SKID Photography wrote:
Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th
and 250th of a second. Will will see that
there will be a significant exposrue difference between them.
As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that
manufacturers fudged them.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
SKID Photography wrote:
Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th
and 250th of a second. Will will see that
there will be a significant exposrue difference between them.
As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that
B.Rumary wrote:
Austin Franklin wrote:
As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
opening between the shutter curtains.
Austin Franklin wrote:
As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
opening between the shutter curtains.
I know
As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and
myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings, I do not intend to
respond directly either publicly or privately to his postings in the
future. I bring this to the attention of the other members so that you
understand
SKID Photography wrote:
I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a
short duration. It has been my experience
that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second
exposure and almost any brand electronic
flash will yield very different film
Arthur Entlich wrote:
SKID Photography wrote:
I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a
short duration. It has been my experience
that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second
exposure and almost any brand electronic
flash will yield
Further, the issues he has brought up to question below were asides and
tangential to the main points I was making in my post which were
concerning the discussion comparing color dye clouds and capture of
images digitally, not black and white developing,
I DID talk about color (see below),
As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and
myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings,
I either question you, or point out you're mistaken, missing
something...whatever...and you call it nitpicking. This is entirely a
cop-out, Arthur. If you were able
SKID Photography wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:
SKID Photography wrote:
I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a
short duration. It has been my experience
that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second
exposure and almost any brand
31, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
B.Rumary wrote:
Austin Franklin wrote:
As many people probably realize, in a typical rear
curtain/focal plane
film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond
the
maximum flash synch shutter speed
ower where ambient light isn't a factor.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
> "B.Rumary" wrote:
>
> > Austin Franklin
I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of
1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter
speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor.
It takes some time for the flash to actually fire...and I would also guess
different types of
Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular
design is determined by that fastest speed where entire frame is still
open at once. Another one that doesn't require an engineering degree
to understand:)
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular
design is determined by that fastest speed where entire frame is still
open at once. Another one that doesn't require an engineering degree
to understand:)
In simple terms, yes...the concept IS simple...but there may be other
Margins are cool.
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular
design is determined
Austin, you criticise Art, then do it yourself..? How's about we all try
to attack the ball, not the man..
Woah, Mark...where did I make a personal attack on Rob? I DID stick to the
ball...please point it out...I am interested.
At 11:31 AM 28/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
..
I don't think
]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels
per inch vs DPI
Austin,
Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up
before and rejected by Rob. It was at that
point that I gave up. But, kudos to you for your tenacity and
deep knowledge
Dye clouds are a double edged sword.
On the one hand, due to the random positioning and their transparent
nature, they can make for a very small apparent resolution because they
can overlap in all sorts of random patterns making areas much smaller
than a fixed array of pixels which would read
Thanks, It would appear the C70 hasn't made it over the great water yet.
It does look like a less expensive version of the C80. Hope it comes
our way soon.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Is the C70 being sold anywhere around the world now?
I see you folks recommending these other Epsons a lot, that aren't
advertised with the six color photo printing.Is there any real
advantage to going with something like the 890 or 1280 over one of
the less expensive office color inkjets?
I'm using a HP 722C right now, and I actually get
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't leave anything out...it doesn't matter WHAT size pixel, a
pixel is
but a single value of tonality, period. A pixel does NOT contain
the same
amount of information as A dye cloud. As I said, dye clouds are
variable in
shape, and a pixel is
, 2001 11:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels
per inch vs DPI
Austin,
Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up
before and rejected by Rob. It was at that
point that I gave up. But, kudos to you
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't leave anything out...it doesn't matter WHAT size pixel, a
pixel is
but a single value of tonality, period. A pixel does NOT contain
the same
amount of information as A dye cloud. As I said, dye clouds are
variable in
shape, and a
Austin wrote..
..I DID stick to the
ball...please point it out...I am interested.
I'm away from my normal PC right now, so I can't quote the lines that I felt were
getting personal (a convenient cop-out, I know!), but comments like this:
'..but I really don't know what more I can
Austin Franklin wrote:
Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location
and shape and are not relocated by picture content.
What about development?
I could just answer this with an Austinism and say what about it?,
but I'll afford you a little more respect
I think the model many of the major multinational high tech companies
use is to get their RD money back first via selling to markets that are
less price sensitive. Then they introduce the product into the US,
pretty much paid for through other international sales, and can
compete more easily in
As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
opening between the shutter curtains.
If, at some later date, digital sensors can be made
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful than a precise position in an
array?
Because it is. It's the way the world works. It IS additional
information,
plain and simple.
As usual, you've pulled another Austin.
I'm going to take this step by step, so that you don't have the wriggle
room that you usually try to create for yourself.
I arrived in this discussion after you stated that in was not possible
to get acceptable photo results from 100 dpi input, and I
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful
characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful than a precise
position in an
array?
Because it is. It's the way the world works. It IS additional
information,
plain and
As usual, you've pulled another Austin.
Art, just because I have pointed out you don't know what you're talking
about quite a few times, and the fact that you are NOT an engineer, but like
to pretend you are, and that I sometimes disagree with your assessments of
things, that is no reason to be
Is the C70 being sold anywhere around the world now?
http://www.epson.com.au/products/home_and_office/C70.html
Yes.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Austin wrote:
That's the point, it isn't an argument! It's like asking
why the number 9 is larger than the number 4. It's just
the way it is. It's just a fact of simple physics that a
pixel does not contain near the same amount of information
as a dye cloud.
I suspected I should have
Austin wrote:
That's the point, it isn't an argument! It's like asking
why the number 9 is larger than the number 4. It's just
the way it is. It's just a fact of simple physics that a
pixel does not contain near the same amount of information
as a dye cloud.
I suspected I should
I agree about the eventually partbut not yet. I am talking about what is now, not
what is theoretically
possible, and probable. We essentially, are in agreement.
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC
Rob Geraghty wrote:
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I
Austin,
Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up before and rejected
by Rob. It was at that
point that I gave up. But, kudos to you for your tenacity and deep knowledge on this
subject. I feel like
I've been vindicated, and by someone with far more skill than I.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the
amount of information they impart
to an
SKID Photography wrote:
Art,
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand what you are
trying to say with the below post
relative to film grain.
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic
dithering pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and
Harvey,
Just to clarify, my original comments about the randomization of the
pixel edges, etc. was in response to your comment below. I was not
implying that current pixel resolution could achieve photographic grain
randomness or resolution at current.
However, I would agree with Rob that
Austin Franklin wrote:
The process used a type
of overprinting - laying down more than one ink drop per location,
If true, that would be interesting. My understanding is the inks
used in
these types of inkjet printers can't do that, simply because the (I
believe
it's
I couldn't (and probably didn't) say it better myself ;-)
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet
dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a
one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the
printer.
Why? So far I've heard this
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob wrote:
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently
provides more
information than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But a dye cloud is more than color. It is ALSO shape and position. Those
characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the only consumer out of box printers using pigmented inks that I'm
aware
of are the Epson 2000P and the new C80.
There's another Epson; I think the C70. It's basically the same as the C80
but
a little slower. Uses the same carts.
Rob
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But a dye cloud is more than color. It is ALSO shape and
position. Those
characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more
Others that use pigmented inks, although I wouldn't refer to them as
consumer grade, are the Epson 5500, 7500 and 9500, some of the Rolands,
and some other larger carriage printers. The other Epsons, including the
3000, and even the 870/890 1270/1290 use dyes, although the later were
Rob Geraghty wrote:
I think that's an important point - we all have different standards. I
have a photographic print on my wall at home which everyone I know loves,
yet it was made from ordinary 100ASA Kodak print film back in about 1982.
It's quite grainy! The point is you would normally
(still chuckling :) Thanks for the very refreshing posts, Wire! Makes me glad I came
back..
Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11 x 17 300dpi print
on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then take 2 steps backward..
It is generally agreed that your average
Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel
wide image! I
have standards.
I knew you meant 100ppi sent to the printer...and as I said, I can't imagine
how you are getting quality images at 100ppi, unless they are small images
like 4x6 or very poor negatives that don't have
The original HP Photosmart printer (the big boxy one), which at the time
produced some of the best photo-quality images that came out of an
inkjet printer, was designed around input of 100-150 ppi, and used 300
ppi output based upon a 6 color (CcMmyK) process. In fact, if memory
serves me, it
Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11
x 17 300dpi print on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then
take 2 steps backward..
I have a wall I use for print evaluation. It has a large magnetic white
board, and strip magnets on it, used to hold the prints. I put
Austin wrote:
My largest print size is 17x22 from my 3000. I can see differences from
standard viewing distances that have
convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
for the type of work I do, if not 240+ preferred. 100 is vastly degraded.
'Vastly'? Well, I bow
The process used a type
of overprinting - laying down more than one ink drop per location,
If true, that would be interesting. My understanding is the inks used in
these types of inkjet printers can't do that, simply because the (I believe
it's because they are pigmented?) inks don't mix. I
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's important to remember that film grain and pixels are not
interchangeable terms.
I didn't mean to imply that they were. I was simply trying to make an
analogy
about expected viewing distance.
I think that part of it, is that pixels are
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
side by side and evaluate them. My largest print size is 17x22 from my
3000. I can see differences from standard viewing distances that have
convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
for the type of work I do, if not
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information
than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current implementations)
must fall on a grid pattern, and are a
Hi Austin,
Do you have another printer?
Yes. Another 3000 ;-) and two 1160s.
The reason I ask is that the 3000
is very long
in the tooth.
Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for Piezography,
much to my delight!
I'm just wondering how the output from an 1160 or
Art,
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand what you are trying to say
with the below post
relative to film grain.
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering pattern to
represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for
Piezography,
much to my delight!
Ah, but the Piezo printer driver completely replaces the Epson one.
For BW (Piezography) the 3000 is FAR better than the 1160. Even the Cone
boys make
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob wrote:
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the
amount of information they impart
to an inkjet printer?
I think
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
| SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
| pattern to represent pixels that film
| grain and scan
Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
I like Maris' terms.
Differentiation is important at least because a 1440 dpi printer doesn't
print 1440 pixels per inch. It prints dots per inch and a mosaic of dots is
required to render an image pixel.
With scanners, saying samples per inch
With scanners, saying samples per inch tends to suggest samples within the
optical resolution of the scanner
Not at all. A scanner is an analog data acquisition device, and it IS, in
fact, sampling, as in taking samples.
Austin wrote:
Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI?
Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many
of my recent
photos are going to. Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general
rule of thumb
the best resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work
Whatever works for each of us I guess. I was trying to point out that
printer dots are not relevant to anything that I actually deal with (as in,
I don't have to decide on what dpi to set, or allow for it, or even know
what it is, to get 'proper' results - apart from as a specification on the
Actually, I'm blind. I was in despair until I found this photography hobby.
Now it's all that keeps me going...
Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel wide image! I
have standards.
...
OK, the truth is I have very low standards...
Oh, never mind. I shouldn't have said
Austin wrote:
from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4. I really can't imagine every seeing a 100ppi
output that was nice... Even 180 is too low, except for the largest
of
images I print. 240 is about the minimum acceptable resolution I can send
to the printer, or image quality degrades quite noticeably.
Austin wrote:
Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI?
Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many of my recent
photos are going to. Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general rule of thumb
the best resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work with. Some
are
]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
The reason you're confused is that the term dpi is being used
for several
things.
Certainly a prolific problem. I prefer to say SPI as it relates to the
scanner, PPI is what you output TO the printer driver, and DPI is what the
printer prints.
I've been find of flamed for saying screen
Ken wrote:
see it relates mostly to size. I'm still not entirely
sure why high res scans look better on a screen only
capable of displaying 72dpi. I tried a slide at 2720
and then 680 dpi, sized the two scans the same, and the
2720 looked far better, especially under high zooms.
The
Austin wrote:
Certainly a prolific problem. I prefer to say SPI as it
relates to the scanner, PPI is what you output TO the
printer driver, and DPI is what the printer prints.
*I* know you mean samples per inch, pixels per inch and dots per inch, but
a newbie will find all the terminology
2. If you want to print the picture, the maximum size you can
print is limited to the number of pixels expressed at 300 ppi.
I always set the output resolution of Vuescan to 300dpi.
I have no idea what you mean by that...would you please elaborate?
OK. I don't have any files to work
: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
77 matches
Mail list logo
