Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ping Gregory Blank - the shot you wanted (P&S digital reso..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:38:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Well, sort of.

I wasn't comfortable taking enough shots because I was in a hurry and
there was a half-naked chick sunbathing nearby (she was sitting in the
grass and I could only see that she was wearing a tiny bra or bikini
top, not sure what else, if any). I didn't want her to think I was
photographing her, and she probably suspected so, because she then put
on some shirt and looked uncomfortable, and I then preferred to leave.
I may try again tomorrow, though this will do for now. Not sure what
the camera focused on exactly but I remember it was something in the
foreground, and here's a crop from the stuff in the far distance,
though it wasn't in focus. [f4.5 (2.8-8), 1/420sec. ISO 80.]

http://img108.echo.cx/img108/8205/dscf1502all9mu.jpg
http://img124.echo.cx/img124/7373/dscf1502top9uc.jpg

Remember what you're looking at; a pocketable digicam weighing 140gms.
Default RAW settings. No sharpetning applied. No attempt to fix purple
fringing. Just the 28.3mp image got from the RAW output of the 6mp
(6+6) superccd sensor using photoshop. Yes, it's interpolated up. I
suspect using Fuji's hyper utility would probably be better, or even a
dedicated interpolation software, but generic photoshop is good enough
for now.

This would give me a print of "25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch,
(or) 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
(John)". Now, I haven't got a good scanner; does anyone know how a
comparable (140gms) pocketable 35mm film camera shot would compare when
enlarged?
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 10:58:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, sort of.
>
> I wasn't comfortable taking enough shots because I was in a hurry and
> there was a half-naked chick sunbathing nearby (she was sitting in the
> grass and I could only see that she was wearing a tiny bra or bikini
> top, not sure what else, if any). I didn't want her to think I was
> photographing her, and she probably suspected so, because she then put
> on some shirt and looked uncomfortable, and I then preferred to leave.
> I may try again tomorrow, though this will do for now. Not sure what
> the camera focused on exactly but I remember it was something in the
> foreground, and here's a crop from the stuff in the far distance,
> though it wasn't in focus. [f4.5 (2.8-8), 1/420sec. ISO 80.]
>
> http://img108.echo.cx/img108/8205/dscf1502all9mu.jpg
> http://img124.echo.cx/img124/7373/dscf1502top9uc.jpg
>

I forgot to mention the JPEG compression. It's 60%, if i remember well.


> Remember what you're looking at; a pocketable digicam weighing 140gms.
> Default RAW settings. No sharpetning applied. No attempt to fix purple
> fringing. Just the 28.3mp image got from the RAW output of the 6mp
> (6+6) superccd sensor using photoshop. Yes, it's interpolated up. I
> suspect using Fuji's hyper utility would probably be better, or even a
> dedicated interpolation software, but generic photoshop is good enough
> for now.
>
> This would give me a print of "25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch,
> (or) 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
> (John)". Now, I haven't got a good scanner; does anyone know how a
> comparable (140gms) pocketable 35mm film camera shot would compare when
> enlarged?
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:47:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, sort of.
>
> I wasn't comfortable taking enough shots because I was in a hurry and
> there was a half-naked chick sunbathing nearby (she was sitting in the
> grass and I could only see that she was wearing a tiny bra or bikini
> top, not sure what else, if any). I didn't want her to think I was
> photographing her, and she probably suspected so, because she then put
> on some shirt and looked uncomfortable, and I then preferred to leave.
> I may try again tomorrow, though this will do for now. Not sure what
> the camera focused on exactly but I remember it was something in the
> foreground, and here's a crop from the stuff in the far distance,
> though it wasn't in focus. [f4.5 (2.8-8), 1/420sec. ISO 80.]
>
> http://img108.echo.cx/img108/8205/dscf1502all9mu.jpg
> http://img124.echo.cx/img124/7373/dscf1502top9uc.jpg
>
> Remember what you're looking at; a pocketable digicam weighing 140gms.
> Default RAW settings. No sharpetning applied. No attempt to fix purple
> fringing. Just the 28.3mp image got from the RAW output of the 6mp
> (6+6) superccd sensor using photoshop. Yes, it's interpolated up. I
> suspect using Fuji's hyper utility would probably be better, or even a
> dedicated interpolation software, but generic photoshop is good enough
> for now.
>
> This would give me a print of "25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch,
> (or) 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
> (John)". Now, I haven't got a good scanner; does anyone know how a
> comparable (140gms) pocketable 35mm film camera shot would compare when
> enlarged?
Raphael Bustin has collected a fair number of film scans, you have to
do some re-sampling to match resolution before you can do a meaningful
comparison.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Film sampled at 4000 DPI looks way over sampled. There is nothing
wrong with over sampling, in fact you want to do it if you are going to
avoid aliasing and still get the highest detail possible.

As an example take this scan, this was done at 4000 dpi,
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/chrome_41_jpg.jpg

open it in an editor and make a copy. On the copy down sample to 500 x
500 pixels then up sample back to 1001 x 1001. Now paste the copy into
a new layer on the original and view at 100%. Turn the visibility of
the top layer on and off and see if you can see any change as you do
so.

A lot of people believe that just because they scan film at 4000 dpi
they are getting that resolution in the photo, this is just not true.

Scott
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:18:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > http://img124.echo.cx/img124/7373/dscf1502top9uc.jpg
>
> On my monitor the shot is about 6 feet wide, about the size
> for a projected slide on a smallish screen. Obviously I can
> only see one foot of the image at a time. Magnification is
> 50x.
>
> Sitting 6 feet away from the monitor the image is distinctly
> fuzzy. A Velvia slide taken with Yashica T4 (~140gm?) is distinctly
> sharp under these conditions. Using a Leica/Sumicron, Kodachrome
> 25 and a tripod really improves matters.
>
> This is a good representation of 'average' for a 35mm slide,
> about 1/2 down the page:
>
> http://www.edromney.com/links.html#03
>
I have looked at the above images and this is what I see, as close as I
can tell the image of the man is scanned at about 5600 DPI. That
zoomed in area is incredible soft and is probably over sampled by close
to a factor of 3, probably much more, try scaling the zoomed in part
down to 1/3 and then back, can you really say that there is any loss of
detail, other then a loss in the grain?

In the full image the man stands about 10 pixels high, in the zoomed in
view he is about 143 pixels high, this is a zoom factor of 14.3. The
full image is 368 pixels, if the whole image were at the same scale as
the zoomed view the image would be 5262 pixels high, this over a
distance of 24 mm, this comes out to right about 5600 dpi. Taking this
down by a factor of 3 gives us at most a resolution of 1866 dpi, and I
think the real number if less then this.

Scott
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:01:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote

> http://img124.echo.cx/img124/7373/dscf1502top9uc.jpg

On my monitor the shot is about 6 feet wide, about the size
for a projected slide on a smallish screen. Obviously I can
only see one foot of the image at a time. Magnification is
50x.

Sitting 6 feet away from the monitor the image is distinctly
fuzzy. A Velvia slide taken with Yashica T4 (~140gm?) is distinctly
sharp under these conditions. Using a Leica/Sumicron, Kodachrome
25 and a tripod really improves matters.

This is a good representation of 'average' for a 35mm slide,
about 1/2 down the page:

http://www.edromney.com/links.html#03

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This would give me a print of "25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch,
>> (or) 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>> (John)". Now, I haven't got a good scanner; does anyone know how a
>> comparable (140gms) pocketable 35mm film camera shot would compare when
>> enlarged?
> Raphael Bustin has collected a fair number of film scans, you have to
> do some re-sampling to match resolution before you can do a meaningful
> comparison.
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> Film sampled at 4000 DPI looks way over sampled. There is nothing
> wrong with over sampling, in fact you want to do it if you are going to
> avoid aliasing and still get the highest detail possible.
>
> As an example take this scan, this was done at 4000 dpi,
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/chrome_41_jpg.jpg
>
> open it in an editor and make a copy. On the copy down sample to 500 x
> 500 pixels then up sample back to 1001 x 1001. Now paste the copy into
> a new layer on the original and view at 100%. Turn the visibility of
> the top layer on and off and see if you can see any change as you do
> so.
>
> A lot of people believe that just because they scan film at 4000 dpi
> they are getting that resolution in the photo, this is just not true.

To say nothing of the people printing their Minolta 5400 scans at 300
dpi<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:34:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Well several things pop to mind...
If she didn't want someone seeing or photographing her, then why is she semi
unclothed in a public (or is that pubic) space?
OK, next rant!

What we are comparing here (or at least discussing) is the detail and acuity
of a digital photo versus a silver halide photo, both taken by pocket
cameras, seen through the extremely coarse filter of a computer monitor and
a jpeg image... Sorry Charlie, but we need real tuna not ersatz, and
everything on the screen is ersatz... It's been pureed, and then
reassembled in coarse dots... The only way to compare the digi image to
the silver image is to have both cameras take a picture of the same scene...
Print the digi photo as best you can to 8X10, and print the color negative
to 8X10, hang them side by side in good light and just stand there and
LOOK... Go have coke, or whatever, and come back and LOOK... Next day
LOOK... When you come home from work LOOK... After a week or three see which
image you feel that you should take down and discard...

Now, I'm sure someone will instantly rebut with theory, and formulas, and
stories about how his hand held, vacation photos, taken from the deck of a
pitching boat, will enlarge to 4 feet by 6 feet and still have more detail
yet using a hand magnifier... So be it... But putting up digi images and
scans from prints, on the web as jpegs, to be displayed on computer
monitors, and claiming it allows you to discern differences is pure horse
pucky - and malodorous at that...

<rant off>

cheers ... denny


<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message > Well, sort of.
>
> I wasn't comfortable taking enough shots because I was in a hurry and
> there was a half-naked chick sunbathing nearby (she
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:47:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 22 Jun 2005 18:38:01 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Well, sort of.
>
>I wasn't comfortable taking enough shots because I was in a hurry and
>there was a half-naked chick sunbathing nearby (she was sitting in the
>grass and I could only see that she was wearing a tiny bra or bikini
>top, not sure what else, if any). I didn't want her to think I was
>photographing her, and she probably suspected so, because she then put
>on some shirt and looked uncomfortable, and I then preferred to leave.

So she wanted to put it out, but doesn't want you to check it
out. That's what her bathroom at home is for.


>I may try again tomorrow, though this will do for now. Not sure what
>the camera focused on exactly but I remember it was something in the
>foreground, and here's a crop from the stuff in the far distance,
>though it wasn't in focus. [f4.5 (2.8-8), 1/420sec. ISO 80.]
>
>http://img108.echo.cx/img108/8205/dscf1502all9mu.jpg
>http://img124.echo.cx/img124/7373/dscf1502top9uc.jpg
>
>Remember what you're looking at; a pocketable digicam weighing 140gms.
>Default RAW settings. No sharpetning applied. No attempt to fix purple
>fringing. Just the 28.3mp image got from the RAW output of the 6mp
>(6+6) superccd sensor using photoshop. Yes, it's interpolated up. I
>suspect using Fuji's hyper utility would probably be better, or even a
>dedicated interpolation software, but generic photoshop is good enough
>for now.
>
>This would give me a print of "25.6 * 19.2 inches at 240 pixels/inch,
>(or) 20.4 * 15.3 inches at 300 pixels/inch which is recommended
>(John)". Now, I haven't got a good scanner; does anyone know how a
>comparable (140gms) pocketable 35mm film camera shot would compare when
>enlarged?
!