Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kodak Photo-CD: They switched from .pcd to .jpg...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:52:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Once upon a time, say, back in 1997, if you submitted a roll
of 35mm film to your local developer and checked the box
marked "Kodak Photo-CD" you got .pcd images of 5MB each.
I tried the same thing last week, and the images were JPEG,
..5MB each. I feel I've been cheated, by an order of magnitude
or so. Have I?

I chose this route in the first place because I had a one-time
opportunity to get a series of landscape shots that I will later
subject to digital manipulation, and I didn't think my vintage
Sony digital would give me enough resolution.

--
mailbox@cpacker.org (Charles Packer)
ungoogled: mailboxATSIGNcpacker.org
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 12:38:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 18 May 2005 03:52:19 -0700, mailbox@cpacker.org wrote:

> Once upon a time, say, back in 1997, if you submitted a roll
> of 35mm film to your local developer and checked the box
> marked "Kodak Photo-CD" you got .pcd images of 5MB each.
> I tried the same thing last week, and the images were JPEG,
> .5MB each. I feel I've been cheated, by an order of magnitude
> or so. Have I?
>
> I chose this route in the first place because I had a one-time
> opportunity to get a series of landscape shots that I will later
> subject to digital manipulation, and I didn't think my vintage
> Sony digital would give me enough resolution.

You got a Picture CD, not a Kodak Photo CD. You can resubmit your
negatives and have the images placed on a real Photo CD. It's
normally much more expensive to get a Photo CD made from existing
negatives, but if you checked a box that showed "Photo CD" and not
"Picture CD" then your local developer is responsible for correcting
the error, even if they didn't create the Picture CD themselves
(assuming they had an outside service do it for them).

Here's a copy of part of a web page I saved that describes the two
disk formats:

> . . . there are some similarities between Picture CD and Photo CD: They both
> are digitizing processes that place image files onto an optical disc. After that,
> everything's different. Photo CDs use Kodak's ImagePac file format that
> writes five different file sizes (and five different resolutions) onto the CD
> ranging in size from 192x128 to 3072x2048 pixels. In addition to 35mm,
> Pro Photo CD accepts images from medium format roll film and 4x5 sheets
> and offers a sixth resolution image of 6144x4096 pixels. Picture CD files use
> the JPEG (Joint Photographics Experts Group) file format with images having
> a single resolution of 1536x1024 from 35mm film and 1536x864 from
> Advanced Photo System film. A Photo CD disc can typically hold about
> 100 five resolution files. A Picture CD holds images from one roll of film and
> the discs are made only at the time of processing. The reason for this lower
> capacity is that Picture CDs add digital imaging software to the disc. (I'll get
> to that in a moment.)
>
> Picture CD is mostly designed for Windows based computers, while Photo CD
> disc's image files can be read by Mac OS and Windows computers. I say
> "mostly" because the Picture CD disc itself is recognized by Mac OS
> computers and all of us Macheads can open the JPEG images through any one
> of our favorite image- editing programs. What Mac users cannot do is access all
> of the software that Kodak has added to the Picture CD. Picture CD is the first
> joint product from Kodak and Intel, which perhaps explains the Windows-centric
> nature of its design.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 2:20:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mailbox@cpacker.org wrote:
> Once upon a time, say, back in 1997, if you submitted a roll
> of 35mm film to your local developer and checked the box
> marked "Kodak Photo-CD" you got .pcd images of 5MB each.
> I tried the same thing last week, and the images were JPEG,
> .5MB each. I feel I've been cheated, by an order of magnitude
> or so. Have I?
>
> I chose this route in the first place because I had a one-time
> opportunity to get a series of landscape shots that I will later
> subject to digital manipulation, and I didn't think my vintage
> Sony digital would give me enough resolution.
>
> --
> mailbox@cpacker.org (Charles Packer)
> ungoogled: mailboxATSIGNcpacker.org
> http://cpacker.org/whatnews
>
My 4mp camera generates JPEG files from .3meg to 1.7meg. The quality is
adequate for prints to at least 8x10.
A good quality image can still be had from a 10:1 compression by JPEG
compression, so, no, you aren't being cheated.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:29:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:20:50 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> My 4mp camera generates JPEG files from .3meg to 1.7meg. The quality is
> adequate for prints to at least 8x10.
> A good quality image can still be had from a 10:1 compression by JPEG
> compression, so, no, you aren't being cheated.

Nobody here knows whether Charles was cheated or not. Even if the
..5MB images he received were insufficient for his needs, if he
carelessly checked off "Picture CD" on the form, thinking it was the
"Photo CD" that he actually wanted, no cheating would have been
involved. But if the box he checked said "Photo CD" then he was
definitely cheated, even if the 0.5MB jpg files might be adequate
for his purposes.

But either way, you have absolutely no idea whether those 0.5MB
jpg files are adequate. You don't know how much compression was
used to produce them. If fairly low compression was used, then
comparing it with the 1.7MB jpg's your 4mp camera can produce, the
0.5MB files he got might have been roughly equivalent to what a
1.2mp camera would produce. Charles said that he was going to the
trouble to not use his old Sony digicam because he needed the
resolution provided by 5MB PCD files. I've had a good number of
Kodak's Photo CD made in the past when I still used my Nikon SLR,
and I can assure you that the quality and resolution was far higher
than 0.5MB jpg files offer. You seem to think that anything that
what would satisfy *you* must be good enough to satisfy anyone else,
even if you don't know enough about the requirements to make an
informed judgement. If you want to get a feel for the quality that
PCD files offer, I suggest that you take some pictures with your
digital camera (using whatever resolution is closest to 0.5MB).
Also take pictures of the same subject using a $6.99 disposable
camera, and have a Kodak Photo CD made when the film is processed.
The difference should be pronounced, obvious to anyone unfamiliar
with photography, and making it obvious why Charles felt he was
cheated.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:03:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>PCD is a non-lossy (and uncompressed) format, using 8 bit/channel and
>the YCC colour space (24 bit colour depth) and used to be avialable in
>resolutions from 0.02 Mpx to 25 Mpx (Professional Quality) - but the
>default was 1.5 Mpx (1536 x 1024 px) - which had a 4.7 Mbyte file size
>- which is probably what you got in 1997. In this day and age, 1.5
>Mpx is not considered very good.

Actually, standard Photo CD from a 35 mm source was 6 megapixels,
3072x2048. The compression *is* technically lossy, but was designed to
be "visually lossless". There was also a Pro Photo CD at 24 megapixels,
6144x4096. You may have set up your software to load the "4 base" image
at 1536x1024, but the 3072x2048 version was always available on the
standard Photo CD.

>You don't tell us the pixel dimensions if the JPEGs, but if they
>are 1536 x 1024, I would be surprised if you're able to tell the
>difference between the 0.5 Mbyte JPEGs and the 10 times bigger
>PCD-files of equal pixel dimensions without a loupe.

But even the non-Pro version of PhotoCD is 6 megapixels. The ~5 MB
files expand to 24 MB TIFFs.

Dave
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 10:37:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) writes:
> Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>> PCD is a non-lossy (and uncompressed) format, using 8 bit/channel
>> and the YCC colour space (24 bit colour depth) and used to be
>> avialable in resolutions from 0.02 Mpx to 25 Mpx (Professional
>> Quality) - but the default was 1.5 Mpx (1536 x 1024 px) - which had
>> a 4.7 Mbyte file size - which is probably what you got in 1997. In
>> this day and age, 1.5 Mpx is not considered very good.

> Actually, standard Photo CD from a 35 mm source was 6 megapixels,
> 3072x2048. The compression *is* technically lossy, but was designed
> to be "visually lossless". There was also a Pro Photo CD at 24
> megapixels, 6144x4096. You may have set up your software to load
> the "4 base" image at 1536x1024, but the 3072x2048 version was
> always available on the standard Photo CD.

>> You don't tell us the pixel dimensions if the JPEGs, but if they
>> are 1536 x 1024, I would be surprised if you're able to tell the
>> difference between the 0.5 Mbyte JPEGs and the 10 times bigger
>> PCD-files of equal pixel dimensions without a loupe.

> But even the non-Pro version of PhotoCD is 6 megapixels. The ~5 MB
> files expand to 24 MB TIFFs.

There was obviously more to PhotoCDs than I understood when I used
them. Thanks for clearing that up.

It looks like those who pointed out that the OP had received a
PictureCD instead of a PhotoCD had the real answer.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> writes:

>There was obviously more to PhotoCDs than I understood when I used
>them. Thanks for clearing that up.

It was a pretty interesting format. Too bad they never became
popular. Some other neat features:

The colour encoding was apparently a variety of RGB, but with negative
values possible. This allows encoding colours that are outside the
triangle on the CIE diagram whose corners are located at the
chromaticities of the RGB primaries. Thus they could capture the entire
colour gamut of a subtractive process like film, while still using
primaries that are convenient for display.

All of the arguments about whether you should use sRGB or Adobe RGB or
something else are primarily because negative pixel values aren't
allowed in most file formats, so the choice of primaries determines what
colours you can't record. PhotoCD avoids this.

It also apparently stored the smaller images from "base" (768x512) on
down directly in the file. But the larger two resolutions were stored
by reducing the original image to "base" size, then interpolating it
back up to the larger size, subtracting it from the original, and
then compressing and storing only the difference. So the
video-resolution images were probably lossless and could be read and
displayed fast by even 1980s hardware, but the higher resolutions were
available too.

Dave
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:19:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 10:20:50 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>My 4mp camera generates JPEG files from .3meg to 1.7meg. The quality is
>>adequate for prints to at least 8x10.
>>A good quality image can still be had from a 10:1 compression by JPEG
>>compression, so, no, you aren't being cheated.
>
>
> Nobody here knows whether Charles was cheated or not. Even if the
> .5MB images he received were insufficient for his needs, if he
> carelessly checked off "Picture CD" on the form, thinking it was the
> "Photo CD" that he actually wanted, no cheating would have been
> involved. But if the box he checked said "Photo CD" then he was
> definitely cheated, even if the 0.5MB jpg files might be adequate
> for his purposes.
>
> But either way, you have absolutely no idea whether those 0.5MB
> jpg files are adequate. You don't know how much compression was
> used to produce them. If fairly low compression was used, then
> comparing it with the 1.7MB jpg's your 4mp camera can produce, the
> 0.5MB files he got might have been roughly equivalent to what a
> 1.2mp camera would produce. Charles said that he was going to the
> trouble to not use his old Sony digicam because he needed the
> resolution provided by 5MB PCD files. I've had a good number of
> Kodak's Photo CD made in the past when I still used my Nikon SLR,
> and I can assure you that the quality and resolution was far higher
> than 0.5MB jpg files offer. You seem to think that anything that
> what would satisfy *you* must be good enough to satisfy anyone else,
> even if you don't know enough about the requirements to make an
> informed judgement. If you want to get a feel for the quality that
> PCD files offer, I suggest that you take some pictures with your
> digital camera (using whatever resolution is closest to 0.5MB).
> Also take pictures of the same subject using a $6.99 disposable
> camera, and have a Kodak Photo CD made when the film is processed.
> The difference should be pronounced, obvious to anyone unfamiliar
> with photography, and making it obvious why Charles felt he was
> cheated.
>
I have seen the pictures from Photo CDs and Picture CDs, and neither was
quite as good as I would like. But neither, at the time, used .jpg
compression. Since the subject matter greatly affects the size of a
compressed JPEG file, it is not possible to define, exactly, what
quality will be displayed, let alone what resolution.
He merely specified that he expected a 5 meg uncompressed file, and got
a .5 meg compressed file. I suggested that the quality would likely be
quite similar.

So, he may, or may not have been 'cheated', but you can't conclude that
he WAS, or that the quality of the pictures is not adequate (since he
commented ONLY on the size).

As I said before, the pictures from my 4 mp camera often compress to
even less than .5meg, and are quite good.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:19:30 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I have seen the pictures from Photo CDs and Picture CDs, and neither was
> quite as good as I would like. But neither, at the time, used .jpg
> compression. Since the subject matter greatly affects the size of a
> compressed JPEG file, it is not possible to define, exactly, what
> quality will be displayed, let alone what resolution.

You're really talking through the wrong orifice here as you don't
have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Photo CDs don't
now, and never have contained JPG files of any type. Furthermore,
Photo CDs contained several scan resolutions of each picture, up to
and including 3072x2048 pixels. Picture CD files (if created from
35mm film) were created from much lower resolution scans, only
1536x1024 pixels, exactly 1/4th the number of pixels, and this
doesn't consider the additional slightly lessened quality due to JPG
compression. Since you think Photo CDs contained uncompressed JPG
files, I have my doubts as to whether the Picture CD JPG files you
saw were actually uncompressed as you claim.


> So, he may, or may not have been 'cheated', but you can't conclude that
> he WAS, or that the quality of the pictures is not adequate (since he
> commented ONLY on the size).

Did someone force you to say this at gunpoint? I hate to insult
your intelligence, but there's little on display when you can say
this in reply to my post where I said in the FIRST line:

>> Nobody here knows whether Charles was cheated or not.

Read that 2 or 3 times and tell me where you see any hint that I
concluded that he was cheated? In fact, part of the reason for my
reply was because you said "so, no, you aren't being cheated." So
after I told you that we don't know if he was cheated or not, you
reply as if you thought that up all by yourself. My, my, my, my,
my, my, my. It's no wonder you're such a big Shrub supporter. :) 


> He merely specified that he expected a 5 meg uncompressed file, and got
> a .5 meg compressed file. I suggested that the quality would likely be
> quite similar.

He said nothing of the kind. He expected to see 5MG files, and
said nothing about its compression. Once again your capacity for
invention overflows. My PCD files are about this size, usually
slightly smaller. If you think the quality of the smaller JPG files
would likely be quite similar, I'd suggest trading in your 4mp Kodak
camera for one that has only 1mp. There would be the same
difference in resolution that exists between Photo CD and Picture CD
files, which you think to be similar. Think of all the benefits
you'd get. Fewer CDs needed to archive pictures. Faster loading
(you wouldn't have to upgrade to more powerful computers as often).

Or perhaps you weren't aware that PCD files contained 5 copies of
the image, each at a different resolution (from 192x128 up to
3072x2048). Perhaps you only saw one of the intermediate resolution
images that were comparable in quality to Picture CD's JPG files.
But they still would have been .PCD files, not JPG's.


> As I said before, the pictures from my 4 mp camera often compress to
> even less than .5meg, and are quite good.

I'm happy for you, but that's irrelevant and hardly shows that
those files would satisfy Charles. My own 4mp camera saves JPG
files that are 2MB in size using its highest quality setting (lowest
compression). That's 4 times larger than your camera's 0.5MB files
which indicates that your Kodak camera uses a HUGE amount of
compression, or the 0.5MB files were captured using a resolution
lower than 4mp. I believe that you did say recently that you wished
your camera didn't compress so aggressively. That doesn't seem
consistent with your other recent statements, but it is consistent
with your position as the ng's most aggressive poster, who too often
seems to have a compulsion to add to a huge legacy of contrarian
posts. It does rather appear sometimes that you know better, but
find it amusing to take the odd position for the effect.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:17:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:19:30 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>I have seen the pictures from Photo CDs and Picture CDs, and neither was
>>quite as good as I would like. But neither, at the time, used .jpg
>>compression. Since the subject matter greatly affects the size of a
>>compressed JPEG file, it is not possible to define, exactly, what
>>quality will be displayed, let alone what resolution.
>
>
> You're really talking through the wrong orifice here as you don't
> have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Photo CDs don't
> now, and never have contained JPG files of any type. Furthermore,
> Photo CDs contained several scan resolutions of each picture, up to
> and including 3072x2048 pixels. Picture CD files (if created from
> 35mm film) were created from much lower resolution scans, only
> 1536x1024 pixels, exactly 1/4th the number of pixels, and this
> doesn't consider the additional slightly lessened quality due to JPG
> compression. Since you think Photo CDs contained uncompressed JPG
> files, I have my doubts as to whether the Picture CD JPG files you
> saw were actually uncompressed as you claim.
>
>
>
>>So, he may, or may not have been 'cheated', but you can't conclude that
>>he WAS, or that the quality of the pictures is not adequate (since he
>>commented ONLY on the size).
>
>
> Did someone force you to say this at gunpoint? I hate to insult
> your intelligence, but there's little on display when you can say
> this in reply to my post where I said in the FIRST line:
>
>
>>> Nobody here knows whether Charles was cheated or not.
>
>
> Read that 2 or 3 times and tell me where you see any hint that I
> concluded that he was cheated? In fact, part of the reason for my
> reply was because you said "so, no, you aren't being cheated." So
> after I told you that we don't know if he was cheated or not, you
> reply as if you thought that up all by yourself. My, my, my, my,
> my, my, my. It's no wonder you're such a big Shrub supporter. :) 
>
>
>
>>He merely specified that he expected a 5 meg uncompressed file, and got
>>a .5 meg compressed file. I suggested that the quality would likely be
>>quite similar.
>
>
> He said nothing of the kind. He expected to see 5MG files, and
> said nothing about its compression. Once again your capacity for
> invention overflows. My PCD files are about this size, usually
> slightly smaller. If you think the quality of the smaller JPG files
> would likely be quite similar, I'd suggest trading in your 4mp Kodak
> camera for one that has only 1mp. There would be the same
> difference in resolution that exists between Photo CD and Picture CD
> files, which you think to be similar. Think of all the benefits
> you'd get. Fewer CDs needed to archive pictures. Faster loading
> (you wouldn't have to upgrade to more powerful computers as often).
>
> Or perhaps you weren't aware that PCD files contained 5 copies of
> the image, each at a different resolution (from 192x128 up to
> 3072x2048). Perhaps you only saw one of the intermediate resolution
> images that were comparable in quality to Picture CD's JPG files.
> But they still would have been .PCD files, not JPG's.
>
>
>
>>As I said before, the pictures from my 4 mp camera often compress to
>>even less than .5meg, and are quite good.
>
>
> I'm happy for you, but that's irrelevant and hardly shows that
> those files would satisfy Charles. My own 4mp camera saves JPG
> files that are 2MB in size using its highest quality setting (lowest
> compression). That's 4 times larger than your camera's 0.5MB files
> which indicates that your Kodak camera uses a HUGE amount of
> compression, or the 0.5MB files were captured using a resolution
> lower than 4mp. I believe that you did say recently that you wished
> your camera didn't compress so aggressively. That doesn't seem
> consistent with your other recent statements, but it is consistent
> with your position as the ng's most aggressive poster, who too often
> seems to have a compulsion to add to a huge legacy of contrarian
> posts. It does rather appear sometimes that you know better, but
> find it amusing to take the odd position for the effect.
>
Learn to read!
I never said a WORD about uncompressed JPEG files. YOU DID.
I said that a .5meg compressed file might be indistinguishable from an
uncompressed 5 meg file, which is usually true.

It is true that I wish the Kodak compression were less aggressive, but
file size varies from .3 meg to 1.7 meg, depending on the subject
matter. Only in rare cases does the compression become a problem.

I have seen Picture CDs, and they stink. I have seen Photo CDs, and
they weren't much better. Perhaps the scanner wasn't in good shape,or
the originals were bad,but they didn't look very good to me. Certainly
NOT enough to pay the price for one.

The difference here is that without evidence, you conclude he is being
cheated, and I say you can't really tell, but that he probably is NOT
being cheated. Perhaps you are so much into the 'everyone hates me, and
is out to get me' mindset you can't see that the world probably doesn't
waste a lot of time worrying about you at all.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 10:03:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> You got a Picture CD, not a Kodak Photo CD. You can resubmit your

You're right...I looked again at the envelope and it said Picture CD,
not Photo CD. So I wasn't cheated, strictly speaking...just bamboozled.


Didn't mean to cause the argument that arose in this thread, but at
least it definitely burned into my mind once and for all the difference
between the two formats, for future reference.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mailbox@cpacker.org wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>
>
>> You got a Picture CD, not a Kodak Photo CD. You can resubmit your
>
>
> You're right...I looked again at the envelope and it said Picture CD,
> not Photo CD. So I wasn't cheated, strictly speaking...just bamboozled.
>
>
> Didn't mean to cause the argument that arose in this thread, but at
> least it definitely burned into my mind once and for all the difference
> between the two formats, for future reference.
>

Or, confused. I suspect there is nothing on the form to explain the
difference in Photo CD and Picture CD. There should be.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 4:56:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 19 May 2005 06:03:25 -0700, mailbox@cpacker.org wrote:

> You're right...I looked again at the envelope and it said Picture CD,
> not Photo CD. So I wasn't cheated, strictly speaking...just bamboozled.

It's easy for that kind of mistake to be made because the names
are so similar. A similar thing happened to me once, back when
Photo CDs were fairly new, where I got back pictures on floppies
instead of on the Photo CD is asked for. The camera shop employee
who took my order had never heard of Photo CDs, and tried to
convince me that they didn't exist. When I explained to him that in
the previous months I had ordered a number of Photo CDs in the
shop's Imaging Center, he disappeared for 5 minutes, came back and
said that everything was being handled properly and I'd get the CDs.
When I returned a week later and saw floppies instead, he insisted
that I had asked for floppies. But the store *grudgingly* got me
the Photo CD's I had asked for, but it took them another week to do
so.


> Didn't mean to cause the argument that arose in this thread, but at
> least it definitely burned into my mind once and for all the difference
> between the two formats, for future reference.

No problem, and if the argument didn't occur in this thread it
would have soon enough in another. Lean close while I whisper this
so nobody else will hear: Ron's from Texas, and I've watched enough
'westerns' to know that he's what people call a 'cantankerous old
cuss'. Means well, but he's prickly and has strong opinions about
everything, even those things he knows little of. He posts more
messages in this newsgroup than anyone else, by far, and he's said
that this is only one of many ng's that he posts in. I've urged him
to slow down and make his replies more intelligible (trimming would
help a lot) but he's going for quantity, not quality. A typical
Texas trait, that. Biggest and mostest isn't always the bestest.
Except in some cases when it comes to PCD vs. JPG files, that is. :) 
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 5:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d6g78q$o6q$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>,
Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>The colour encoding was apparently a variety of RGB, but with negative
>values possible. This allows encoding colours that are outside the
>triangle on the CIE diagram whose corners are located at the
>chromaticities of the RGB primaries. Thus they could capture the entire
>colour gamut of a subtractive process like film, while still using
>primaries that are convenient for display.
>
>All of the arguments about whether you should use sRGB or Adobe RGB or
>something else are primarily because negative pixel values aren't
>allowed in most file formats, so the choice of primaries determines what
>colours you can't record. PhotoCD avoids this.

Except that there is also a 'Kodak ProPhoto RGB' color space (with primaries
(0.7347,0.2653), (0.1596,0.8404), (0.0366,0.0001)).

If that color space is used on PhotoCDs, they could just as well have used
XYZ.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 7:53:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:

>Except that there is also a 'Kodak ProPhoto RGB' color space (with primaries
>(0.7347,0.2653), (0.1596,0.8404), (0.0366,0.0001)).

>If that color space is used on PhotoCDs, they could just as well have used
>XYZ.

The trouble with XYZ is that you have to do a colour space conversion
before you can view the image on anything. Kodak imagined that PhotoCDs
would be used for slide shows via a viewer connected to your TV set, and
sold players for this (though nobody bought them). As a consumer
device, this couldn't have had much processing power even compared to
the desktop computers of the time.

I don't know if the Pro PhotoCD were supposed to work in the consumer
players though.

Dave
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

>I never said a WORD about uncompressed JPEG files. YOU DID.
>I said that a .5meg compressed file might be indistinguishable from an
>uncompressed 5 meg file, which is usually true.

Although that's somewhat removed from the facts in this case. He was
expecting a PhotoCD file, which is 4-5MB of compressed data representing
a 6 MP 18 MB uncompressed scan of the film.

So a 1.5 MP 0.5 MB JPEG might indeed be indistinguishable from a
1.5 MP 4.5 MB uncompressed TIFF, but a 1.5 MP 0.5 MB JPEG is unlikely to
be equivalent to a 6 MP 5 MB PhotoCD image derived from a 18 MB scan.

A lot of the confusion in this thread has been about what a PhotoCD scan
actually is.

>I have seen Picture CDs, and they stink. I have seen Photo CDs, and
>they weren't much better. Perhaps the scanner wasn't in good shape,or
>the originals were bad,but they didn't look very good to me. Certainly
>NOT enough to pay the price for one.

Good PhotoCDs are quite decent looking 6 MP images. But the quality
probably depends on who's operating the scanner.

Dave
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:02:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>I never said a WORD about uncompressed JPEG files. YOU DID.
>>I said that a .5meg compressed file might be indistinguishable from an
>>uncompressed 5 meg file, which is usually true.
>
>
> Although that's somewhat removed from the facts in this case. He was
> expecting a PhotoCD file, which is 4-5MB of compressed data representing
> a 6 MP 18 MB uncompressed scan of the film.
>

From what he said, he only expressed concern about the size of the
file, which might just be compressed, vs uncompressed.


> So a 1.5 MP 0.5 MB JPEG might indeed be indistinguishable from a
> 1.5 MP 4.5 MB uncompressed TIFF, but a 1.5 MP 0.5 MB JPEG is unlikely to
> be equivalent to a 6 MP 5 MB PhotoCD image derived from a 18 MB scan.
>
No argument there.


> A lot of the confusion in this thread has been about what a PhotoCD scan
> actually is.
>
>
>>I have seen Picture CDs, and they stink. I have seen Photo CDs, and
>>they weren't much better. Perhaps the scanner wasn't in good shape,or
>>the originals were bad,but they didn't look very good to me. Certainly
>>NOT enough to pay the price for one.
>
>
> Good PhotoCDs are quite decent looking 6 MP images. But the quality
> probably depends on who's operating the scanner.
>

VERY likely.


> Dave


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:01:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d6icql$a6b$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>,
Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
>
>>Except that there is also a 'Kodak ProPhoto RGB' color space (with primaries
>>(0.7347,0.2653), (0.1596,0.8404), (0.0366,0.0001)).
>
>>If that color space is used on PhotoCDs, they could just as well have used
>>XYZ.
>
>The trouble with XYZ is that you have to do a colour space conversion
>before you can view the image on anything.

Which is a weird argument in the case of PhotoCD. You have to decode the
image format anyhow. Add just one matrix multiply to the decoding algorithm
and you have sRGB. The same applies to jpeg (except that with 8-bit/ch,
XYZ is not such a good idea).

For uncompressed TIFF I can imagine that additional matrix multiplies are
a bit over the top.

But if Kodak actually used the ProPhoto RGB color space then that would
be another hole in that argument because that color is space is far too big
to display unmodified on a television set or a computer screen.

>As a consumer
>device, this couldn't have had much processing power even compared to
>the desktop computers of the time.

I don't think that Kodak targeted consumers. They introduced PictureCD
for consumers.

With 640x480 and 9 multiplies per pixel, you end up with 2764800
multiplies. You can decode 8-bit gamma corrected data to 16-bit,
perform a 32-bit multiply to get a fixed point result and use a lookup
table for the gamma encoding. I guess that even 16-bit CPUs are fast enough
to do that in a reasonable amount of time.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:50:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mailbox@cpacker.org writes:

> Once upon a time, say, back in 1997, if you submitted a roll
> of 35mm film to your local developer and checked the box
> marked "Kodak Photo-CD" you got .pcd images of 5MB each.
> I tried the same thing last week, and the images were JPEG,
> .5MB each. I feel I've been cheated, by an order of magnitude
> or so. Have I?

My bet would be that you got "picture CD" rather than "photo CD"; just
how carefully did you look at the form?

> I chose this route in the first place because I had a one-time
> opportunity to get a series of landscape shots that I will later
> subject to digital manipulation, and I didn't think my vintage
> Sony digital would give me enough resolution.

Well, you've still got the negatives; at worst you're out money.
Which can be annoying enough, of course.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:50:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On 19 May 2005 06:03:25 -0700, mailbox@cpacker.org wrote:
>
>
>>You're right...I looked again at the envelope and it said Picture CD,
>>not Photo CD. So I wasn't cheated, strictly speaking...just bamboozled.
>
>
> It's easy for that kind of mistake to be made because the names
> are so similar. A similar thing happened to me once, back when
> Photo CDs were fairly new, where I got back pictures on floppies
> instead of on the Photo CD is asked for. The camera shop employee
> who took my order had never heard of Photo CDs, and tried to
> convince me that they didn't exist. When I explained to him that in
> the previous months I had ordered a number of Photo CDs in the
> shop's Imaging Center, he disappeared for 5 minutes, came back and
> said that everything was being handled properly and I'd get the CDs.
> When I returned a week later and saw floppies instead, he insisted
> that I had asked for floppies. But the store *grudgingly* got me
> the Photo CD's I had asked for, but it took them another week to do
> so.
>
>
>
>>Didn't mean to cause the argument that arose in this thread, but at
>>least it definitely burned into my mind once and for all the difference
>>between the two formats, for future reference.
>
>
> No problem, and if the argument didn't occur in this thread it
> would have soon enough in another. Lean close while I whisper this
> so nobody else will hear: Ron's from Texas, and I've watched enough
> 'westerns' to know that he's what people call a 'cantankerous old
> cuss'. Means well, but he's prickly and has strong opinions about
> everything, even those things he knows little of. He posts more
> messages in this newsgroup than anyone else, by far, and he's said
> that this is only one of many ng's that he posts in. I've urged him
> to slow down and make his replies more intelligible (trimming would
> help a lot) but he's going for quantity, not quality. A typical
> Texas trait, that. Biggest and mostest isn't always the bestest.
> Except in some cases when it comes to PCD vs. JPG files, that is. :) 
>
Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance. And I have been
a bit testy lately. Things aren't going well around here these days.
Totally off the pain meds now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit
more civil, until the next person gets ugly about my home state, or my
native country. Then I react.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:41:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:47:26 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Who can't read? I said neither contained .jpg files. What part of that
> don't you understand?

You. You never said that they didn't contain .jpg files. In fact
that would be also wrong since one of them DID contain jpg files.
What you said was that neither of them contained COMPRESSED jpg
files.


> I have already done that. None of my posts appear on my computer... Grin.
> The OP has ALREADY cleared the matter up, yet you persist in insisting
> that he might have been cheated, when he says not.

I think that you have a wee bit of a problem understanding
English. Do you understand the difference between:

1. He might have been cheated.
2. He might not have been cheated.
3. He was cheated.
4. He wasn't cheated.

Although it doesn't appear that you'll be able to comprehend this,
I'll try once more. I repeatedly said that (based on what had been
said at the time) that we DID NOT KNOW whether he had been cheated
or not. And I explained not only why, but what might have happened.
Charles eventually explained what happened, showing that there was a
simple mistake, and he hadn't been cheated. At NO point did I ever
say he had or hadn't been cheated, (as you did, prior to his
eventual clarification). My first post in this thread (to Charles)
hinted at where the problem probably arose (checking off the wrong
option), although I worded it to more strongly suggest that the
photo processor might have been at fault. But the primary intent
was for Charles to verify what he had checked off. And he later
confirmed that that had been the source of the problem.

I don't know about Charles, but as for myself, I'd rather find out
that I had made the mistake so that I wouldn't maintain bad feelings
for a photo shop that hadn't made a mistake. From your many posts
here, I feel confident in saying that you'd never admit that you had
made a mistake and would do everything possible to show that the
shop was ultimately responsible for your mistake. You have a sharp
enough eye to see noise in some of your cameras pictures, but can't
detect much of a difference between low-res Picture CD scans, and
far higher resolution Photo CD scans (4x the number of pixels).
When this was pointed out to you, you blamed it not on your usual
"foot-in-mouth" syndrome, but on a possibly bad scanner or your
Trinitron monitor. But if the monitor was in such bad shape,
wouldn't everything else have appeared pretty rotten too, including
the 4mp images from your camera?

BTW, if after this you STILL maintain (incorrectly) that I EVER
concluded that Charles had been cheated (a false claim that you've
made), or stated that he MIGHT have been cheated (after reading his
final explanation) then we don't inhabit the same logical universe,
and I'll leave you to your delusions. But you can see the light, I
know you can. It's probably a whole lot easier than finding fault
with der Shrub. :) 

BTW, I saw Kodak's LS753 in a store the other day and was surprised
at how "pocketable" it actually is. I've been looking for a really
small carry-everywhere camera, and this one, while not a subcompact,
is small enough to make my list. But it has two problems. One is
that it's way overpriced compared to comparable cameras from other
companies (by more than $100). The other is that it's clearly large
enough to use AAs, but uses rechargeable Li-Ion instead. If
anything's going to be disposable, I prefer it to be the batteries,
not the camera. If both of those weren't concerns, I'd have bought
one (despite its noisiness) and been testing one already,. Doing
what else but seeing how long AA alkalines last in it. :) 
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:41:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:50:51 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance.

Unless you're a truffle snuffling pig or Jimmy Durante.

> Things aren't going well around here these days. Totally off the pain meds
> now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit more civil, until the next person
> gets ugly about my home state, or my native country. Then I react.

Ah, spoken like a true, patriotic Tex-American. "Do what you will
with my momma, my wife or my children. But don'tcha dare disrespect
massah George."

Sorry, couldn't help it. After showing us your hot button
(putting it under our big noses, eh?) it was kinda hard not to give
it just an itty bitty little push. :)  Hope your pain passes
quickly. I had some pretty severe back/leg/arm pain several years
ago too. I was difficult to walk faster than a few yards per minute
or hold a small glass of water in my right hand (I could manage an
empty glass). It seemed for awhile that the pain would last
forever, but the worst of it was gone after a couple of months.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 5:54:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:47:26 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Who can't read? I said neither contained .jpg files. What part of that
>>don't you understand?
>
>
> You. You never said that they didn't contain .jpg files. In fact
> that would be also wrong since one of them DID contain jpg files.
> What you said was that neither of them contained COMPRESSED jpg
> files.
>
>
>
>>I have already done that. None of my posts appear on my computer... Grin.
>>The OP has ALREADY cleared the matter up, yet you persist in insisting
>>that he might have been cheated, when he says not.
>
>
> I think that you have a wee bit of a problem understanding
> English. Do you understand the difference between:
>
> 1. He might have been cheated.
> 2. He might not have been cheated.
> 3. He was cheated.
> 4. He wasn't cheated.
>
> Although it doesn't appear that you'll be able to comprehend this,
> I'll try once more. I repeatedly said that (based on what had been
> said at the time) that we DID NOT KNOW whether he had been cheated
> or not. And I explained not only why, but what might have happened.
> Charles eventually explained what happened, showing that there was a
> simple mistake, and he hadn't been cheated. At NO point did I ever
> say he had or hadn't been cheated, (as you did, prior to his
> eventual clarification). My first post in this thread (to Charles)
> hinted at where the problem probably arose (checking off the wrong
> option), although I worded it to more strongly suggest that the
> photo processor might have been at fault. But the primary intent
> was for Charles to verify what he had checked off. And he later
> confirmed that that had been the source of the problem.
>
> I don't know about Charles, but as for myself, I'd rather find out
> that I had made the mistake so that I wouldn't maintain bad feelings
> for a photo shop that hadn't made a mistake. From your many posts
> here, I feel confident in saying that you'd never admit that you had
> made a mistake and would do everything possible to show that the
> shop was ultimately responsible for your mistake. You have a sharp
> enough eye to see noise in some of your cameras pictures, but can't
> detect much of a difference between low-res Picture CD scans, and
> far higher resolution Photo CD scans (4x the number of pixels).
> When this was pointed out to you, you blamed it not on your usual
> "foot-in-mouth" syndrome, but on a possibly bad scanner or your
> Trinitron monitor. But if the monitor was in such bad shape,
> wouldn't everything else have appeared pretty rotten too, including
> the 4mp images from your camera?
>
> BTW, if after this you STILL maintain (incorrectly) that I EVER
> concluded that Charles had been cheated (a false claim that you've
> made), or stated that he MIGHT have been cheated (after reading his
> final explanation) then we don't inhabit the same logical universe,
> and I'll leave you to your delusions. But you can see the light, I
> know you can. It's probably a whole lot easier than finding fault
> with der Shrub. :) 
>
> BTW, I saw Kodak's LS753 in a store the other day and was surprised
> at how "pocketable" it actually is. I've been looking for a really
> small carry-everywhere camera, and this one, while not a subcompact,
> is small enough to make my list. But it has two problems. One is
> that it's way overpriced compared to comparable cameras from other
> companies (by more than $100). The other is that it's clearly large
> enough to use AAs, but uses rechargeable Li-Ion instead. If
> anything's going to be disposable, I prefer it to be the batteries,
> not the camera. If both of those weren't concerns, I'd have bought
> one (despite its noisiness) and been testing one already,. Doing
> what else but seeing how long AA alkalines last in it. :) 
>

Not continuing the unproductive (and off topic) previous discussion,
your pockets much be somewhat more spacious than mine. It is a rather
'lumpy' shape, and the lens appears (at least in pictures) to be pretty
large, at least when extended. As for the Li-ion/AA issue, I tend to
come down on the AA side with you, but Kodak appears to have gone with
the lighter, longer-lasting/charge (and proprietary) batteries in its
newer cameras. I strongly suspect that the days of darting into a
convenience store for an emergency battery 'fix' are on their way into
history. Seems to me the companies could agree on a couple of basic
Li-ion types/sizes, and then with sufficient numbers, those would become
cheaper, and more generally available, but I don't see that happening.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 5:58:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:50:51 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance.
>
>
> Unless you're a truffle snuffling pig or Jimmy Durante.
>
>
>> Things aren't going well around here these days. Totally off the pain meds
>>now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit more civil, until the next person
>>gets ugly about my home state, or my native country. Then I react.
>
>
> Ah, spoken like a true, patriotic Tex-American. "Do what you will
> with my momma, my wife or my children. But don'tcha dare disrespect
> massah George."
>
> Sorry, couldn't help it. After showing us your hot button
> (putting it under our big noses, eh?) it was kinda hard not to give
> it just an itty bitty little push. :)  Hope your pain passes
> quickly. I had some pretty severe back/leg/arm pain several years
> ago too. I was difficult to walk faster than a few yards per minute
> or hold a small glass of water in my right hand (I could manage an
> empty glass). It seemed for awhile that the pain would last
> forever, but the worst of it was gone after a couple of months.
>
Humm. An empty glass isn't too useful.... At least my pain is only in
the hips and legs.. MUCH better now than only a few months ago.
Weather changes are a bit unpleasant, and in Texas, that often means
daily...

As for the other; call my computer trash, my car a wreck, my baby ugly,
but DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:

>>The trouble with XYZ is that you have to do a colour space conversion
>>before you can view the image on anything.

>Which is a weird argument in the case of PhotoCD. You have to decode the
>image format anyhow. Add just one matrix multiply to the decoding algorithm
>and you have sRGB. The same applies to jpeg (except that with 8-bit/ch,
>XYZ is not such a good idea).

As I understand it, decoding PhotoCD at "base" resolution (768x512) and
below was trivial, because little or no compression was used. So a NTSC
or PAL "slide show" player would need to do little other than copying
bytes. Decoding the higher resolutions was much more expensive, but
only people reading the images on a computer did that. The TV-output
players probably had a simple microprocessor in them and not much more,
probably something like the 8085.

Doing a 3x3 matrix multiply would be unthinkably expensive.

>>As a consumer
>>device, this couldn't have had much processing power even compared to
>>the desktop computers of the time.

>I don't think that Kodak targeted consumers. They introduced PictureCD
>for consumers.

No, there was a TV-set-top PhotoCD player marketed to consumers. This
was years before PictureCD, and during a period when many people did not
own a home computer at all.

>With 640x480 and 9 multiplies per pixel, you end up with 2764800
>multiplies. You can decode 8-bit gamma corrected data to 16-bit,
>perform a 32-bit multiply to get a fixed point result and use a lookup
>table for the gamma encoding. I guess that even 16-bit CPUs are fast enough
>to do that in a reasonable amount of time.

I doubt the players had even a 16-bit CPU. I remember opening PhotoCD
images on my brand-new Mac with a 25 MHz 68LC040 (no floating point
hardware). That's a 32-bit processor, but in a computer that was far
more expensive than the Kodak set-top player.

Dave
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 01:54:14 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Not continuing the unproductive (and off topic) previous discussion,
> your pockets much be somewhat more spacious than mine. It is a rather
> 'lumpy' shape, and the lens appears (at least in pictures) to be pretty
> large, at least when extended.

In the store I saw the LS753 in, none of the cameras had any power
remaining in their batteries. (Several weeks ago, one or two did).
Most of the cameras had their lenses extended, making it impossible
to tell how far they'd retract when powered off. But the LS753 had
its lens fully retracted, and as I said, it wasn't a sub-compact.
But compared to most of the other small compacts, such as Canon's
A510, Fuji's E510, etc., Kodak's LS753 was not only shorter, but
didn't have the bulges around the lenses or handgrips that make many
of the compact cameras less "pocketable" than they appear. I
wouldn't want to put the LS753 in a shirt pocket (and I wouldn't
want to put even a much smaller camera in a rear pants pocket), but
any other pocket would have far more than enough room.


> As for the Li-ion/AA issue, I tend to come down on the AA side with
> you, but Kodak appears to have gone with the lighter, longer-lasting/charge
> (and proprietary) batteries in its newer cameras. I strongly suspect that the
> days of darting into a convenience store for an emergency battery 'fix' are on
> their way into history.

Why do you say that? There are still many new cameras appearing
that use AAs. Although I won't be considering one, I was surprised
to see in a review that Fuji's S3 DSLR uses 4AA batteries.



> Seems to me the companies could agree on a couple of basic
> Li-ion types/sizes, and then with sufficient numbers, those would become
> cheaper, and more generally available, but I don't see that happening.

Ah, the wonders of the free market. No desires left unfulfilled.

NOT!

It's reminiscent of Detroit's offering not what buyers wanted to
buy, but what Detroit wanted to sell. Look where that got them. A
week or two ago GM and Ford saw their credit rating lowered to
"junk" status.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:18:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 01:54:14 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Not continuing the unproductive (and off topic) previous discussion,
>>your pockets much be somewhat more spacious than mine. It is a rather
>>'lumpy' shape, and the lens appears (at least in pictures) to be pretty
>>large, at least when extended.
>
>
> In the store I saw the LS753 in, none of the cameras had any power
> remaining in their batteries. (Several weeks ago, one or two did).
> Most of the cameras had their lenses extended, making it impossible
> to tell how far they'd retract when powered off. But the LS753 had
> its lens fully retracted, and as I said, it wasn't a sub-compact.
> But compared to most of the other small compacts, such as Canon's
> A510, Fuji's E510, etc., Kodak's LS753 was not only shorter, but
> didn't have the bulges around the lenses or handgrips that make many
> of the compact cameras less "pocketable" than they appear. I
> wouldn't want to put the LS753 in a shirt pocket (and I wouldn't
> want to put even a much smaller camera in a rear pants pocket), but
> any other pocket would have far more than enough room.
>
>
>
>> As for the Li-ion/AA issue, I tend to come down on the AA side with
>>you, but Kodak appears to have gone with the lighter, longer-lasting/charge
>>(and proprietary) batteries in its newer cameras. I strongly suspect that the
>>days of darting into a convenience store for an emergency battery 'fix' are on
>>their way into history.
>
>
> Why do you say that? There are still many new cameras appearing
> that use AAs. Although I won't be considering one, I was surprised
> to see in a review that Fuji's S3 DSLR uses 4AA batteries.
>
>
>
>
>> Seems to me the companies could agree on a couple of basic
>>Li-ion types/sizes, and then with sufficient numbers, those would become
>>cheaper, and more generally available, but I don't see that happening.
>
>
> Ah, the wonders of the free market. No desires left unfulfilled.
>
> NOT!
>
> It's reminiscent of Detroit's offering not what buyers wanted to
> buy, but what Detroit wanted to sell. Look where that got them. A
> week or two ago GM and Ford saw their credit rating lowered to
> "junk" status.
>
Still, companies often make choices that don't make sense to us
consumers. Often they see only the immediate effect on the bottom line,
not the long-term effects. All it takes is for one important person on
the decision chain to decide that Li-ion batteries are 'better', and
that is the way things go. Certainly from a weight, and charge density
standpoint, the Li-ion batteries ARE better, and if you can make them
proprietary, there is another revenue stream for the company... So who
CARES what the consumer wants? I am sure it will take a while yet, but
I look for the use of AA batteries to become less, rather than more,
prevalent. I would LIKE to be wrong about this, but....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:48:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:41:53 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , ASAAR
<caught@22.com> in <q2mq81d2mljv1ksahheirh4uoc15fh29bf@4ax.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:50:51 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance.
>
> Unless you're a truffle snuffling pig or Jimmy Durante.

Or a Roman emperor.

>
>> Things aren't going well around here these days. Totally off the pain meds
>> now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit more civil, until the next person
>> gets ugly about my home state, or my native country.

Does El Paso count? I am willing to speak well of Austin and Dallas
and at least keep quiet about Houston, but El Paso really pushes the
envelop.

>Then I react.
>
> Ah, spoken like a true, patriotic Tex-American. "Do what you will
>with my momma, my wife or my children. But don'tcha dare disrespect
>massah George."
>
> Sorry, couldn't help it. After showing us your hot button
>(putting it under our big noses, eh?) it was kinda hard not to give
>it just an itty bitty little push. :)  Hope your pain passes
>quickly. I had some pretty severe back/leg/arm pain several years
>ago too. I was difficult to walk faster than a few yards per minute
>or hold a small glass of water in my right hand (I could manage an
>empty glass). It seemed for awhile that the pain would last
>forever, but the worst of it was gone after a couple of months.

There is something devastating when our bodies betray us like that.
Take out just one muscle and suddenly everything about your life
changes.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:48:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:41:53 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , ASAAR
> <caught@22.com> in <q2mq81d2mljv1ksahheirh4uoc15fh29bf@4ax.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:50:51 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance.
>>
>> Unless you're a truffle snuffling pig or Jimmy Durante.
>
>
> Or a Roman emperor.
>
>
>>> Things aren't going well around here these days. Totally off the pain meds
>>>now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit more civil, until the next person
>>>gets ugly about my home state, or my native country.
>
>
> Does El Paso count? I am willing to speak well of Austin and Dallas
> and at least keep quiet about Houston, but El Paso really pushes the
> envelop.
>
>

I will give you a pass on Brownsville and El Paso.


>>Then I react.
>>
>> Ah, spoken like a true, patriotic Tex-American. "Do what you will
>>with my momma, my wife or my children. But don'tcha dare disrespect
>>massah George."
>>
>> Sorry, couldn't help it. After showing us your hot button
>>(putting it under our big noses, eh?) it was kinda hard not to give
>>it just an itty bitty little push. :)  Hope your pain passes
>>quickly. I had some pretty severe back/leg/arm pain several years
>>ago too. I was difficult to walk faster than a few yards per minute
>>or hold a small glass of water in my right hand (I could manage an
>>empty glass). It seemed for awhile that the pain would last
>>forever, but the worst of it was gone after a couple of months.
>
>
> There is something devastating when our bodies betray us like that.
> Take out just one muscle and suddenly everything about your life
> changes.
>
>
I was remembering this morning that only a few months ago, I was
putting a glass of water on the computer desk (usually a firm no-no)
before going to bed so that I wouldn't have to walk the 6 extra painful
steps to the sink for water to take my morning Vicodin with. Sure is
nice to NOT have to do that any more.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:48:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Charles,

You are right, Photo CD is much different than todays Picture CD. In
reality, Photo CD came on the scene about a decade before 1997. I believe it
was really introduced to the world in late 1988 or early 1989. It was ahead
of its time.

Image resolution:
Five resolutions: 128 x 192 pixels up to 2048 x 3072 pixels.
Kodak Pro Photo CDs add a sixth resolution, 4096 x 6144 pixels.
File format: Image Pac (PCD)
Computer compatibility: Macintosh and Windows operating systems
Input quantity: Multiple rolls of film
Image source:
Black and white, color negative, or color reversal film
(existing slides or negatives);
Kodak Digital Science Photo CD master disc;
35 mm or Advanced Photo System film; Kodak Pro Photo CD disc;
35 mm through 4 x 5 in. film.
a.. Software:
a.. Software is needed to review and use the images.
a.. Software can be downloaded from the Kodak Web site.
Up to about 100 images can be added

On the other hand, there is a much more current and popular system called
Picture CD, which is not related to Photo CD. The two are distinctly
different. For details on either, go to the two noted URLs on the Kodak web
site.

http://www.kodak.com/go/pictrurecd

http://www.kodak.com/go/photocd


Hope this helps, good luck. Let meknow if you need more.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

<mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote in message
news:1116413539.795697.158810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Once upon a time, say, back in 1997, if you submitted a roll
> of 35mm film to your local developer and checked the box
> marked "Kodak Photo-CD" you got .pcd images of 5MB each.
> I tried the same thing last week, and the images were JPEG,
> .5MB each. I feel I've been cheated, by an order of magnitude
> or so. Have I?
>
> I chose this route in the first place because I had a one-time
> opportunity to get a series of landscape shots that I will later
> subject to digital manipulation, and I didn't think my vintage
> Sony digital would give me enough resolution.
>
> --
> mailbox@cpacker.org (Charles Packer)
> ungoogled: mailboxATSIGNcpacker.org
> http://cpacker.org/whatnews
>
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:29:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]

> Still, companies often make choices that don't make sense to us
> consumers. Often they see only the immediate effect on the bottom
> line, not the long-term effects. All it takes is for one important
> person on the decision chain to decide that Li-ion batteries are
> 'better', and that is the way things go. Certainly from a weight,
> and charge density standpoint, the Li-ion batteries ARE better, and
> if you can make them proprietary, there is another revenue stream for
> the company... So who CARES what the consumer wants? I am sure it
> will take a while yet, but I look for the use of AA batteries to
> become less, rather than more, prevalent. I would LIKE to be wrong
> about this, but....

So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for standard
Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?

David
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:54:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:21:25 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <a8oje.11251$cP2.6319@fe06.lga> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:41:53 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , ASAAR
>> <caught@22.com> in <q2mq81d2mljv1ksahheirh4uoc15fh29bf@4ax.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:50:51 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance.
>>>
>>> Unless you're a truffle snuffling pig or Jimmy Durante.
>>
>>
>> Or a Roman emperor.
>>
>>
>>>> Things aren't going well around here these days. Totally off the pain meds
>>>>now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit more civil, until the next person
>>>>gets ugly about my home state, or my native country.
>>
>>
>> Does El Paso count? I am willing to speak well of Austin and Dallas
>> and at least keep quiet about Houston, but El Paso really pushes the
>> envelop.
>>
>>
>
>I will give you a pass on Brownsville and El Paso.

Then you come from a lovely state.


[snip]



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 9:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings ASAAR/Photo CD posters,

Just a note of interest.

When Photo CD was released, Windows had not really become anything just yet.
In fact Bill gates had not yet released it. Rather, computers were still
using DOS and earlier versions at that. So, the way the images were designed
to be viewed was on a Photo CD Player. There were several available
including a portable model. You would connect the player to the TV and it
would translate the PCD file into an image on your screen.

In reality the PCD file format was unique to Kodak and was really only one
file that could be uncompressed into a version of five file sizes. The
program that opened them could then be used to save them in another file
format, i.e. JPG. The originals were not JPG or any other common format
that we have today.

There are a number of programs still around that can open and display Photo
CDs (PCD) files, i.e. Irfanview or the available Picture Disk program,
though it will open it will only open the file in the base format. Check the
Kodak sites I noted in a previous post to get details on this feature. It
is pretty interesting.

Talk to you soon, All,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

> On Thu, 19 May 2005 01:17:29 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> > Learn to read!
> > I never said a WORD about uncompressed JPEG files. YOU DID.
> > I said that a .5meg compressed file might be indistinguishable from an
> > uncompressed 5 meg file, which is usually true.
>
> You're proving that you not only don't know how to read, Ron, but
> you don't know what you've typed before. You said:
>
>
> > I have seen the pictures from Photo CDs and Picture CDs, and neither
> > was quite as good as I would like. But neither, at the time, used .jpg
> > compression. Since the subject matter greatly affects the size of a
> > compressed JPEG file, it is not possible to define, exactly, what
> > quality will be displayed, let alone what resolution.
> > He merely specified that he expected a 5 meg uncompressed file, and got
> > a .5 meg compressed file. I suggested that the quality would likely be
> > quite similar.
>
> Why would you say that neither "used .jpg compression" if you
> didn't think that both Photo CDs and Picture CDs contained JPG
> files? Charles said nothing about compression. He simply said that
> he got 0.5MB JPG files instead of the expected (unspecified type)
> 5MB files. You didn't mention .PCD files at all, but implied that
> way back when you 'saw the pictures from photo CDs' they were JPG
> files, and much larger than they'd be today because back then they
> didn't use jpg compression. You're just backtracking, trying to
> avoid admitting a mistake. You might as well have said that TIFF
> files and BMP files didn't use JPG compression back then either.
> That would be a literally true but woefully ignorant statement, and
> all the spinning in the world won't cover it up.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:18:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:14:53 -0400, Ronald Baird wrote:

> There are a number of programs still around that can open and display Photo
> CDs (PCD) files, i.e. Irfanview or the available Picture Disk program,
> though it will open it will only open the file in the base format. Check the
> Kodak sites I noted in a previous post to get details on this feature. It
> is pretty interesting.

Thanks for the clarification, Ronald. That goes a long way towards
explaining why Ron wasn't impressed with PCD's quality, as the base
format (the highest resolution Irfanview will display without
plugins) is only 768x512. I tried both of your links (the picturecd
link had a typo) and was initially disappointed to see that the only
PCD software available was a Photoshop plugin. For anyone
interested, it turns out to be compatible with Irfanview, allowing
it to display all five PCD image resolutions. The only effort
required is to download dd0586.exe, a 66kb file, which contains the
necessary PCDICC.8BI plugin. Thanks again.

http://www.kodak.com/go/picturecd

http://www.kodak.com/go/photocd
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 11:44:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>
>
>>Still, companies often make choices that don't make sense to us
>>consumers. Often they see only the immediate effect on the bottom
>>line, not the long-term effects. All it takes is for one important
>>person on the decision chain to decide that Li-ion batteries are
>>'better', and that is the way things go. Certainly from a weight,
>>and charge density standpoint, the Li-ion batteries ARE better, and
>>if you can make them proprietary, there is another revenue stream for
>>the company... So who CARES what the consumer wants? I am sure it
>>will take a while yet, but I look for the use of AA batteries to
>>become less, rather than more, prevalent. I would LIKE to be wrong
>>about this, but....
>
>
> So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for standard
> Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>
> David
>
>
Humm You think Erin Brockovich would be interested?

She is doing an investigation about 50 miles from here right now..

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 11:46:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:21:25 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> in <a8oje.11251$cP2.6319@fe06.lga> wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:41:53 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , ASAAR
>>><caught@22.com> in <q2mq81d2mljv1ksahheirh4uoc15fh29bf@4ax.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:50:51 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Biggest doesn't always pay off, in noses, for instance.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you're a truffle snuffling pig or Jimmy Durante.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or a Roman emperor.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Things aren't going well around here these days. Totally off the pain meds
>>>>>now, and readjusting. I will try to be a bit more civil, until the next person
>>>>>gets ugly about my home state, or my native country.
>>>
>>>
>>>Does El Paso count? I am willing to speak well of Austin and Dallas
>>>and at least keep quiet about Houston, but El Paso really pushes the
>>>envelop.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I will give you a pass on Brownsville and El Paso.
>
>
> Then you come from a lovely state.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
I have visited every major city in the state, and many of the smaller
ones, and grew up in a small town near Houston. I really like the area
near Austin, and went to college in Georgetown, back when Round Rock had
a 6 man football team! I like Fort Worth best, for its small town
attitude, and large city facilities, and its western flavor.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 11:51:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005 17:14:53 -0400, Ronald Baird wrote:
>
>
>>There are a number of programs still around that can open and display Photo
>>CDs (PCD) files, i.e. Irfanview or the available Picture Disk program,
>>though it will open it will only open the file in the base format. Check the
>>Kodak sites I noted in a previous post to get details on this feature. It
>>is pretty interesting.
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Ronald. That goes a long way towards
> explaining why Ron wasn't impressed with PCD's quality, as the base
> format (the highest resolution Irfanview will display without
> plugins) is only 768x512. I tried both of your links (the picturecd
> link had a typo) and was initially disappointed to see that the only
> PCD software available was a Photoshop plugin. For anyone
> interested, it turns out to be compatible with Irfanview, allowing
> it to display all five PCD image resolutions. The only effort
> required is to download dd0586.exe, a 66kb file, which contains the
> necessary PCDICC.8BI plugin. Thanks again.
>
> http://www.kodak.com/go/picturecd
>
> http://www.kodak.com/go/photocd
>
I definitely wasn't using Irfanview when I looked at the PhotoCD as
this was long before Irfan was doing his thing. I distinctly recall
there being several resolutions available, and none of them looked good
to me, which might be the monitor, the program, or the original picture
at fault. In any case, I wasn't impressed, especially at the price.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:51:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I definitely wasn't using Irfanview when I looked at the PhotoCD as
> this was long before Irfan was doing his thing. I distinctly recall
> there being several resolutions available, and none of them looked good
> to me, which might be the monitor, the program, or the original picture
> at fault. In any case, I wasn't impressed, especially at the price.

Although hard to tell at this date, it's probably the program.
It's likely to have limited you to the three lowest resolutions, as
Irfanview does. Before "Irfan was doing his thing", hardware was a
lot slower, and if the software really was capable of opening the
6mp images, the delay would have been pretty long and you'd probably
still remember it today. The 768x512 image version that it probably
used wouldn't have looked terrible on the screen, but wouldn't have
impressed you either, nor would it look very good if magnified.
It's not necessarily what you experienced, but as they say, "it's
consistent with the evidence". It even makes you look good in a
way, because you weren't impressed by what you thought was a 5MB
image file, when what you were probably viewing was based on far
less than 0.5MB's worth of data. Hans Christian Anderson wrote a
well known story about people that preferred to believe the
consensus instead of what their eyes told them was the truth. :) 
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 8:49:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:46:59 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <9yvje.12449$cP2.507@fe06.lga> wrote:


[snip]

>I have visited every major city in the state, and many of the smaller
>ones, and grew up in a small town near Houston. I really like the area
>near Austin, and went to college in Georgetown, back when Round Rock had
>a 6 man football team! I like Fort Worth best, for its small town
>attitude, and large city facilities, and its western flavor.

The hills of east Texas may have produced more good music and
musicians than anywhere in American except the Mississippi delta.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:39:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> []
>>
>>
>>> Still, companies often make choices that don't make sense to us
>>> consumers. Often they see only the immediate effect on the bottom
>>> line, not the long-term effects. All it takes is for one important
>>> person on the decision chain to decide that Li-ion batteries are
>>> 'better', and that is the way things go. Certainly from a weight,
>>> and charge density standpoint, the Li-ion batteries ARE better, and
>>> if you can make them proprietary, there is another revenue stream
>>> for the company... So who CARES what the consumer wants? I am
>>> sure it will take a while yet, but I look for the use of AA
>>> batteries to become less, rather than more, prevalent. I would
>>> LIKE to be wrong about this, but....
>>
>>
>> So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>> standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> Humm You think Erin Brockovich would be interested?
>
> She is doing an investigation about 50 miles from here right now..

The name means nothing to me - but I'm not in the USA.
Yes, I do think it's worth asking at least.

David
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:39:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>[]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Still, companies often make choices that don't make sense to us
>>>>consumers. Often they see only the immediate effect on the bottom
>>>>line, not the long-term effects. All it takes is for one important
>>>>person on the decision chain to decide that Li-ion batteries are
>>>>'better', and that is the way things go. Certainly from a weight,
>>>>and charge density standpoint, the Li-ion batteries ARE better, and
>>>>if you can make them proprietary, there is another revenue stream
>>>>for the company... So who CARES what the consumer wants? I am
>>>>sure it will take a while yet, but I look for the use of AA
>>>>batteries to become less, rather than more, prevalent. I would
>>>>LIKE to be wrong about this, but....
>>>
>>>
>>>So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>>>standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Humm You think Erin Brockovich would be interested?
>>
>>She is doing an investigation about 50 miles from here right now..
>
>
> The name means nothing to me - but I'm not in the USA.
> Yes, I do think it's worth asking at least.
>
> David
>
>
Surely you heard of the Julia Roberts movie by that name....
She is an environmental investigator for an attorney.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In news:Ufoje.36093$G8.5889@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

> So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
> standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?

Campaign? Consumer rights?

You're proposing government intervention over battery sizes?

Every "good idea" has to be made into law, doesn't it?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:46:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> In news:Ufoje.36093$G8.5889@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>>standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>
>
> Campaign? Consumer rights?
>
> You're proposing government intervention over battery sizes?
>
> Every "good idea" has to be made into law, doesn't it?
>
Who said anything about laws? It is perfectly possible to pressure
companies to do rational things to benefit their customers. It is also
better than imposing government regulations, and a DARN SIGHT cheaper.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 7:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bert Hyman wrote:
> In news:Ufoje.36093$G8.5889@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J
> Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>> standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>
> Campaign? Consumer rights?
>
> You're proposing government intervention over battery sizes?
>
> Every "good idea" has to be made into law, doesn't it?

My comparison was with AA cells - an industry standard (well, almost) not
a government one. I'm proposing that we, as consumers, stop just
complaining and doing something, if we care!

David
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 7:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>>In news:Ufoje.36093$G8.5889@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J
>>Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>>>standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>>
>>Campaign? Consumer rights?
>>
>>You're proposing government intervention over battery sizes?
>>
>>Every "good idea" has to be made into law, doesn't it?
>
>
> My comparison was with AA cells - an industry standard (well, almost) not
> a government one. I'm proposing that we, as consumers, stop just
> complaining and doing something, if we care!
>
> David
>
>
One thing we could do is write a letter to the companies stating what
camera we would like to have bought, and why we bought another, instead.
Enough of those letters and someone will notice.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 8:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In news:1OIje.36746$G8.33410@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:Ufoje.36093$G8.5889@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J
>> Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>>> standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>>
>> Campaign? Consumer rights?
>>
>> You're proposing government intervention over battery sizes?
>>
>> Every "good idea" has to be made into law, doesn't it?
>
> My comparison was with AA cells - an industry standard (well, almost)
> not a government one. I'm proposing that we, as consumers, stop just
> complaining and doing something, if we care!

You do that best by not buying things you don't like.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 8:34:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In news:KkJje.4556$bD5.2650@fe07.lga Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:Ufoje.36093$G8.5889@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So why not get one of the consumer rights people to campaign for
>>>standard Li-ion batteries, just like we have standard AA cells?
>>
>>
>> Campaign? Consumer rights?
>>
>> You're proposing government intervention over battery sizes?
>>
>> Every "good idea" has to be made into law, doesn't it?
>>
> Who said anything about laws?

That's what "consumer rights" organizations do.

> It is perfectly possible to pressure companies to do rational things to
> benefit their customers. It is also better than imposing government
> regulations, and a DARN SIGHT cheaper.

That's right; don't buy what you don't like. If you're motivated, send a
letter to the manufacturer; so few people actually write, that the few who
do have more impact than you might imagine.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> []
[]
>>> Humm You think Erin Brockovich would be interested?
>>>
>>> She is doing an investigation about 50 miles from here right now..
>>
>>
>> The name means nothing to me - but I'm not in the USA.
>> Yes, I do think it's worth asking at least.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> Surely you heard of the Julia Roberts movie by that name....
> She is an environmental investigator for an attorney.

Oh, rings a bell now you say. I don't visit the cinema much these days -
can't stand the queuing, the loud sound, poor image quality etc. etc.

David
May 21, 2005 9:44:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6fp19$ksr$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>>PCD is a non-lossy (and uncompressed) format, using 8 bit/channel and
>>the YCC colour space (24 bit colour depth) and used to be avialable in
>>resolutions from 0.02 Mpx to 25 Mpx (Professional Quality) - but the
>>default was 1.5 Mpx (1536 x 1024 px) - which had a 4.7 Mbyte file size
>>- which is probably what you got in 1997.

Kodak's marketing literature from a few years ago made the claim that the
Professional version of PCD contained virtually all of the image quality
that 35mm was capable of producing. I'm not up to speed on whether Kodak is
still holding that position.

I can't get Qualex to make Photo CDs anymore, and Dale Labs has also
discontinued them, per their web site.

Is the format even viable anymore? It seems to me that, with the cost of a
decent scanner having come down, the only market for PhotoCD is those
photographers that require only occasional digitization of important shots.
Anyone wanting to digitize images in larger numbers could save a bundle by
doing it themselves (As I recall, Kodak charged $10.00 just for the blank
CD--and you could store perhaps 4 rolls' worth of images on it. You had to
use their CD, and then there was the cost of each scan added on).

PhotoShop has already discontinued support for the FlashPix file format
(which was a cousin to PCD, and it was writable in addition to being
readable). How long before the major editing programs curtail supporting
PCD? In another 10 years, I wonder if it will be easy to read those files?
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:44:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:44:17 GMT, Jeremy wrote:

> Kodak's marketing literature from a few years ago made the claim that the
> Professional version of PCD contained virtually all of the image quality
> that 35mm was capable of producing. I'm not up to speed on whether Kodak is
> still holding that position.

It probably has no opinion, since regular and pro PCD versions
have been discontinued (see Ron Baird's links in this thread). As
the Pro version was good for 6144x4096 pixels, which is considerably
greater than the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II's 16.7 megapixels, Kodak
could probably still make that claim today. If a color film doesn't
already exist that exceeds that resolution, it's unlikely to be
developed(!) given the widespread cutbacks in film production and
R&D as the world goes digital.
!