signal out of the CCD's analogue electronics. 12 bits will represent a range of 4096 levels (per colour). The important part is how the range is scaled. Those 4096 levels might represent a 1-stop tonal range with _heaps_ of tonal detail within that range. Which is great if your lighting is flat. But when the sun comes out it'd respond like lith film :) In reality there's a bit of a tradeoff between tonal range and tonal detail, within the limits of the CCD (dynamic range, linearity and noise). Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Mafud asks: Please explain to us all exactly ~what~ image data is not useful in a well exposed, 60MB negative? An unsharp negative will give you less useful data than a tak-sharp one. There might be no point scanning a soft neg past 2400dpi while a sharp one will give more and more detail up to about 4-6,000dpi (on a drum scanner). Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Digital questions: was: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
- Original Message - From: David A. Mann Subject: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera William Robb writes: I do have a question about film to digital comparisons. What is the comparative image depth of film to digital capture? I know the digital guys talk about 36 bit depth, but how does that tranlate to the capture depth of a long scale film such as Portra? Is 12 bits per colour the equivalent of 12 stops of tonal range? Not necessarily. Each bit might not represent a doubling of the actual light intensity, even though it will represent a doubling of signal out of the CCD's analogue electronics. 12 bits will represent a range of 4096 levels (per colour). The important part is how the range is scaled. Those 4096 levels might represent a 1-stop tonal range with _heaps_ of tonal detail within that range. Which is great if your lighting is flat. But when the sun comes out it'd respond like lith film :) In reality there's a bit of a tradeoff between tonal range and tonal detail, within the limits of the CCD (dynamic range, linearity and noise). That is sort of where I was going with that question. In digital, we hear lots about image resolution, like as if that is the most important criteria, but not so much about image depth. This is also a concept I am a bit fuzzy on. I know it roughly translates as tonal range, and that more is better (possibly even more important than absolute pixel count). What I would like to know is what sort of dynamic range in stops (a concept I do understand) does a CCD chip have? Is it variable based on software or is it hardware limited? Is it closer to a short range slide film such as Velvia? Or closer to a long range print film such as Portra NC? Or is the question to general to give a specific answer to? Thanks William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital questions: was: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 06:30:28 -0600, William Robb wrote: What I would like to know is what sort of dynamic range in stops (a concept I do understand) does a CCD chip have? Is it variable based on software or is it hardware limited? Based on the ads I've seen for film scanners, it appears that Dmax (maximum dynamic range) for CCDs typically runs from about 3.0 to nearly 4.0 ... some scanners actually claim Dmax of 4.0 or a little more, but I have to wonder if those are marketing numbers. IIRC, the Dmax scale is log-10 rather than log-2 like stops. So, Dmax of 3.0 would translate to 9 or 10 stops (log2(10^3)) while a Dmax of 4 would translate to 12 or 13 stops (log2(10^4)) of range, assuming the CCD response is linear. TTYL, DougF - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Tom Rittenhouse mused: Actually, I understand that film is capable of recording about 10,000 dots per inch. Of course if you scan it at that resolution you would be scanning individual grains of silver. I imagine much image data would be lost in moire patterns. Not at all. Moire patterns only occur when two regularly-spaced sequences interfere (a very good example of an aliasing artifact). The distribution of film grains in an emulsion is fairly random (pretty close to a Poisson distribution, to a first approximation). There is no regular spacing, so there are no interference phenomena. Whether film behaves as a point-sampled medium or area-sampled is a whole different question, too. This one could run and run ... -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
That is why film's funeral has already been booked and the coffin made. :-) They said the same thing about theatre when motion pictures came out, concerts when long play records were introduced, and radio when television started up. Seems to me they also said WWI was the war to end all wars. Yes yes - and there are a lot of counter-examples where something was said and it came true (and all those you pig-headedly said it wouldn't got a nasty surprise). Anybody can pick and choose to suit their case. I'm surprised you couldn't think of a more appropriate parallel. They were wrong then, and the good doctor is wrong now. Film will be around for a very long time to come. Have a time machine, do we? a) I didn't say film would not be around. I implied that it will die off. That doesn't mean it will disappear completely. b) You cannot know I am wrong unless you can somehow magically travel into the future. c) I used a smilie to indicate partly in jest [refer to (a)]. doctor digi PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't place my title in double quotes William.:-b - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
- Original Message - From: Doctor Digi Subject: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't place my title in double quotes William.:-b You are a doctor of what? Bill - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
In a message dated 7/25/01 12:49:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to know how you work that one out... But Dr. Digi ought to know! How many MB of data in a small format CCD or CMOS-3? 6? Even interpolated, it only works out to 12 MB or so. Some 1 pass medium format digital backs can do up to 20 MB (raw). In any case, a 24 x 36 negative/slide has gobs more data than a small format CCD/CMOS. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
In a message dated 7/25/01 2:15:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He didn't say it was useful image data :-) ... Claiming a cheap disposable camera can do that well is hyperbole. Exactly what I thought. Please explain to us all exactly ~what~ image data is not useful in a well exposed, 60MB negative? Mafud - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
In a message dated 7/25/01 1:47:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not too tough, I imagine a good scanner at it's highest settings will put out a file that big from the negative. However, I doubt that doing a scan at that higher resolution is going to gain much when the neg was shot with a disposable camera lens, or when the film is the typical 400 or 800 ASA they cram into those cameras. My point? Small format digital images have to be ~drum~ scanned then digitally interpolated to even get close to the raw data in a well exposed 24 x 36 negative/slide, even it if is taken on quality ISO 400/800 film. The question? How large will the CMOS be on the MZ-D? Larger than APS format, but smaller than 24 x 36? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
The part you want to crop? Norm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please explain to us all exactly ~what~ image data is not useful in a well exposed, 60MB negative? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
It is amazing how many comparisons is made from film to digital. One question I make myself many times is how do we define the amount of data the regular film has? In the digital world it is simple because the information is sampled (bits). So, we know exactly the amount of data the ccd generates. Say a 6 Mpixel camera that can do 24 bits of color per pixel has about 6M * 24 bits = 6M *8bytes ~ 48MB of data/photo in raw format. And about film? how do we define it? Answer: it is near impossible. Why? because it is not digital, it is statistical. How many grains do we have on a iso 100 film? It could vary from frame to frame. The density could vary in different positions of the same frame. I read once that a typical film has about 17M grains/layer on it. If a film has only three color layers with 17M grains on each, it is about 17M * 3layers ~ 51 M bits (each grain is only one bit, exposed or not). In this case, it is about 6.3 Mbyte equivalent to digital data only. If it is correct, digital have much more data inside one frame. But it does not mean more quality, of course. Because the grains are statistically spread over the film, the result is much more realistic for our eyes. And, I think the color rendition is much better than digital because of dark noise, response curve, etc etc etc. Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/25/01 12:49:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to know how you work that one out... But Dr. Digi ought to know! How many MB of data in a small format CCD or CMOS-3? 6? Even interpolated, it only works out to 12 MB or so. Some 1 pass medium format digital backs can do up to 20 MB (raw). In any case, a 24 x 36 negative/slide has gobs more data than a small format CCD/CMOS. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- --- Alexandre A. P. Suaide, Ph.D. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] STAR/EMC Research Group Phone: 1-313-577-5419 (Detroit) Department of Physics and Astronomy Phone: 1-631-344-7635 (BNL) Wayne State University --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
It is 24x36. Phillips says they can make them any size up to the size of the wafer (6 inches diameter). Anyone ready for full frame 4x5? I imagine the yield would be very low for such a chip. Kodaks 6MP chip is 22x34, or the size of a mounted slide. --Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question? How large will the CMOS be on the MZ-D? Larger than APS format, but smaller than 24 x 36? -- Tom Graywolf Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Actually, I understand that film is capable of recording about 10,000 dots per inch. Of course if you scan it at that resolution you would be scanning individual grains of silver. I imagine much image data would be lost in moire patterns. 4000 dpi does sound like about the highest res that would give a useful scan. --Tom John Francis wrote: A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame, at only 24 bits/pixel, is 60MB. So is a 2700 dpi scan at greater pixel depths (from scanners that can deliver 10, 12, or 14 bits per component). A good lens can easily deliver 4000dpi of resolvable data on modern 100-speed films (although that's getting pretty close to the usable limit, especially for hand-held shots). Claiming a cheap disposable camera can do that well is hyperbole. -- Tom Graywolf Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
It is 24x36. Phillips says they can make them any size up to the size of the wafer (6 inches diameter). Anyone ready for full frame 4x5? I imagine the yield would be very low for such a chip. Kodaks 6MP chip is 22x34, or the size of a mounted slide. --Tom Probably not as low as you might think - from what I have read the Phillips chip is actually composed of several CCD chips stitched together in some special (presumably patented ;-) way. This means they can build large chips from small waffers. The yield in this case would seem to be better. But then I'm not a statistician. doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Doctor Digi wrote: Personally, I don't see any great need for CCD's to have any more than about 4000 pixels across a 35mm frame (the new Pentax will have 3000 so it's getting close to my ideal). A 4000dpi film scanner is enough to just barely get a good lookin' 24x36 inch image out of our Epson 7500. Don't expect to do any cropping at that size and you'll be fine. :) I'd expect that for 90% of us, that'd be just fine. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
chip is actually composed of several CCD chips stitched together in some special (presumably patented ;-) way. This means they can build large chips from small wafers. The yield in this case would seem to be better. But then I'm not a statistician. doctor digi The smaller a specific chip is, the smaller the chance would be, to have a fault in it. If you have a process with one error in every square inch, and you have a chip of that size, you would have one error per chip and a yield of 0%. The same process on a chip of a quarter of that size, will have three correct chips and one fault, leading to a yield of 75%, quite a difference. Frits - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
- Original Message - From: Frits J. Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 11:40 PM Subject: RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera The smaller a specific chip is, the smaller the chance would be, to have a fault in it. If you have a process with one error in every square inch, and you have a chip of that size, you would have one error per chip and a yield of 0%. The same process on a chip of a quarter of that size, will have three correct chips and one fault, leading to a yield of 75%, quite a difference. Thanks Frits. So if you were using four chips to create your super-CCD you'd get 3 super-CCD's for every 4 waffers. That's is, of course, assuming Phillips are doing it along those lines... Out of interest, does anyone know what the failure rate is for CCD's that are deemed acceptable for commercial use? doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, tom wrote: I like film. (I have a darkroom.) I like prints better. That's a great line, Tom. Personally, I have somewhat of a film fetish and would continue to use film (though perhaps not exclusively) even when digital surpasses it. It's still a great line, though, and I might use it myself at some point (with proper accreditation, of course). :) chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
On July 24, 2001 Alexander Grigolia wrote: snip If Pentax is indeed going to produce an updated LX I can only assume that it will be the ultimate flagship for the next TWENTY YEARS! And if this is the case, the new ultimate flagship will be / HAS to be a digital camera! - - I expressed pretty much the same view in a prior post. Although I must admit that Pal's report of a conversation with a Pentax official which alluded to a future release of another high end film based camera is throwing a monkey wrench on this theory. :) I guess we'll just have to wait and see. P.E. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Digi wrote: I don't think so. I do believe film will be around for 20 years and an updated LX, A bit like C19 plate cameras are still around? Sorry, but I'm rather sceptical on the longevity of film. It will have it's place in twenty years, but that place will be a very very small niche market. Sure. But an LX is for that niche market. Film WILL be around a long time. There are hundreds of millions 35mm cameras in use and someone will want to use them even after digital is taking most of the market. You *do* mean film, don't you: large, heavy and consumes a lot of power with winders, etc. Digitals currently have high power usage but that is likely to change - and very soon. I doubt it will change very soon. You also have the problem of data storage. A shooting session with high resolution images will take a lot of gigabytes. But I do agree with you - any future LX will not be a digital. However, I don't think there is going to *be* a new LX. I find it fascinating how one posting suggesting that there *might* be a new LX (based on some rather vague discussion/interview that isn't in print and hasn't been quoted verbatim nor confirmed by a third party) can generate a discussion like this with people carrying on as though a New LX is a given and will be released in the next few months. It just seems 100% made-up, which is rather sad as it is getting people hopes up for nothing. (unless I missed the posting in which it was all officially revealed...). It is from an interview in print. The director of camera division must know how the market will react on statements like he wants to make an LX with AF. Particularly when in public under the heading where is Pentax going?. He must be a very stupid man if this was just his fancy or dream; particularly in an interview to underline Pentax future direction. Take this statement together with numerous statements from various Pentax sources of an yet unreleased flagship, and the fact that the official Photokina '96 Pentax delegation said they were working on a professional 35mm slr closer to the LX than the Z-1p, I see no reason for being sceptical. And theres more. Pentax recently said they wanted to boost their brand value and recognition. You don't achieve this with cheap products. They also said they wanted to give the customers what they want. With the imminent 50th Asahiflex anniversary, I see clear posibility of statement products. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Based on current technology I doubt that digital battery consumption will decrease any time soon. There may be marginal improvements in circuitry, however as the processing/memory requirements increase to handle a greater pixel density I would expect these, and any marginal improvements in battery life to be quickly overtaken. At 12:44 AM 7/25/2001 +0100, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera I don't think so. I do believe film will be around for 20 years and an updated LX, A bit like C19 plate cameras are still around? Sorry, but I'm rather sceptical on the longevity of film. It will have it's place in twenty years, but that place will be a very very small niche market. whereas film based camera will be bought by traditionalists and people who want the size, weight, battery consumption digital cannot offer. You *do* mean film, don't you: large, heavy and consumes a lot of power with winders, etc. Digitals currently have high power usage but that is likely to change - and very soon. Low light is an area where digital cannot compete. Again, that's short-lived. A digital camera would be rather short lived statement with the progress expected in that field. Any digital camera made at any time from now until the far distant future will be short-lived. Once anything becomes fully electronic it is subject to the same laws that govern all electronic equipment: obsolete within a matter of months. But I do agree with you - any future LX will not be a digital. However, I don't think there is going to *be* a new LX. I find it fascinating how one posting suggesting that there *might* be a new LX (based on some rather vague discussion/interview that isn't in print and hasn't been quoted verbatim nor confirmed by a third party) can generate a discussion like this with people carrying on as though a New LX is a given and will be released in the next few months. It just seems 100% made-up, which is rather sad as it is getting people hopes up for nothing. (unless I missed the posting in which it was all officially revealed...). doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
au contraire. I think you'll find battery life increases markedly for two reasons: a) new battery technology (eg: fuel cell batteries) b) use of components like CMOS One only has to look at, for example, mobile phones to see such progress being made in extending battery life in products. doctor digi - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera Based on current technology I doubt that digital battery consumption will decrease any time soon. There may be marginal improvements in circuitry, however as the processing/memory requirements increase to handle a greater pixel density I would expect these, and any marginal improvements in battery life to be quickly overtaken. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Moore's law implies that computer-based technology doubles its performance every 18 months, roughly. Given the resolution, storage requirements, power consumption etc - when would the digital photo technology equal film based? Is it possible to make a rough assumption of how many times better the technology needs to be? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
In a message dated 7/25/01 10:08:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Given the resolution, storage requirements, power consumption etc - when would the digital photo technology equal film based? Is it possible to make a rough assumption of how many times better the technology needs to be? Digital is alive and well in medium format (6 x 6) and 4 x 5 large format. Both are hideously expensive to operate, a 1 pass digital back for a Hasselblad going for $35,000 and up, 4 x 5 about $10,000 more. That's just for the 1 pass back. Add the camera, lenses and HMI (studio grade) lighting (you do want flicker free lighting, right?) at $15,000 a pair and you see why small format digital, no matter how it pleases the Bride or ones family, still is and will always produce the puny results one gets from small format digital, with very little hope of catching the real digital photographers. **But if all you want is an image, like the stuff you see on ebay, or what a lot of people send out over the net? Or to put on greeting cards? Small format digital will do. +You need at least 14MB of data to get a decent 5 x 7 print. Any shot from a $7.95 one-use film camera puts ~60~ MB of data on a 24 x 36 negative. Who could afford a small format digital that could cram 60MB of data on a CCD/CMOS just larger than an APS negative? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
+You need at least 14MB of data to get a decent 5 x 7 print. Any shot from a $7.95 one-use film camera puts ~60~ MB of data on a 24 x 36 negative. I'd like to know how you work that one out... doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Doctor Digi penned: +You need at least 14MB of data to get a decent 5 x 7 print. Any shot from a $7.95 one-use film camera puts ~60~ MB of data on a 24 x 36 negative. I'd like to know how you work that one out... He didn't say it was useful image data :-) A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame, at only 24 bits/pixel, is 60MB. So is a 2700 dpi scan at greater pixel depths (from scanners that can deliver 10, 12, or 14 bits per component). A good lens can easily deliver 4000dpi of resolvable data on modern 100-speed films (although that's getting pretty close to the usable limit, especially for hand-held shots). Claiming a cheap disposable camera can do that well is hyperbole. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
Not too tough, I imagine a good scanner at it's highest settings will put out a file that big from the negative. However, I doubt that doing a scan at that higher resolution is going to gain much when the neg was shot with a disposable camera lens, or when the film is the typical 400 or 800 ASA they cram into those cameras. Todd At 05:49 PM 7/25/01 +0100, you wrote: +You need at least 14MB of data to get a decent 5 x 7 print. Any shot from a $7.95 one-use film camera puts ~60~ MB of data on a 24 x 36 negative. I'd like to know how you work that one out... doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
He didn't say it was useful image data :-) ... Claiming a cheap disposable camera can do that well is hyperbole. Exactly what I thought. Thank you for the figures (I admit I was just too lazy to do the maths :-) doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Low light is an area where digital cannot compete. Pål Well, if there is one area where CCD is far superior to film, it is in the low light area. The special Kodak astronomical emulsions are almost extinct, now all major observatories switched to CCD. That is correct. I've been trying to hunt down the article I have that gives the response of CCD's versus film. Film is dead in the water compared to a CCD. For a start CCD's have a linear response curve whereas film rapidly tails off. However, there is always a downside to things: CCD's suffer from dark current; random electrons being generated by heat in the CCD and thus causing noise in the picture. Astronomical use of CCD's usually requires cooling for long exposures (although film does as well). The reason why CCD's in digicams are kept at low ISO's is because of the dark current - not because they are inferior in any way to film at detecting light. However, as CCD technology improves the dark current is reduced and better SN ratio is achieved. That is why film's funeral has already been booked and the coffin made. :-) doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
- Original Message - From: Doctor Digi Subject: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera That is why film's funeral has already been booked and the coffin made. :-) They said the same thing about theatre when motion pictures came out, concerts when long play records were introduced, and radio when television started up. Seems to me they also said WWI was the war to end all wars. They were wrong then, and the good doctor is wrong now. Film will be around for a very long time to come. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
True a disposable won't do but a ZX-M with say a 50mm or good inexpensive Zoom such as the FA 28-70mm will give you close to that for about $300.00 US. Add another $300 for a 2700 dpi film scanner and it's still cheep compared to a pure digital solution. The cost difference will buy an awful lot of film and processing. At 10:29 AM 7/25/2001 -0700, you wrote: Doctor Digi penned: +You need at least 14MB of data to get a decent 5 x 7 print. Any shot from a $7.95 one-use film camera puts ~60~ MB of data on a 24 x 36 negative. I'd like to know how you work that one out... He didn't say it was useful image data :-) A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame, at only 24 bits/pixel, is 60MB. So is a 2700 dpi scan at greater pixel depths (from scanners that can deliver 10, 12, or 14 bits per component). A good lens can easily deliver 4000dpi of resolvable data on modern 100-speed films (although that's getting pretty close to the usable limit, especially for hand-held shots). Claiming a cheap disposable camera can do that well is hyperbole. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
No a digital camera could be a flagship for 20 years - unless the CCD, computer, storage, and viewscreen could be swapped out easily. Because of the way digital technology is, a LX Digital would be obsolete in 3 years, and a relic in 8 years, and a useless brick at 20 years unless the digital components could be upgraded every few years. And if you are going to make it like that, you might as well release a 35mm film module making the camera a hybrid in a way. It's an interesting idea, almost what Pentax might be thinking with the MZ-S and it's digital twin. Instead of a camera that can be converted from film to digital and vice versa, you have two bodies - one for film and the other for digital - that can share all their accessories and lenses. Todd At 06:01 PM 7/24/01 EDT, you wrote: If Pentax is indeed going to produce an updated LX I can only assume that it will be the ultimate flagship for the next TWENTY YEARS! And if this is the case, the new ultimate flagship will be / HAS to be a digital camera! Pentax simply can NOT afford to produce TWO professional quality film based cameras at the same time they are introducing the new digital flagship! Further, the updated LX and the new digital flagship would be aimed at the SAME target audience - the high end professional! Anyone out there planning on purchasing BOTH an unpdated film based LX AND the new digital flagship camera? The new updated LX would be the flagship of Pentax's digital line of cameras! The new MZ-S would be the flagship of the film based line of cameras! Two professional-quality camera bodies heading up two entirely different camera lines! Any thoughts on this reasoning? Or am I being WAY too logical here? :- Alexander Grigolia - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera I don't think so. I do believe film will be around for 20 years and an updated LX, A bit like C19 plate cameras are still around? Sorry, but I'm rather sceptical on the longevity of film. It will have it's place in twenty years, but that place will be a very very small niche market. whereas film based camera will be bought by traditionalists and people who want the size, weight, battery consumption digital cannot offer. You *do* mean film, don't you: large, heavy and consumes a lot of power with winders, etc. Digitals currently have high power usage but that is likely to change - and very soon. Low light is an area where digital cannot compete. Again, that's short-lived. A digital camera would be rather short lived statement with the progress expected in that field. Any digital camera made at any time from now until the far distant future will be short-lived. Once anything becomes fully electronic it is subject to the same laws that govern all electronic equipment: obsolete within a matter of months. But I do agree with you - any future LX will not be a digital. However, I don't think there is going to *be* a new LX. I find it fascinating how one posting suggesting that there *might* be a new LX (based on some rather vague discussion/interview that isn't in print and hasn't been quoted verbatim nor confirmed by a third party) can generate a discussion like this with people carrying on as though a New LX is a given and will be released in the next few months. It just seems 100% made-up, which is rather sad as it is getting people hopes up for nothing. (unless I missed the posting in which it was all officially revealed...). doctor digi - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is the New LX Going to Be a Digital Camera
John F. wrote: An updated LX would appeal to the nostalgia buffs... Nostalgia buffs and those of us with big hands. Seriously, I would love to see an AF LX. I shot two rolls last weekend with a friend's F2A, with a motor drive and battery pack. Spent half the day carrying it around. It's the aesthetics of the camera that got me. The heft. The precision of its tolerances. The snick/whir of the shutter and motor drive. Not AF, of course, but still five pounds of exquisitely engineered and machined heaven. (Almost heaven, actually--couldn't mount my lenses.) Just what I would expect of an AF LX. Substantial, robust, impeccable. As I've mentioned, my eyes aren't getting any better. My next camera will have to be AF. An AF Pentax with the genes of an LX rather than MX would be just about perfect. --John M. = John Edwin Mason Charlottesville, Virginia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] alt email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
