Mark Roberts wrote:
Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is a 3Mp or so chip right now with I
think a 1.6 factor.
It's a 1.7 factor, which is just too much for a lot of people, myself
included.
Dang, that IS pretty bad. I can live with 1.5, but 1.7 is too much.
Only time will tell
Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lack of deep
resources is one of the few things thats preventing the Foveon
technology from getting a stronger presence.
Yeah, that and being stuck in a Sigma camera body!
;-)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:27:38PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
From: Pieter Nagel
Oh, I wasn't hoping to get any more quality out of the tiny APS sensor
with 2/3 faked colour.
I presume you have an ist D?
If so, you know how wrong this statement is.
I did not mean that as a slur on
Hello Pieter,
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color. What you are really referring to is a
dithering pattern. All inkjet printers do this, monitors do this and
I believe
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color.
This is not true. All photographic file formats store R, G and B
values for each pixel.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, alex wetmore wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color.
This is not true. All photographic file
Hello alex,
My mistake. I do believe that it is true of the printer though. That
is why the resolution of an Epson is 1440 dpi but the resolution that
we really think of is 300 dpi. This is due to dithering.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, December 17, 2003, 10:18:57 AM, you wrote:
aw
Bruce Dayton wrote:
My local labs no longer do analog. That means that my film is at a
disadvantage. It is subject to their scanner/software limitations.
The only alternative is to scan and manipulate the images myself.
Same here - and to make things even worse, they have their
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello Pieter,
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color. What you are really referring to is a
dithering pattern. All inkjet printers do this, monitors do
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:11:19AM -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color.
Just because, at the output side, printers need to dither dots on
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
My mistake. I do believe that it is true of the printer though. That
is why the resolution of an Epson is 1440 dpi but the resolution that
we really think of is 300 dpi. This is due to dithering.
It is true of inkjet printers, but printer resolution
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:16:56 +0200, you wrote:
snip
... then concludes that any higher resolution scan of the film is
therefore fruitless. They don't seem to realize there's smaller grains yet
to be resolved, after the first big one's they thought you saw.
Wow. More grain. Just what I wanted.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:52:13PM -0700, John Mustarde wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:16:56 +0200, you wrote:
snip
... then concludes that any higher resolution scan of the film is
therefore fruitless. They don't seem to realize there's smaller grains yet
to be resolved, after the first big
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:36:51PM -0500, graywolf wrote:
Everything else the same, a larger format give
better quality. The question is, if you need that quality why are you using
a small format camera in the first place. If you don't, why worry about it.
Oh, I wasn't hoping to get any
- Original Message -
From: Pieter Nagel
Subject: Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
Oh, I wasn't hoping to get any more quality out of the tiny APS sensor
with 2/3 faked colour.
I presume you have an ist D?
If so, you know how wrong this statement is.
William Robb
On 14/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
With istD making all our old primes x 1.5,
is there any change to the aperature eg:
a 135mm f1.8 becomes effectively a ~=200mm
but is there any change in the effective aperature?
Your 135mm f/1.8 is still a 135mm f/1.8. That hasn't changed. What has
On 15 Dec 2003 at 19:34, Pieter Nagel wrote:
However, the print you are left with is smaller. So you need to enlarge it
more if you still want to end up with a 4x6 at the end. In the process,
you enlarge the lens abberations too.
My question was, do these two effects cancel out?
Only if
With istD making all our old primes x 1.5,
is there any change to the aperature eg:
a 135mm f1.8 becomes effectively a ~=200mm
but is there any change in the effective aperature?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
__
(_ \
_) )
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Waterson
Subject: *istD and prime lens aperature
With istD making all our old primes x 1.5,
is there any change to the aperature eg:
a 135mm f1.8 becomes effectively a ~=200mm
but is there any change in the effective aperature?
Your 135mm f/1.8
On 20 Dec 2003 at 15:06, Kevin Waterson wrote:
With istD making all our old primes x 1.5,
is there any change to the aperature eg:
a 135mm f1.8 becomes effectively a ~=200mm
but is there any change in the effective aperature?
No, you are simply looking at a cropped area of the image
This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your 135mm f/1.8 is still a 135mm f/1.8. That hasn't changed. What has
changed is how much of the image circle the digital sensor is seeing.
The 135 is a mid length telephoto on the ist D.
You should start trying to think in
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 09:41:18AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
No, you are simply looking at a cropped area of the image projected by any
lens.
What effect does this have on the look of the lens, other than the
apparent change of focal length?
Astigmatism and distortion are worse towards the
From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your 135mm f/1.8 is still a 135mm f/1.8. That hasn't changed. What has
23 matches
Mail list logo
