On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:20:22 +1000 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> So - is there a digital camera that allows you to record a
> wide-brightness-range raw file? If not, why not?
Yes, quite a few studio backs and upmarket cameras do. If Canon have any
sense at all, the RAW files wil
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 02:42:38 +0100 Bert Logan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I wish I could attach a picture I found in a brutally underexposed
> negative I scanned the other day - a stunning & beautiful
> ex girlfriend giving me a look to die for - that I couldnt ask
> her to do a second time aro
It is very interesting how these two threads, this one regarding the
digital/film comparisons regarding the newest Canon digital camera, and
the other thread regarding "over resolving scans" have independently
come to the same issues, those of aliasing and grain.
I hope people who have been readi
Julian Robinson wrote:
> [chop] disincentive to going fully
> digital. My normal photography is with negative film for the reasons you
> state - to capture almost everything in a wide brightness range, and work
> on it later to produce an acceptable contrast final image. This can't work
> wit
Tony,
> CCD sensors
> can now achieve 14 stops range,
What full frame imaging CCD sensors do that in a "normal" camera? There are
some that if you actively cool them, and control their environment, you
might get that kind of response from them...but that's not really a usable
device for a 35mm-
I have to say that I would not use jpeg for saving anything.if for any
reason you wish to modify the file at a later date you will have already
thrown away information.
There are a couple of sites worth a look
www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.htmw
www.luratech.com
However if you are satisfied with the result
