RE: Take a wild guess/Epson flatbed scanner
About difficulties for the Epson scanner to locate single frames: I found that it is improtant to make sure there's enough space in front of the first frame (the ones at the back end of the scanner table) - a couple milimeters. I have made a habit out of tapping the film tray at the front end - causing the film strip to slide a little backwards - before laying the tray on the scanner. All the best Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. maj 2004 02:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Thanks, I'll keep all that in mind when I start using my Epson Perfection 3170... keith whaley Brian Walters wrote: > Keith > > As I said, I didn't really buy it for its film scanning capabilities and I didn't > expect it to be able to compete with dedicated film scanners. However, I thought > it might be able to do a better job than it can - perhaps unrealistic > expectations but also I probably haven't spent enough time with it working out > how to get the best out of it. > > The main problem I have is that the scanner often cannot "find" the image it's > trying to scan so that it will end up scanning only part of the image. This > seems to mainly occur with transparencies that have a dark background. Taking > the slide out of its mount and using the film holder rather than the slide holder > sometimes helps. Perhaps the system expects a distinct change in light > transmissibility so that it can properly identify the transparency/mount boundary. > > It seems to do a better job of scanning negatives than transparencies. > Unfortunately, most of my images are the latter but my son has used it quite a > bit to scan negs and is reasonably happy with the results. > > > > Brian > > + > > Brian Walters > Australian Plants Societies > http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/ > > On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:08 , Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > > >>Brian Walters wrote: >> >> >>>Jens >>> >>>Thanks for the feedback - I've already learned my lesson about using a flat bed >>>scanner for 35mm negs and slides. >> >>Which is? >> >>keith whaley > > > > > > > > Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com > > >
RE: Take a wild guess
Very interesting, Dave. I can see I have got to get a Minolta film scanner (if/as long as I stick with film). I wonder for how long good and still better film scanners, let alone film, will be available. But I guess, at the end of the film aera, good (excellent) digital DSLRs will cost much less than the Minolta Dilmage 5700 - when or before (?) *ist D is ancient history. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 22:26 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess I managed to do a quick sample of the Minolta and Epson scans. If it makes anyone feel better the film was exposed in a PZ-1p Pentax... :). Here is a link to the crops. Dreamweaver's photo album function has a bad tendency to sort the thumbnails how ever it wants to rather then leaving them in the right order unfortunately. http://www.davesfotooptions.com/crops/index.htm I tried to make them all as similar and sized the same, although they didn't come out exact. I need a better set of reference points when making the crops. The scans other then cropping and resizing to the same size are untouched and exactly as Vuescan put them out. I used Vuescan with both scanners with the film profile and color settings the same. It's been a long time since I put a negative through the epson and now I remember why! It's very slow compared to the Minolta and the quality much poorer. You'll note more dust on the Minolta scans as dedicated film scanners tend to do. You'll also see the noise generated by the Minolta scanner here, but it is easily removed in PS still leaving more detail then a lower res scan with less noise. Again this is Fugi 400 NPS film. I was surprised there was little improvement in the 2400dpi scan over the 1600 in the epson? Dave -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Take a wild guess Thanks for the input, Dave. I would be interested in your future tests.
RE: Take a wild guess
I managed to do a quick sample of the Minolta and Epson scans. If it makes anyone feel better the film was exposed in a PZ-1p Pentax... :). Here is a link to the crops. Dreamweaver's photo album function has a bad tendency to sort the thumbnails how ever it wants to rather then leaving them in the right order unfortunately. http://www.davesfotooptions.com/crops/index.htm I tried to make them all as similar and sized the same, although they didn't come out exact. I need a better set of reference points when making the crops. The scans other then cropping and resizing to the same size are untouched and exactly as Vuescan put them out. I used Vuescan with both scanners with the film profile and color settings the same. It's been a long time since I put a negative through the epson and now I remember why! It's very slow compared to the Minolta and the quality much poorer. You'll note more dust on the Minolta scans as dedicated film scanners tend to do. You'll also see the noise generated by the Minolta scanner here, but it is easily removed in PS still leaving more detail then a lower res scan with less noise. Again this is Fugi 400 NPS film. I was surprised there was little improvement in the 2400dpi scan over the 1600 in the epson? Dave -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Take a wild guess Thanks for the input, Dave. I would be interested in your future tests.
RE: Take a wild guess
I just discovered I made an error. When I said I scanned to 600-1200 ppi I actually did not refere to "original" but to scanning to a "4x6 print". In fact I'm normally scanning to something like 1200-2600 ppi. What I meant was, that I don't seem to get more out of the negs above 2500 ppi. (I just found out that I can actually type in 2000ppi if I want to). I recall, that someone on this list previously said, he was missed values between 1200 and 3200 (in the default list, in the Epson 3200 software). As 2200 ppi can be typed in, this is not at all an issue. The ananlog photograph was orinally scanned to 3600 pixel (long side) = appr. 100 pixel/mm = appr. 2540 ppi, then scaled down to 1577 pixel = appr. 1100 ppi. Sorry! I published enlargement from the affore mentioned photographes of the bicycles (the hummingbird Kildemoes logo): http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4714918.html (SONY) and http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4714917.html (Pentax SMC FA 1.4/50mm, Fuji Superia 200, Epson 3200 Photo at appr. 2500 ppi) All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 17:43 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess ..PS about processing. No processing - except of course for scaling. The scanned photograph is however, a more subjective matter, since the scanner will interpret the colours and exposure according to the settings I choose. And then there is the option to scan at higher resolutions. In my experience there is no point in scanning 35mm negs to higher resolutions than 600-1200 ppi (using the EPSON) - the results will just get muddy and grainy - there is not much more to get from the negs - not from the amateur films (Superia etc.) that I normally use. Maybe it's different with very sharp, fine grained, high definition films like Reala, Velvia or Impressa. Or a better scanner. Having said all this, I want to emphasize the point of resolution. I have enlarged the red logo on the bicycle from both photographs. At enlargements so big the logo fills the computer screen - there is a clear difference: The red square looks like a blurry red finger print (finger paint) from the SONY shot. The Pnetax shot still looks like at red logo with clearly definded contours. I have even tried to interpolate the SONY shot to get more pixels. This does not help much. The analog picture remains much better at large enlargements. So if you want a big print on a wall (like a projected slide at 50-100 times enlargemnets - i.e. 120x180cm) the analog photograph will perform MUCH better. Likewise for group photographs, where resolution i crucial. If you want prints in, let's say A4-A3 size, a digital camera will do a better job (sharper, more DOF). So for most everyday photographs/prints, digital is the better choise. This is all provided that the prints are made from scans - not photographicly. That is, of course, just my (present and humble) opinion. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Brian Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 01:47 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Hi Jens Well - eyerone else seems to think that the p4681284.html is the digital and who am I to disagree? The second photo doesn't seem to have the same amount of definition as the first which suggests it's been subject to more processing. Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the Epson for scanning negatives and slides? Regards Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:44 , 'Jens Bladt' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >I took the same photograph twice: >One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 >ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot >with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > >Which one was made with a PENTAX? > >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html > >Jens Bladt Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
RE: Take a wild guess
I agree, totally! I talked to some people who swoped a F717 for a F828 - just to regret it! Only, I'm not shure I want to sell my F717, when I buy my *ist D - it's so easy to carry anywhere - I've even got (ebay) a gun shaped leather case for it - very practical. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 17:34 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > Thanks for you reactions, all. > You are of cource all right. DOF, colour cast, and frame format gave it > away. > The first one is from a Sony, the second from a Pentax. > The correct exposure values are > Sony: f6.3, 1/1250 sec > Pentax: f8, 1/750 sec > > I used better aperture for the analog picture to try to compensate for DOF, > but this difference was aparentlly too small. The CCD on the Sony DSC-F717 is 8.8x6.6mm. You need to adjust the f-stop much more to compensate for DOF (I think you'll need to compensate about 3 stops, but I haven't played with the DOF calculator for a F717 in a long time). > I am, however, still quite amazed that the small, cheep SONY (paid > 700 USD for it, used 1 year) performes so well. The DSC-F717 is a great camera. It has more noise than a DSLR due to the tiny little CCD, but on the other hand it is pretty inexpensive. It has less noise than most P&S cameras which use even smaller CCDs. You get a sharp and fast F2-F2.4 lens with a good zoom range (38-190mm equivelent). The UI is pretty good too and I found it easy to use in aperture priority mode. I think that Sony has gone downhill with the F828. Trying to stick another 3 million sensors in that same 8.8x6.6mm space didn't do them any favors. I don't regret selling my DSC-F717 to purchase the *ist D, but I'm glad that I was able to own one (and the earlier F707) for over two years before the *ist D was released. The F7x7 cameras held their value well too and I was able to sell my DSC-F717 for $650us after purchasing it (originally a DSC-F707) 2 weeks after it was released for $800us (plus $100 for a 2 year extended warranty). I was able to upgrade for free because I had an extended warranty and my DSC-F707 was one of the early models with flash issues. alex
RE: Take a wild guess
Except it's containing the (cheep) batteries. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 17:38 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean(?) > IMO the MZ-S photograph might as well have been taken with my K1000. Under > these conditions (the bikes and me was not moving, the light conditions were > not changing fast) the photographs would have been identical, although I > might have shot at f5.6 and 1/1000 sec. or f8 and 1/500 sec. In paractice no > siginificanvt difference. Exactly. So your statement... > > I paid almost twice as much for the Pentax (MZ-S, Grip, SMC FA 1.4/50mm - > > used 1 year); 1200 USD. is not a very valid one. Adding the Grip to the equation too... Kostas
RE: Take a wild guess
..PS about processing. No processing - except of course for scaling. The scanned photograph is however, a more subjective matter, since the scanner will interpret the colours and exposure according to the settings I choose. And then there is the option to scan at higher resolutions. In my experience there is no point in scanning 35mm negs to higher resolutions than 600-1200 ppi (using the EPSON) - the results will just get muddy and grainy - there is not much more to get from the negs - not from the amateur films (Superia etc.) that I normally use. Maybe it's different with very sharp, fine grained, high definition films like Reala, Velvia or Impressa. Or a better scanner. Having said all this, I want to emphasize the point of resolution. I have enlarged the red logo on the bicycle from both photographs. At enlargements so big the logo fills the computer screen - there is a clear difference: The red square looks like a blurry red finger print (finger paint) from the SONY shot. The Pnetax shot still looks like at red logo with clearly definded contours. I have even tried to interpolate the SONY shot to get more pixels. This does not help much. The analog picture remains much better at large enlargements. So if you want a big print on a wall (like a projected slide at 50-100 times enlargemnets - i.e. 120x180cm) the analog photograph will perform MUCH better. Likewise for group photographs, where resolution i crucial. If you want prints in, let's say A4-A3 size, a digital camera will do a better job (sharper, more DOF). So for most everyday photographs/prints, digital is the better choise. This is all provided that the prints are made from scans - not photographicly. That is, of course, just my (present and humble) opinion. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Brian Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 01:47 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Hi Jens Well - eyerone else seems to think that the p4681284.html is the digital and who am I to disagree? The second photo doesn't seem to have the same amount of definition as the first which suggests it's been subject to more processing. Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the Epson for scanning negatives and slides? Regards Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:44 , 'Jens Bladt' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >I took the same photograph twice: >One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 >ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot >with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > >Which one was made with a PENTAX? > >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html > >Jens Bladt Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
RE: Take a wild guess
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean(?) > IMO the MZ-S photograph might as well have been taken with my K1000. Under > these conditions (the bikes and me was not moving, the light conditions were > not changing fast) the photographs would have been identical, although I > might have shot at f5.6 and 1/1000 sec. or f8 and 1/500 sec. In paractice no > siginificanvt difference. Exactly. So your statement... > > I paid almost twice as much for the Pentax (MZ-S, Grip, SMC FA 1.4/50mm - > > used 1 year); 1200 USD. is not a very valid one. Adding the Grip to the equation too... Kostas
RE: Take a wild guess
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > Thanks for you reactions, all. > You are of cource all right. DOF, colour cast, and frame format gave it > away. > The first one is from a Sony, the second from a Pentax. > The correct exposure values are > Sony: f6.3, 1/1250 sec > Pentax: f8, 1/750 sec > > I used better aperture for the analog picture to try to compensate for DOF, > but this difference was aparentlly too small. The CCD on the Sony DSC-F717 is 8.8x6.6mm. You need to adjust the f-stop much more to compensate for DOF (I think you'll need to compensate about 3 stops, but I haven't played with the DOF calculator for a F717 in a long time). > I am, however, still quite amazed that the small, cheep SONY (paid > 700 USD for it, used 1 year) performes so well. The DSC-F717 is a great camera. It has more noise than a DSLR due to the tiny little CCD, but on the other hand it is pretty inexpensive. It has less noise than most P&S cameras which use even smaller CCDs. You get a sharp and fast F2-F2.4 lens with a good zoom range (38-190mm equivelent). The UI is pretty good too and I found it easy to use in aperture priority mode. I think that Sony has gone downhill with the F828. Trying to stick another 3 million sensors in that same 8.8x6.6mm space didn't do them any favors. I don't regret selling my DSC-F717 to purchase the *ist D, but I'm glad that I was able to own one (and the earlier F707) for over two years before the *ist D was released. The F7x7 cameras held their value well too and I was able to sell my DSC-F717 for $650us after purchasing it (originally a DSC-F707) 2 weeks after it was released for $800us (plus $100 for a 2 year extended warranty). I was able to upgrade for free because I had an extended warranty and my DSC-F707 was one of the early models with flash issues. alex
RE: Take a wild guess
Hi Brian I haven't tried other scanners. Before I got it I had my negs scanned at a lab. They were no better than the onee I can make with my Epson. However, the EPSON Perfection 3200 Photo is NOT a film scanner. It's a flatbed, which for reflective photographs is excellent. But I'm sure a modern dedicated film scanner will do a better job. I have seen negs scanned on a Minolta Dimage Dualscan II. They were actually worse than mine (it may have been causeed by poor film/poor development, though). But I'm sure the new Minolta scanner - "5700 something" can do a much better job. I got the Epson 3200 because I had a lot of negs - 35mm as well as 6x6 - that I wanted to scan. The Epson does 6x6 negs quite well - good enough for professional looking prints. But 35mm are just too small. If you want to scan 35mm negs, don't buy a flatbed scanner. Buy a film scanner - or perhaps a digital camera instead. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Brian Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 01:47 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Hi Jens Well - eyerone else seems to think that the p4681284.html is the digital and who am I to disagree? The second photo doesn't seem to have the same amount of definition as the first which suggests it's been subject to more processing. Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the Epson for scanning negatives and slides? Regards Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:44 , 'Jens Bladt' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >I took the same photograph twice: >One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 >ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot >with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > >Which one was made with a PENTAX? > >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html > >Jens Bladt Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
RE: Take a wild guess
I'm not sure what you mean(?) IMO the MZ-S photograph might as well have been taken with my K1000. Under these conditions (the bikes and me was not moving, the light conditions were not changing fast) the photographs would have been identical, although I might have shot at f5.6 and 1/1000 sec. or f8 and 1/500 sec. In paractice no siginificanvt difference. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 07:46 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess not a fair comparison because you could have got same quality "analog" with a $200 K-1000. jco J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Take a wild guess Thanks for you reactions, all. You are of cource all right. DOF, colour cast, and frame format gave it away. The first one is from a Sony, the second from a Pentax. The correct exposure values are Sony: f6.3, 1/1250 sec Pentax: f8, 1/750 sec I used better aperture for the analog picture to try to compensate for DOF, but this difference was aparentlly too small. You were right about the color cast as well (Sony pushing blue). All so the red seemed more orange in the Sony picture. I do believe, that the colours of the Pentax picture is closer to what the scene looked like in my eyes that day (Sunday, May 24th 2004). I have tried to scan the analog negative at higher ppi. An enlargemenet shows (not surprisingly), that the analog picture has much better resolution, than the 5 MP SONY picture, though. I am, however, still quite amazed that the small, cheep SONY (paid 700 USD for it, used 1 year) performes so well. I paid almost twice as much for the Pentax (MZ-S, Grip, SMC FA 1.4/50mm - used 1 year); 1200 USD. I wonder how much better the Pentax *ist D will perform, should I ever get one. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 23:48 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess I believe it is. My MZ-S and PZ-1 says 6.7! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 22:51 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Perhaps it is how it rounds up the numbers? - I have always thought that the stop between 5.6 and 8 was 6.6. A. On 24 May 2004, at 22:43, Jens Bladt wrote: > I lied a little (very, very little) about the f-stops. And I can asure > you, > that the FA 1.4/50mm can give you an f-stop (? step) called 6.7 > (between 5.6 > and 8) according to my PZ-1 LCD. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 24. maj 2004 19:27 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Take a wild guess > > > Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) > > A. > On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > >> Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 >> >> A. >> >> On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: >> >>> I took the same photograph twice: >>> One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm >>> on 200 >>> ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other >>> was shot >>> with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. >>> >>> Which one was made with a PENTAX? >>> >>> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >>> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html >>> >>> Jens Bladt >>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
Re: Take a wild guess
It would be interesting to see the difference between the Sony and a $10 disposable camera. -- J. C. O'Connell wrote: not a fair comparison because you could have got same quality "analog" with a $200 K-1000. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Take a wild guess
Hi Jens Well - eyerone else seems to think that the p4681284.html is the digital and who am I to disagree? The second photo doesn't seem to have the same amount of definition as the first which suggests it's been subject to more processing. Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the Epson for scanning negatives and slides? Regards Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:44 , 'Jens Bladt' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >I took the same photograph twice: >One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 >ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot >with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > >Which one was made with a PENTAX? > >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html > >Jens Bladt Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
RE: Take a wild guess
I believe it is. My MZ-S and PZ-1 says 6.7! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 22:51 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Perhaps it is how it rounds up the numbers? - I have always thought that the stop between 5.6 and 8 was 6.6. A. On 24 May 2004, at 22:43, Jens Bladt wrote: > I lied a little (very, very little) about the f-stops. And I can asure > you, > that the FA 1.4/50mm can give you an f-stop (? step) called 6.7 > (between 5.6 > and 8) according to my PZ-1 LCD. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 24. maj 2004 19:27 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Take a wild guess > > > Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) > > A. > On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > >> Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 >> >> A. >> >> On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: >> >>> I took the same photograph twice: >>> One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm >>> on 200 >>> ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other >>> was shot >>> with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. >>> >>> Which one was made with a PENTAX? >>> >>> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >>> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html >>> >>> Jens Bladt >>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
Re: Take a wild guess
Perhaps it is how it rounds up the numbers? - I have always thought that the stop between 5.6 and 8 was 6.6. A. On 24 May 2004, at 22:43, Jens Bladt wrote: I lied a little (very, very little) about the f-stops. And I can asure you, that the FA 1.4/50mm can give you an f-stop (? step) called 6.7 (between 5.6 and 8) according to my PZ-1 LCD. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 19:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) A. On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 A. On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: I took the same photograph twice: One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. Which one was made with a PENTAX? http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
RE: Take a wild guess
I lied a little (very, very little) about the f-stops. And I can asure you, that the FA 1.4/50mm can give you an f-stop (? step) called 6.7 (between 5.6 and 8) according to my PZ-1 LCD. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 19:27 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) A. On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 > > A. > > On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: > >> I took the same photograph twice: >> One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm >> on 200 >> ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other >> was shot >> with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. >> >> Which one was made with a PENTAX? >> >> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html >> >> Jens Bladt >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >> >
Re: Take a wild guess
oops, that should be does NOT have and f stop On 24 May 2004, at 19:26, Antonio Aparicio wrote: Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) A. On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 A. On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: I took the same photograph twice: One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. Which one was made with a PENTAX? http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Take a wild guess
Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) A. On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 A. On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: I took the same photograph twice: One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. Which one was made with a PENTAX? http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Take a wild guess
Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 A. On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, Jens Bladt wrote: I took the same photograph twice: One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. Which one was made with a PENTAX? http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Take a wild guess
If they are both uncropped, the format ratio gives it away. The ...284 image being from the Sony, the ...285 from film. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 6:44 PM Subject: Take a wild guess > I took the same photograph twice: > One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 > ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot > with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > > Which one was made with a PENTAX? > > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >
Re: Take a wild guess
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I took the same photograph twice: > One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 > ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot > with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > > Which one was made with a PENTAX? > > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html Sony > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Pentax Sony pushes the blue and this is noticable in the color of the blue post in the background. f8 on a DSC-F717 also has a much greater depth of field than f8 on a 35mm camera and you can see this in the background. Finally the exposure on the Pentax scan is a little off and having owned a Sony DSC-F717 and an Epson scanner I think that the scanner is more likely to give you incorrect exposure than the camera. If anything the camera overexposes and it has borderline done that hear (no detail in the boat deck). alex
