Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prejudice against non-photo camera brands

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:56:20 PM

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

I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?
-Rich
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:56:21 PM

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

RichA wrote:
>
> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?

For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from a
company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is never
bad advice.

Lisa
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:07:12 PM

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

RichA <none@none.com> writes:
> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon cameras, with Minolta,
> Pentax and Olympus bringing up the rear, pretty much what it was
> with film cameras. Not many people mention owing Fuji, or HP, etc.
> Is this because there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning lenses for film
> cameras that they now use on digitals? -Rich

Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
cheaper price.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Related resources
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:51:11 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?

Three main camps.

Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
investment.

Second camp are those who, pretty much regardless of what camera they own, have
a kit lens with their body. They feel more free to choose whatever pleases them
and are not particularly brand loyal.

Third camp. New to photography or upgrading from P&S/zlr. Again free to choose
as they're not bound by other investment.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:03:07 PM

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

The s2 is an in-between camera. It is an extremely good performing
camera. And excellent sensor, and the camera is quite speedy and
feature rich.

But it is not rugged not TRULY expensive, nor is it cheap. It is
therefor is used quite a bit by the portrait folks.

It is also popular by the truly geeky prosumer crowd (raises hand), that
does other dumb things from a pocket book standpoint, like buys audio
equipment with tubes, or speaker wire that would also be well suited for
substation work.

I am not getting the s3 this year, instead it is *the* 70-200 AF ED VR
lense. costs about the same as the camera, but will actually take
better pictures

I also own an e550 for PS stuff, (and movies).

The s3 will probably rock. But again will be not rugged enough for the
journalist crowd, and not cheap enough for the prosumer masses.

HP, wrong group.



RichA wrote:
> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?
> -Rich
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:05:25 PM

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

Todd H. wrote:
> Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
> digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
> Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
> reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
> cheaper price.

Well you know little about the s2. Nikon Body, Nikon Optics. Fuji
Sensor (arguably better), Fuji Software (arguably better). But more
expensive.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:17:58 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:cbe6s0h3gip3fd5rbouhi8pe8gvuujorfr@4ax.com...
>I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
> digitals?

As an SLR group, I guess regulars here avoid HP because they don't make
SLRs. Fuji's S2 is well respected, yet ageing- hopefully the S3 will be
remedy this.

As for the compacts- plenty of people own Fuji- the S3500 and S5500 are
popular, and the F810 should be more so. HP tend to borrow other people's
tech for cameras, so they shouldn't be too bad... if you really want to deal
the HP, that is.

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:43:35 AM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:34:45 -0800, Lisa Horton
<Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:

>
>
>RichA wrote:
>>
>> I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
>> cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
>> bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
>> was with film cameras. Not many people mention
>> owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
>> there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
>> camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
>> lenses for film cameras that they now use on
>> digitals?
>
>For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from a
>company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is never
>bad advice.
>
>Lisa

How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
You know who does? Kodak.
-Rich
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:43:36 AM

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

In article <i967s0pgcj2bbct6kqoq8g0a9n2lrei9et@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> >For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from
> >a company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is
> >never bad advice.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?

So they buy the sensors from the electronics companies that make the
sensors, but they have the experience in designing and building lenses
and camera bodies.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 2:12:16 AM

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

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:csKwd.118$_62.106@trnddc01...
>I should state a SWEAR BY HP printers (with or w/o HP JetDirect
>print-servers). As a IT
> professional all my laser and inkjet printers are HP (except a Xerox
> Document Center 432ST
> copier and printer).
>
> However I bought 6 HP Vectras They were junk. I would never get HP
> computers again.
>
> Dave
>

HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
called Agilent. HP is now like RCA (well, perhaps not quite that bad). Yet
another once-great American trade name being used to sell. IBM personal
computers have also joined this ignominious group. Sigh!
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 3:01:40 AM

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

RichA <none@none.com> writes:

> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
> You know who does? Kodak.

Indeed, Kodak has had some very smart people working that problem and
have for quite a long time. In fact, the Bayer after whom the "Bayer
pattern" of Cyan Magenta and yellow pixels in a single-chip sensor was
a Kodak guy and his patent dates back to 1976:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/...

But, product history wise, Kodak isn't much in the way of shutters,
glass, exposure metering, accessories, system reliability are all part
of the rest of the picture. Unless you're one who'd run out and buy a
Goodyear automobile or a Sears Diehard SUV if they started producing
them.

So, this prejudice is a hard one to overcome from a marketing
perspective, at least among those of us serious enough to be talking
photography here in newsgroups and dissecting this stuff. It's hard
to compete on reputation with a company like Canon that is deep deep
deep in consumer video and has been doing CCD and CMOS for a very long
time too, long before anyone thought of dropping such a sensor into a
still camera, and they have the full lineage of conventional film
camera experience to carry forward. The image sensor is just one
small (albeit important) piece of the camera puzzle.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:47:27 AM

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

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>>> For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy
>>> from a company that specializes in the type of product you're
>>> buying is never bad advice.

>> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS
>> sensors?

> So they buy the sensors from the electronics companies that make
> the sensors,

Nikon does (from Sony, AFAIK). Canon uses third party sensors in
their compacts, but makes their own CMOS sensors for their DSLR
bodies. I believe the CPU used in the newer Canon digital cameras
(DIGIC II) is homegrown as well.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 10:36:25 AM

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:51:11 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
>high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
>investment.

Alan, can you tell us what lenses you have?

I am shooting with a 300D. My primary lens is the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM
L lens, I use this for taking photos of horses, you need a long lens
to avoid having perspective distortion. I also have the kit lens
(18-55, f3.5-5.6 I think), and the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 zoom. I'm looking
at getting a better short lens (perhaps the 28-70 f2.8), as well as an
overlap lens (ideally, I want an f2.8 ~35-~115 but they don't make
one).

jc
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 3:58:12 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
> You know who does? Kodak.

Success in the marketplace, not to mention superb image quality at APS-C and
larger, puts Canon squarely in the lead. Nikon are doing fine too and everyone
else is scrambling to catch up in the market.

The groundbreaking 14n Mpix Kodak was quickly derided for its high noise at
higher ISO's (eg: above 100), lifeless image quality and lack of antialiasing
filters and microlenses. Kodak had intro problems galore and had to supsede the
model shortly after (SLR/n) even offering an upgrade program (14nx) for the
first version.

Being first does not necessarilly mean being best.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:13:01 PM

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

JC Dill wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:51:11 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
>>high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
>>investment.
>
>
> Alan, can you tell us what lenses you have?

20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200
f/2.8. All Maxxum. The el-cheapo is of course the 50 f/1.7 but it is a very
good little lens as most 50mm f/1.8's should be.

>
> I am shooting with a 300D. My primary lens is the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM
> L lens, I use this for taking photos of horses, you need a long lens
> to avoid having perspective distortion.

I did some jumping shots this past summer using mainly the 300 f/2.8 and the
80-200 f/2.8 as well.

I also have the kit lens
> (18-55, f3.5-5.6 I think), and the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 zoom. I'm looking
> at getting a better short lens (perhaps the 28-70 f2.8), as well as an
> overlap lens (ideally, I want an f2.8 ~35-~115 but they don't make
> one).

The main problem with all of our carefully chosen film lenses is the crop factor
when going to 1.5 cropped sensors. My 20mm becomes a strange wide angle, my
28-70 f/2.8 becomes a viable portrait lens (but I prefer primes) the 50 f/.7 may
turn into a portrait jewel, my 100 f/2.8 macro is now too long for its secondary
roll as a portrait lens, the 80-200 becomes a bit too long for candid shots, but
great for sports and nature. the 300 f/2.8 becomes a killer, esp. with the 1.4
TC attached. 2x TC reamins to be seen...

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 8:50:09 PM

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

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:58:12 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
>> You know who does? Kodak.
>
>Success in the marketplace, not to mention superb image quality at APS-C and
>larger, puts Canon squarely in the lead. Nikon are doing fine too and everyone
>else is scrambling to catch up in the market.
>
>The groundbreaking 14n Mpix Kodak was quickly derided for its high noise at
>higher ISO's (eg: above 100), lifeless image quality and lack of antialiasing
>filters and microlenses. Kodak had intro problems galore and had to supsede the
>model shortly after (SLR/n) even offering an upgrade program (14nx) for the
>first version.
>
>Being first does not necessarilly mean being best.

I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
now?
-Rich
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 1:57:38 PM

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

RichA wrote:


>
> I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
> comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
> image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
> now?
> -Rich

Processing in-camera cannot compensate well enough for aliasing (if at all) nor
can it increase the gain due to a lack of microlenses, without increasing
noise. Noise can be smoothed, aliasing can be reduced, but the lack of the
(more expensive) optical layers compromises the image. Having RAW is always an
advantage, but again there is little the user can do post process to increase
the signal or avoid aliasing.

My take on in-camera processing is:
Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 5:22:53 PM

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

In article <cq48db$3jf$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
>> comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
>> image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
>> now?
>> -Rich
>
>Processing in-camera cannot compensate well enough for aliasing (if at all) nor
>can it increase the gain due to a lack of microlenses, without increasing
>noise. Noise can be smoothed, aliasing can be reduced, but the lack of the
>(more expensive) optical layers compromises the image. Having RAW is always an
>advantage, but again there is little the user can do post process to increase
>the signal or avoid aliasing.
>
>My take on in-camera processing is:
>Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
>Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
>Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).

Which cameras sharpen a raw image?
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 6:20:24 PM

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

John Francis wrote:

>>My take on in-camera processing is:
>>Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
>>Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
>>Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).
>
>
> Which cameras sharpen a raw image?

I stated that a bit quickly and simply.

From what I gather in other NG discussions, most of them do sharpen at RAW, but
I may be remembering a misperception. I can't cite a source offhand.

It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
the RAW image.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 7:52:06 PM

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

In article <cq4nq2$gqb$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>>>My take on in-camera processing is:
>>>Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
>>>Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
>>>Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).
>>
>>
>> Which cameras sharpen a raw image?
>
>I stated that a bit quickly and simply.
>
> From what I gather in other NG discussions, most of them do sharpen at RAW, but
>I may be remembering a misperception. I can't cite a source offhand.
>
>It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
>seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
>the RAW image.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of just what a RAW image is.
It is a direct measure of the sensor values, prior to any conversion
to RGB pixels. Interpolation artifacts, etc., would be introduced
during processing stages that take place later on in the chain, and
so are not present in the RAW capture.

In general the only camera settings that affect the content of a RAW
image are the effective ISO (maybe including exposure compensation),
white balance (sometimes), and possibly the contrast. Other settings
such as sharpening will be generally be recorded along with the data,
and may very well affect the way the manufacturer-supplied conversion
software behaves, but don't change the recorded pixel values directly.

Adobe have recently announced a new "Digital Negative" file format
(DNG) which attempts to provide a vendor-neutral format for RAW images.
They have a converter to go from the RAW format of many cameras to DNG.
Converting the RAW images from your camera to a well-documented format,
and then seeing just what is in there, is a good way to get an initial
understanding of just what a RAW file contains.

You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
(which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).

Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with Adobe, except as a customer.
I recently purchased Elements 3.0, and consider it money well spent.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:06:41 PM

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

John Francis wrote:

>>It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
>>seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
>>the RAW image.
>
>
> I think you may have a misunderstanding of just what a RAW image is.
> It is a direct measure of the sensor values, prior to any conversion
> to RGB pixels. Interpolation artifacts, etc., would be introduced
> during processing stages that take place later on in the chain, and
> so are not present in the RAW capture.

In any case, at some point the RAW image may converted to a "lossless" digital
format such as TIFF. In that conversion, regardless of where it takes place,
some artifacts of conversion are introduced. They hardly have a choice but to
be produced as interpolation (of whatever variety) to fill an RGB pixel from
spatially separated pixels must be imperfect.

>
> In general the only camera settings that affect the content of a RAW
> image are the effective ISO (maybe including exposure compensation),
> white balance (sometimes), and possibly the contrast. Other settings
> such as sharpening will be generally be recorded along with the data,
> and may very well affect the way the manufacturer-supplied conversion
> software behaves, but don't change the recorded pixel values directly.

Please be specific: does sharpening occur in the camera on RAW images?
(automatically or optionally)?


>
> You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
> different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
> version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
> (which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).

I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:29:37 PM

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

In article <cq4u1b$j1p$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>>>It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
>>>seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
>>>the RAW image.
>>
>> I think you may have a misunderstanding of just what a RAW image is.
>> It is a direct measure of the sensor values, prior to any conversion
>> to RGB pixels. Interpolation artifacts, etc., would be introduced
>> during processing stages that take place later on in the chain, and
>> so are not present in the RAW capture.
>
>In any case, at some point the RAW image may converted to a "lossless" digital
>format such as TIFF. In that conversion, regardless of where it takes place,
>some artifacts of conversion are introduced. They hardly have a choice but to
>be produced as interpolation (of whatever variety) to fill an RGB pixel from
>spatially separated pixels must be imperfect.

True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later
stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
don't like the effects on any given image.

>> In general the only camera settings that affect the content of a RAW
>> image are the effective ISO (maybe including exposure compensation),
>> white balance (sometimes), and possibly the contrast. Other settings
>> such as sharpening will be generally be recorded along with the data,
>> and may very well affect the way the manufacturer-supplied conversion
>> software behaves, but don't change the recorded pixel values directly.
>
>Please be specific: does sharpening occur in the camera on RAW images?
>(automatically or optionally)?

No. It does not. Neither automatically nor optionally.
Sharpening occurs during the conversion from RAW to TIFF/JPG/PSD/...

>> You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
>> different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
>> version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
>> (which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).
>
>I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.

OK. But that locks you into the Bayer interpolation algorithms chosen
by your OEM, complete with any artifacts introduced during that process.
Some sharpening will be done at this stage of the processing (just how
much may, or may not, depend on the value of the sharpening control set
on the camera at the time of image capture).
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 9:11:50 PM

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

John Francis wrote:

> True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
> But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
> RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
> in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
> power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later

Bah! Such simple conversion/interpolation can be done on the fly while storing
to flash with a handful of machine instructions.

> stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
> don't like the effects on any given image.

Camera firmware can be upgraded on most DSLR's.

> No. It does not. Neither automatically nor optionally.
> Sharpening occurs during the conversion from RAW to TIFF/JPG/PSD/...

It doesn't have to happen. There is no need to sharpen an image until the
photog has seen and decides what the USM parameters should be.

>>>You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
>>>different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
>>>version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
>>>(which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).
>>
>>I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.
>
>
> OK. But that locks you into the Bayer interpolation algorithms chosen
> by your OEM, complete with any artifacts introduced during that process.
> Some sharpening will be done at this stage of the processing (just how
> much may, or may not, depend on the value of the sharpening control set
> on the camera at the time of image capture).

You're confusing me. If no sharpening occurs in camera, then no on the camera
values should be considered.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:17:03 AM

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

In article <scidnecmIYq6M17cRVn-3A@comcast.com>, charleschuler@comcast.net
says...
> HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
> off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
> called Agilent.

This is not true. The Proliant Server line (formerly Compaq, and the Houston
employees still think of it as Compaq, not HP -- watch closely as a current
HP Proliant server boots up, it flashes Compaq for a half second before it is
overwritten with HP text, hehe) is still designed, tested and supported out
of Texas.

Dell makes practically everything in Taiwan or China (does not even do the
board design themselves anymore).

Get used to it, the electronics business is elsewhere. The US will have
to find something else to keep itself busy. Electronics is a commodity
like toaster ovens today.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 2:43:08 AM

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

In article <cq51rg$544$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>> True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
>> But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
>> RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
>> in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
>> power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later
>
>Bah! Such simple conversion/interpolation can be done on the fly while storing
>to flash with a handful of machine instructions.

I really suggest you do a little research into this subject before
dismissing it in quite such a cavalier fashion. If all you want is
some of the most simplistic interpolation, then all it takes is a
few processor cycles. But that also ends up with some of the worst
algorithms. There has been quite a bit of research, and more than a
few thesis papers, done in this field. A good place to start would
be some of the work referenced in the description accompanying dcraw,
but that's only one part in a very complex field. The algorithm
that dcraw uses is more than a plain context-free interpolation, but
it is still a fairly simple algorithm, with limited requirements for
processor resources. There are algorithms with much heavier demands.

>> stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
>> don't like the effects on any given image.
>
>Camera firmware can be upgraded on most DSLR's.

Which just ends up locking you into a different fixed algorithm.
There's no "best" answer that is appropriate in every case

>> No. It does not. Neither automatically nor optionally.
>> Sharpening occurs during the conversion from RAW to TIFF/JPG/PSD/...
>
>It doesn't have to happen. There is no need to sharpen an image until the
>photog has seen and decides what the USM parameters should be.
>
>>>>You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
>>>>different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
>>>>version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
>>>>(which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).
>>>
>>>I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.
>>
>>
>> OK. But that locks you into the Bayer interpolation algorithms chosen
>> by your OEM, complete with any artifacts introduced during that process.
>> Some sharpening will be done at this stage of the processing (just how
>> much may, or may not, depend on the value of the sharpening control set
>> on the camera at the time of image capture).
>
>You're confusing me. If no sharpening occurs in camera, then no on the camera
>values should be considered.

What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.
The later software processing *may* decide to take the value you set as
a starting point to control how much sharpening to apply. Or it may not,
and only sharpen based on values set interactively at that time. Just
which approach is taken depends on how that later stage software is written.

Don't assume all conversion is done interactively, with the photographer
reviewing each image. Sometimes a converter will be run as a batch process
to convert a large number of images. In that case it is sometimes worth
using values selected on-camera (for sharpening, white balance, etc.)
But in no case is any of the sharpening actually performed in-camera.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 3:14:54 PM

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

John Francis wrote:

> In article <cq51rg$544$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>John Francis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
>>>But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
>>>RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
>>>in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
>>>power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later
>>
>>Bah! Such simple conversion/interpolation can be done on the fly while storing
>>to flash with a handful of machine instructions.
>
>
> I really suggest you do a little research into this subject before
> dismissing it in quite such a cavalier fashion. If all you want is
> some of the most simplistic interpolation, then all it takes is a
> few processor cycles. But that also ends up with some of the worst
> algorithms. There has been quite a bit of research, and more than a
> few thesis papers, done in this field. A good place to start would
> be some of the work referenced in the description accompanying dcraw,
> but that's only one part in a very complex field. The algorithm
> that dcraw uses is more than a plain context-free interpolation, but
> it is still a fairly simple algorithm, with limited requirements for
> processor resources. There are algorithms with much heavier demands.

There are always ways to take complex functions and tune for maximum BW in a
constrained case. Been there.

>>>stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
>>>don't like the effects on any given image.
>>
>>Camera firmware can be upgraded on most DSLR's.
>
>
> Which just ends up locking you into a different fixed algorithm.
> There's no "best" answer that is appropriate in every case

Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation of
the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning. (This
attitude, BTW, is the result of having scannned thousands of slides and
negatives. Every image needs USM according to the level of fime detail in the
image.

>>You're confusing me. If no sharpening occurs in camera, then no on the camera
>>values should be considered.
>
>
> What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
> on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.

Okay, although that sounds a bit silly. Just give me the least processed image
and let me work it over with USM.

> The later software processing *may* decide to take the value you set as
> a starting point to control how much sharpening to apply. Or it may not,
> and only sharpen based on values set interactively at that time. Just
> which approach is taken depends on how that later stage software is written.
>
> Don't assume all conversion is done interactively, with the photographer
> reviewing each image. Sometimes a converter will be run as a batch process
> to convert a large number of images. In that case it is sometimes worth
> using values selected on-camera (for sharpening, white balance, etc.)
> But in no case is any of the sharpening actually performed in-camera.

Don't assume that I find that acceptable. I'm as lazy as the next guy, but for
detailed images that I want to print large, sharpenning is no less important
than any other aspect of the workflow. I don't want the camera (or the RAW
converter) doing anything to the image that is not reversible. Unless I have
the sharpening algorithm used I can't undo it.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 4:31:16 PM

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

In article <cq71a8$2s9$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>There are always ways to take complex functions and tune for maximum BW in a
>constrained case. Been there.

As have I. I've done FFT algorithms on bit-slice processors,
pixel-based algorithms on everything from 68000s to vector
machines, etc. You can, with well-crafted code, get close to
100% utilisation of the hardware. But you can't do better
than that, and some of the reconstruction algorithms simply
need more computational power than is available in-camera.

>Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation of
>the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning. (This
>attitude, BTW, is the result of having scannned thousands of slides and
>negatives. Every image needs USM according to the level of fime detail in the
>image.

Bayer reconstruction isn't sharpening; it's rather more complex.
USM is a very simple algorithm, with very little computational load.
It's fairly easy to get control over the sharpening; just tell the
conversion software how much (or how little) sharpening to do. What
you can't do is tell the software which reconstruction algorithm to use.
(That first sentence of yours, containing the phrase "a well-conceived
interpolation of the R,G,B into RGB", is where all the difficulty lies)

>Don't assume that I find that acceptable. I'm as lazy as the next guy, but for
>detailed images that I want to print large, sharpenning is no less important
>than any other aspect of the workflow. I don't want the camera (or the RAW
>converter) doing anything to the image that is not reversible. Unless I have
>the sharpening algorithm used I can't undo it.

Sharpening isn't reversible, even when you know the algorithm. Nor is
gaussian blur, or almost any of the standard image processing filters.

But I suspect, once we get past the rhetoric, you and I agree on far
more points than we disagree on. We both want the camera to do as
little as possible to the image, and will work by hand to achieve the
best results possible. Just bear in mind that one of the tools we use
along the way, the camera, is designed also to be used by people who
will create prints, if at all, by simply plugging the memory card into
their printer, or a mall photo kiosk. You don't have to use it that
way, and you don't have to use features designed to facilitate that.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 7:27:13 PM

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

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2fb9d92cf832bc989d3c@news.verizon.net...
> In article <scidnecmIYq6M17cRVn-3A@comcast.com>, charleschuler@comcast.net
> says...
>> HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
>> off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a
>> subsidiary
>> called Agilent.
>
> This is not true. The Proliant Server line (formerly Compaq, and the
> Houston
> employees still think of it as Compaq, not HP -- watch closely as a
> current
> HP Proliant server boots up, it flashes Compaq for a half second before it
> is
> overwritten with HP text, hehe) is still designed, tested and supported
> out
> of Texas.

And how long do you think that will last? I'd be job hunting if I was
employed there.

> Dell makes practically everything in Taiwan or China (does not even do the
> board design themselves anymore).

True.

> Get used to it, the electronics business is elsewhere. The US will have
> to find something else to keep itself busy. Electronics is a commodity
> like toaster ovens today.

You are correct but I'll never "get used to it." As we become less and less
self-sufficient, our world position becomes more and more tenuous
(especially so, given our current politcal posture).
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 9:33:55 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation
> of the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning.

I can't help but wonder, what camera and workflow are you using that doesn't
give you this?

>> What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
>> on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.
>
> Okay, although that sounds a bit silly. Just give me the least processed
> image and let me work it over with USM.

That's, like, exactly what you get. The sharpening setting you choose on
the camera just stores a little setting in the file that tells post-process
software what setting you chose; it doesn't touch the image. The setting
is utterly and completely meaningless, when shooting RAW, in other words.

With Nikon, at least, Adobe Camera Raw can't even extract that setting, so
it might as well not even be there. *None* of the image processing settings
on the camera have any effect whatsoever on the resulting RAW image. You
expose the image and that's it.

> I don't want the camera (or the RAW converter) doing anything to the image
> that is not reversible.

It doesn't.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 9:43:50 PM

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

John Francis wrote:

> In article <cq71a8$2s9$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>John Francis wrote:
>>
>>There are always ways to take complex functions and tune for maximum BW in a
>>constrained case. Been there.
>
>
> As have I. I've done FFT algorithms on bit-slice processors,
> pixel-based algorithms on everything from 68000s to vector
> machines, etc. You can, with well-crafted code, get close to
> 100% utilisation of the hardware. But you can't do better
> than that, and some of the reconstruction algorithms simply
> need more computational power than is available in-camera.

I never said different. But running a two or three row deep interpolation while
writing to a flash card is not going to tax any system too much. TMS320C25 is
where I stomped just short of 100% machine ute... and that's a lot of crunching
(just short as it was real time complex sig synth. Massive tables did help to
eliminate certain functions (1/4 sine, 1/2 gauss, noise, etc.) Never did
complete the true gaussian FM noise portion... boss considered it overkill for
the system).

>>Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation of
>>the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning. (This
>>attitude, BTW, is the result of having scannned thousands of slides and
>>negatives. Every image needs USM according to the level of fime detail in the
>>image.
>
>
> Bayer reconstruction isn't sharpening; it's rather more complex.

I didn'r mean to suggest that. More interpolation. But the artifacts thus
created are similar (IMO) to abusive sharpening (USM or other).

> USM is a very simple algorithm, with very little computational load.
> It's fairly easy to get control over the sharpening; just tell the
> conversion software how much (or how little) sharpening to do. What
> you can't do is tell the software which reconstruction algorithm to use.
> (That first sentence of yours, containing the phrase "a well-conceived
> interpolation of the R,G,B into RGB", is where all the difficulty lies)

Yep.

>>Don't assume that I find that acceptable. I'm as lazy as the next guy, but for
>>detailed images that I want to print large, sharpenning is no less important
>>than any other aspect of the workflow. I don't want the camera (or the RAW
>>converter) doing anything to the image that is not reversible. Unless I have
>>the sharpening algorithm used I can't undo it.
>
>
> Sharpening isn't reversible, even when you know the algorithm. Nor is
> gaussian blur, or almost any of the standard image processing filters.

That's not my impression, but I'm not the expert in this. I assumed that if a
sharpening mask matrix was used I * M = I', then I' * inv-M = I. (forgive the
notation). But I'm not accounting for the useage of the same M as a window over
all of I in increments of 1 pixel.

>
> But I suspect, once we get past the rhetoric, you and I agree on far
> more points than we disagree on. We both want the camera to do as
> little as possible to the image, and will work by hand to achieve the

Yep.

> best results possible. Just bear in mind that one of the tools we use
> along the way, the camera, is designed also to be used by people who
> will create prints, if at all, by simply plugging the memory card into
> their printer, or a mall photo kiosk. You don't have to use it that
> way, and you don't have to use features designed to facilitate that.

Agree, but there should be no obstacle to letting a camera work at its most
basic level (no different than my cameras which have full manual exposure,
exp/flash compensation, AF, etc. but also work completely manually. That's what
I want from the RAW image... as little interference from the OEM as possible.
It's what I suspect most photographers want (those who have really figured out
USM properly, anyway).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 9:46:44 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation
>>of the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning.

>
>
> I can't help but wonder, what camera and workflow are you using that doesn't
> give you this?

None. But from what I gather, even RAW, there is a degree of sharpenning that
occurs (in camera or in the RAW->TIFF/JPG s/w) in most cameras and/or associated
RAW converters.
>
>
>>>What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
>>>on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.
>>
>>Okay, although that sounds a bit silly. Just give me the least processed
>>image and let me work it over with USM.
>
>
> That's, like, exactly what you get. The sharpening setting you choose on
> the camera just stores a little setting in the file that tells post-process
> software what setting you chose; it doesn't touch the image. The setting
> is utterly and completely meaningless, when shooting RAW, in other words.
>
> With Nikon, at least, Adobe Camera Raw can't even extract that setting, so
> it might as well not even be there. *None* of the image processing settings
> on the camera have any effect whatsoever on the resulting RAW image. You
> expose the image and that's it.

I hope that is exactly what it is (vice my comment above). And moreso when (if)
I get the Maxxum 7D.

>
>
>>I don't want the camera (or the RAW converter) doing anything to the image
>>that is not reversible.
>
>
> It doesn't.

For each and every camera? How could one know...?

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:14:44 AM

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

In article <ZMydnX5vH40p3lrcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, charleschuler@comcast.net
says...
> > This is not true. The Proliant Server line (formerly Compaq, and the
> > Houston
> > employees still think of it as Compaq, not HP -- watch closely as a
> > current
> > HP Proliant server boots up, it flashes Compaq for a half second before it
> > is
> > overwritten with HP text, hehe) is still designed, tested and supported
> > out
> > of Texas.
>
> And how long do you think that will last? I'd be job hunting if I was
> employed there.

I suspect many are. They are laying off (and dropping headcount via
attrition, much as all of the others nowadays).

> > Get used to it, the electronics business is elsewhere. The US will have
> > to find something else to keep itself busy. Electronics is a commodity
> > like toaster ovens today.
>
> You are correct but I'll never "get used to it." As we become less and less
> self-sufficient, our world position becomes more and more tenuous
> (especially so, given our current politcal posture).

Why is this industry any more special than any other? Practically everything
of import for the last century was prototyped and put into early production
in the US, then if it achieved mass market stature, it was sent overseas to
some country once all the technical quirks where overcome (or the patent
rights expired). Same thing happened with steel, automobiles, airplanes,
televisions, telephones, radios, and even toaster ovens.

It is only natural that the same thing is happening with computers. Microsoft
has taught the entire planet that it is "acceptable" (or at least accepted) to
have to reboot your computer periodically whenever something stops working
rather than demanding a refund or a fix.

As such, nobody cares much about the quality of the hardware either, as it
doesn't matter much for a motherboard to be any good when the software can't
stay up longer than a few hours or days anyway. The "Walmart" effect of
course makes it worse, as people are willing to take whatever is cheapest,
rather than that which is the best. There is no incentive whatsoever to
pay US employees six-figure salaries to design computer systems (or DVD
players, or cell phones, or digital cameras) when they will sell in huge
volumes for low margins and at a price 1/4 of what the same item sold for
5 years ago.

The US economic future depends upon continuing to do what it has in the
past, invent new innovative products and technologies, and milk the
bleeding edge (pre-chasm if you are a Moore-o-phile) market for all its
worth, then watching it go commodity overseas. As long as the pipeline
stays full, the US will be ok. Otherwise, we better all get used to
a major adjustment in income levels.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"For some reason most people seem to be born without the part
of the brain that understands pointers." -- Joel Spolsky
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 6:58:38 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

and every camera? How could one know...?
>
>
> Well, if that's not the case, then it's not really a RAW mode. It would be
> within the realm of possibility for a camera manufacturer to *call* something
> a RAW mode but not really treat it as such, but I can't imagine such a thing
> not being noted in reviews.

RAW is a camera specific format, there is no standard. Adobe would like their
"digital negative" (whatever its called) to be an indusrty standard but I don't
know if it's gaining OEM attention. (This standard was mentioned by you or
someone in this thread... it's been around since Photokina or PMA prior to that).

> If someone were applying processing to the RAW image, I suspect you would
> hear about it. Especially since the RAW image hasn't even been interpolated
> yet, so it's not an "image" in the traditional sense -- applying sharpening
> to such a thing, for example, would be a whole different algorithm than
> doing it to a bitmapped image, and that would probably generate some
> discussion as well.

Yep.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 2:37:32 AM

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

Agilent is HP subsidary for producing semiconductor devices and
measuring instruments. Field from HP once upon of time started.
AFAIK nothing to do with computers or cameras (except maybe
some chips in them)

Toomas




"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message news:scidnecmIYq6M17cRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:csKwd.118$_62.106@trnddc01...
>>I should state a SWEAR BY HP printers (with or w/o HP JetDirect
>>print-servers). As a IT
>> professional all my laser and inkjet printers are HP (except a Xerox
>> Document Center 432ST
>> copier and printer).
>>
>> However I bought 6 HP Vectras They were junk. I would never get HP
>> computers again.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
> off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
> called Agilent. HP is now like RCA (well, perhaps not quite that bad). Yet
> another once-great American trade name being used to sell. IBM personal
> computers have also joined this ignominious group. Sigh!
>
>
!