[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