[AGL] Mike Attack
hpo
hpophotog at mac.com
Wed Mar 7 04:32:23 EST 2007
As distant observer I must say you´ré right Mike.
Latest cams have 8-14 million pixels and that is only
for small format (35mm bodies).
My Canon 30D has only 8 million and that is enough.
Your files get too big beyond this for ease of storage
and transmission.
hans
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
Hans-Peter Otto
Photojournalist
Reichstrasse 101
14052 Berlin, Germany
Mobil +49 172 321 5956
Tel +49 30 667 75450
Skype hpoPhotog
On Wednesday, March 07, 2007, at 01:08AM, "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com> wrote:
>Ewie,
>
>I understand this resolution thing. You, however, do not understand
>this resolution thing.
>
>Each pixel, using filters, generates 3 values, 1 each for red green and
>blue. The raw file for a picture at max rez on this camera is 39Megs.
>4,368 x 2,912 = 12,719,616 pixels. 12.7 million x 3 = a 39+ million byte
>file.
>
>According to the figures you quote, 4,368 x 2,912 = approx. 4.6MB.
>If your calculator returns that sum, it is broken.
>
>By the way, this camera is not a Cannon, it is a Canon.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>
>To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"
><austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack
>
>
>> Mike, maybe you don't understand this resolution thing, it is confusing.
>> The D5 does not produce a 39meg file, if it did they would be advertising
>> the fact all over the place.
>> Here is a quote from the Cannon site:
>> File size:
>> (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.6MB (4,368 x 2,912) (2) Large/Normal 2.3MB
>> (4,368
>> x 2,912) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.7MB (3,168 x 2,112) (4) Medium/Normal:
>> Approx. 1.4MB (3,168 x 2,112) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 2.0MB (2,496 x
>> 1,664)
>> (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 1.0MB (2,496 x 1,664) (7) RAW: Approx. 12.9MB
>> (4,368 x 2,912)
>>
>> If it could produce a 39meg file they would certainly say so.
>>
>> I didn't see Polidori's photos but if they all look a little blue to you
>> that may be a sign that you monitor is not color corrected. Since you
>> seem
>> to be a computer buff I guess you know that monitors do not always display
>> the correct colors and for critical work they need to be calibrated so
>> things have the correct color. I have been doing this stuff for a few
>> years and it is true if a scene is illuminated just by sky light only such
>> as in the shade, can have a bit of a blue cast. But if you have a blue
>> sky
>> that means you have the sun out and scenes in sunlight never have this
>> blue
>> cast - the engineers at Kodak have figured this out and make their film to
>> show pretty damn good colors.
>>
>> Better get your monitor calibrated if you want to peruse a career as photo
>> critic.
>> Aloha
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>> Ewie,
>>>
>>> You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.
>>>
>>> The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size
>>> as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its
>>> maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that
>>> and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary
>>> colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as
>>> the 40Megs you mention.
>>>
>>> Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of
>>> film and chemical darkrooms.
>>>
>>> As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in
>>> burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time
>>> if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.
>>>
>>> $2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.
>>> It will take some years before a used one will come
>>> close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.
>>> Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,
>>> process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them
>>> for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,
>>> and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined
>>> interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook
>>> the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting
>>> without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the
>>> shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by
>>> the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct
>>> light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree when
>>> she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They
>>> don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might
>>> reduce sales.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> > Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like somebody to
>>> > give
>>> > me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and scanner combo.
>>> > Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem of them
>>> > getting
>>> > stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500 loss, can't
>>> > afford
>>> > the $3000 loss. A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to about 40
>>> > meg,
>>> > the
>>> > Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg. I don't know if the Cannon has this problem
>> but
>>> > many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing the shutter
>>> > and
>>> > the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing fast
>> action.
>>> > Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.
>>> >
>>> > Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for only
>>> > $31,995
>>> > but
>>> > sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide. But if
>> you
>>> > are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only way to go!!
>>> > You
>>> > can buy them on Ebay for around $500.
>>> >
>>> > The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you can do it
>>> > yourself or send it out. Doing it yourself and sending it out cost
>> about
>>> > the same price. Only problem is not instant gratification. Some art
>>> > forms
>>> > require a little work.
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Austin-ghetto-list
mailing list