On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:20:41 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Perry Pellechia wrote:
My point is that a decades ago people were saying digital cameras
would never replace film. I do not think most people feel this way
today. Read this story about the first digital image
Well, not really.
The title is more than a little misleading - although there's only
a single 'pixel', the value at that pixel is recorded some 30,000
different times, with a different optical transform of the source
being applied each time. Then they apply a reconstruction algorithm
to find the
Reminds me of a class in college in 89. The professor made the statement
that computer buss speeds would never exceed 100 mghz because of buss path
lengths. Supposedly electrons would have to travel faster than light to
increase beyond a certain limit. I often wonder what he says today :)
I
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based
on
what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back
and
watch where the technology leads us to.
On 10/6/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL
I'd disagree with that characterization. The MF lines that ended up
dominating the market (Hassy, Pentax, Mamiya) all are known for being
quite high resolution and sharp for MF glass. It simply never hit the
resolution of the 35mm lenses.
-Adam
Jack Davis wrote:
Image size off-set is, of
Don't count yourself out yet, Walt. I'm about to turn 65 and hoping to
see much more of what's coming down the road. Always said my preferred
method of leaving this world was to be shot in bed at 95 by a jealous
husband. ;)
-P
Walter Hamler wrote:
At 64 yrs old I am almost sorry I
Why do you suppose..it never hit the resolution of the 35mm lenses?
Only a curiosity, not my characterization. =))
Jack
--- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd disagree with that characterization. The MF lines that ended up
dominating the market (Hassy, Pentax, Mamiya) all are known for
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
I'd disagree with that characterization. The MF lines that ended up
dominating the market (Hassy, Pentax, Mamiya) all are known for being
quite high resolution and sharp for MF glass. It simply never hit
35mm lenses are higher resolution (at least the better ones) than MF
glass. That's not to say that MF glass wasn't designed for high resolution.
-Adam
Jack Davis wrote:
Why do you suppose..it never hit the resolution of the 35mm lenses?
Only a curiosity, not my characterization. =))
Jack
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
35mm lenses are higher resolution (at least the better ones) than MF
glass. That's not to say that MF glass wasn't designed for high
resolution.
Check out the numbers for the modern Rodenstocks
Some
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:35 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
35mm lenses are higher resolution
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
While these super LF lenses really help with 4x5
Or when using a MF film back on a 4x5, at 8x10 or
Larger you can use a coke bottle at F32 and get
Stunning resultsYou just don't even need good
Perry Pellechia wrote:
I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based on
what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back and
watch where the technology leads us to.
I don't think there was ever much progress made by letting the
technology do the leading,
It's not this particular technology that is promising. It's the
obvious truth that digital is a relatively new technology, and
significant refinement will certainly come soon.
Paul
On Oct 7, 2006, at 4:35 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Perry Pellechia wrote:
I agree with you Paul. We tend to
My point is that a decades ago people were saying digital cameras
would never replace film. I do not think most people feel this way
today. Read this story about the first digital image recorded by
Kodak RD labs 30 years ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261340/
Quoting from the article:
The
This isn't really even digital. It's looks more related to Mechanical
Television from the 1920's.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
It's not this particular technology that is promising. It's the
obvious truth that digital is a relatively new technology, and
significant refinement will certainly come
Perry Pellechia wrote:
My point is that a decades ago people were saying digital cameras
would never replace film. I do not think most people feel this way
today. Read this story about the first digital image recorded by
Kodak RD labs 30 years ago:
Most people think whatever the
On 10/7/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most people think whatever the promotional departments of large
corporations tell them to think. If most people today feel that digital
has replaced film how come, from the same article, film, which
still accounts for the bulk of its
P. J. Alling wrote:
This isn't really even digital. It's looks more related to Mechanical
Television from the 1920's.
It _seems_ to be a combination of John-Logie-Baird-type mechanicals and
some simple electronics. Although it's difficult to judge from the
article. As I said, the worst
Most people think what the obvious evidence suggests.
On Oct 7, 2006, at 6:20 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Perry Pellechia wrote:
My point is that a decades ago people were saying digital cameras
would never replace film. I do not think most people feel this way
today. Read this story about
mike wilson wrote:
If most people today feel that digital
has replaced film how come, from the same article, film, which
still accounts for the bulk of its profits?
I think the fact that film still accounts for the bulk of Kodak's
profits (or did a year ago, when that article is dated)
Interesting. And it demonstrates that digital technology is far from
its zenith. Something to think about when you hear the whines about
how low noise and high resolution are impossible without large sensors.
Paul
On Oct 6, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Perry Pellechia wrote:
When a single pixel may be
When a single pixel may be all you need:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003articleID=0003FA95-AAB6-1526-AAB683414B7Fref=rss
or/
http://tinyurl.com/kezzp
I hope you find this interesting too.
Perry.
--
Perry Pellechia
Primary
enough...Y'all need to start
Dreaming about way better lenses instead...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Perry Pellechia
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:03 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
I
I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based on
what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back and
watch where the technology leads us to.
On 10/6/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. And it demonstrates that digital technology is far
Pellechia
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:03 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based on
what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back and
watch where the technology leads us
Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based on
what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back
and
watch where the technology leads us to.
On 10/6/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:03 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Who needs mega pixels?
I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based on
what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back
and
watch where the technology leads us to.
On 10/6/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL
28 matches
Mail list logo
