hasselblad Wed, 18 Oct 2000 Volume 1 : Number 1021 In this issue: Digital quality Re: Digital quality Re: Digital quality Re: Digital quality RE: Digital quality Re: Digital quality NiMH + EL/M battery question Re: Digital quality Re: Digital quality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:24:38 -0700 From: "RICH" To: Subject: Digital quality Message-ID: <001201c0384e$5cda7880$239f1d3f@rjiredff> Digital quality is about to take a quantum leap. Kodak & Foraeon have just announced perfection of a 16.8 Megapixel chip. Current top of the line cameras have about 3-4 megapixels. That will give a little digital point&shoot about twice the resolution of current 35MM film technology. In a medium format configuration the implications are awesome. The future is HERE and NOW. Rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:28:47 +0100 From: Ragnar Hansen To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Digital quality Message-ID: <39EB811E.12FB7875@powertech.no> How do you know that this is twice the resolution of film? Ragnar RICH wrote: > Digital quality is about to take a quantum leap. Kodak & Foraeon have just > announced perfection of a 16.8 Megapixel chip. Current top of the line > cameras have about 3-4 megapixels. > That will give a little digital point&shoot about twice the resolution of > current 35MM film technology. > > In a medium format configuration the implications are awesome. > > The future is HERE and NOW. > > Rich > > - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:54:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Digital quality Message-ID: <20001017185407.10672.qmail@web3102.mail.yahoo.com> I've heard - but can't prove - that 35mm film contains the equivalent of 30meg of information. But, 16meg is getting closer. It'll probably cost an arm and a leg, of course. For me, the cheaper way is to use film, make an enlargement and then scan it in with a flatbed scanner. It's probably orders of magnitude cheaper than using a high end digitial camera. --- RICH wrote: > Digital quality is about to take a quantum leap. > Kodak & Foraeon have just > announced perfection of a 16.8 Megapixel chip. > Current top of the line > cameras have about 3-4 megapixels. > That will give a little digital point&shoot about > twice the resolution of > current 35MM film technology. > > In a medium format configuration the implications > are awesome. > > The future is HERE and NOW. > > Rich > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public > service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not > responsible for its content. This mailing list is > in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's > subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at > http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:54:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Digital quality Message-ID: <20001017185416.2261.qmail@web3103.mail.yahoo.com> I've heard - but can't prove - that 35mm film contains the equivalent of 30meg of information. But, 16meg is getting closer. It'll probably cost an arm and a leg, of course. For me, the cheaper way is to use film, make an enlargement and then scan it in with a flatbed scanner. It's probably orders of magnitude cheaper than using a high end digitial camera. --- RICH wrote: > Digital quality is about to take a quantum leap. > Kodak & Foraeon have just > announced perfection of a 16.8 Megapixel chip. > Current top of the line > cameras have about 3-4 megapixels. > That will give a little digital point&shoot about > twice the resolution of > current 35MM film technology. > > In a medium format configuration the implications > are awesome. > > The future is HERE and NOW. > > Rich > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public > service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not > responsible for its content. This mailing list is > in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's > subsidiaries, or affiliates. > > To change your subscription status, go to: > http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad > Digest archives are stored at > http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm > Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:28:19 -0400 From: Austin Franklin To: "'hasselblad@kelvin.net'" Subject: RE: Digital quality Message-ID: <01C03868.1C66B060@user-2ive11i.dialup.mindspring.com> > Digital quality is about to take a quantum leap. Kodak & Foraeon have just > announced perfection of a 16.8 Megapixel chip. Current top of the line > cameras have about 3-4 megapixels. > That will give a little digital point&shoot about twice the resolution of > current 35MM film technology. That's not absolutely true. It depends on the film. I have found NC160 to be around 4000x6000, which is 24M pixels. Lower speed films, and slide films are much better. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:42:44 -0700 From: Jim Brick To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, Subject: Re: Digital quality Message-ID: <4.1.20001017090200.047c7aa0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com> This is old news and it is not even close to equaling or overcoming 35mm or 6x6 resolution. A 100mb file is required to archive a 35mm slide. That means you can take the file and through computer film output, create a slide that is, for the most part, equivalent to the original file. It never is as good, but good enough for most purposes. 6x6 requires nearly 300mb and 4x5 is in the stratosphere. You should read the details of the way Foveon produces the high pixel count. Both expensive and been around for some time. The Nyquest effect is still present in any system that has evenly spaced pixels, especially when they are between 3 and 5 microns in size plus a couple of microns between them. This is a physical limitation that film does not have and will plague digital technology until some other technology is invented to eliminate the individual phototransistor/capacitor/lens pixel circuit. You cannot make pixel circuits any smaller because there is not enough space for a meaningful amount of electrons to be held, then read-out, with which to represent the light level. In other words, the signal to noise ratio goes to hell and the resulting image is crappy. Kodak/Foveon uses three sensors R, G, & B and a prism arrangement to split the image into three parts. Not new. And the pixel size is still the same as before although no longer reduced in count by the bayer pattern. Scanning digital backs basically do the same thing but it takes three passes, so the subject cannot move. This will allow a similar resolution but with a moving subject. And it still requires an umbilical tied to a computer. A local storage device can be used but the whole thing is large and different. It will be very useful in many photographic situations but is certainly not a panacea and certainly will not give film any competition in most of the areas where film is still in command. And, as I said, does not approach film resolution capabilities in films like Kodachrome, Velvia, Provia, Astia, E100, E200, etc. Jim At 08:24 AM 10/17/00 -0700, RICH wrote: >Digital quality is about to take a quantum leap. Kodak & Foraeon have just >announced perfection of a 16.8 Megapixel chip. Current top of the line >cameras have about 3-4 megapixels. >That will give a little digital point&shoot about twice the resolution of >current 35MM film technology. > >In a medium format configuration the implications are awesome. > >The future is HERE and NOW. > >Rich ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:28:27 -0500 From: Robert Welch To: Subject: NiMH + EL/M battery question Message-ID: Hi All, I am thinking about getting a couple of the NiMH batteries for my EL/M at eventually (just purchased one with two good NiCds, but hate the long charging times). Does anyone use these, or has everyone converted to the AA option (or gotten rid of your EL altogether)? My main question is about charging the NiMH batteries. I know that with the old NiCd you have to run them all the way down then charge them for the 14 or 28 hours, while the NiMH don't require you run them down...but that leaves the question of how long to charge them? What is the procedure for this, if anyone knows? It would be great to just charge them up regularly when not in use so that they are always ready, but I'm concerned of overcharging them. I just have the regular charging chord, not the stand alone charger or anything. I'm also wondering if anyone has actually heard of a problem with one of the 9v options, I've seen lot's of hypothetical concerns, but has anyone actually had a camera malfunction due to one. I'm thinking of getting one just as a backup (someone in Canada is selling them for $30 including shipping). Thanks, Robert Welch ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:51:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Monaghan To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Digital quality Message-ID: see http://ipas1.afip.org/~oliver/wendy/photo.html Dr. Oliver of Digital Image processing lab article graphics state: Pro 4kX4x " " 16.77 megapixels 35mm fast film 22.11 megapixel equiv. 35mm medium speed film 54 megapixel equiv. 35mm slow speed film 124.76 megapixel equiv. ratio'd out, a Hasselblad square image has 27 times the equiv pixel density of the new 4kx4k chips using slow speed film, so until they come out with a 512 megapixel chip, film still rules ;-) still, if they get the price down, it might be handy for checking lighting and trying different shots ;-) grins bobm * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:54:28 EDT From: BobR38@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: Re: Digital quality Message-ID: In a message dated 10/17/00 11:52:08 PM Central Daylight Time, rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu writes: << still, if they get the price down, it might be handy for checking lighting and trying different shots ;-) grins bobm >> Thanks, Bob. In the meantime I'll stick to my trusty Polaroid Back for checking and trying different shots. I agree, digital has a ways to go....but to those that are so eagerly embracing it at this early stage in its development I wish the best. Bob R. ------------------------------ End of hasselblad V1 #1021 ************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hasselblad Users Group Listserv is a public service of Absolute Internet, Inc., which is not responsible for its content. This mailing list is in no way affiliated with Victor Hasselblad AB, it's subsidiaries, or affiliates. To change your subscription status, go to: http://mail.kelvin.net/guest/RemoteListSummary/Hasselblad Digest archives are stored at http://www.kelvin.net/hasselblad/hassy.htm Searchable archives can be found at http://www.listquest.com/arts/index.html