13 Jul
1999
13 Jul
'99
10:26 a.m.
I've been seriously considering buying a digital camera for some time now.
I assume others on this list already have these in order to photograph
some of their computer items, so i thought I would ask which features
are most important. And which features you really wish you'd spent extra
money for.
It seems to me that a macro-focusing feature, which allows you to
manually focus at very close range would be very useful. Or can
you get by with a 3X optical zoom in order to get detailed shots
of computer boards, or the insides of a computer, etc?
How important is high resolution? Is a 640x480 camera with 10X
zoom much more useful than a 1280x960 with 3X zoom and
no macro focusing?
I'm really only interested in photographing computers and circuit boards,
I assume anything that can handle that to my satisfaction will be able
to handle the occasional photo of my niece and nephews, etc.
-Lawrence LeMay
lemay(a)cs.umn.edu
13 Jul
13 Jul
10:57 a.m.
I'm really only interested in photographing
computers and circuit boards,
I assume anything that can handle that to my satisfaction will be able
to handle the occasional photo of my niece and nephews, etc.
I'm shopping too, but disagree with the above. 640x480 is fine for just
about anything you want to do on the web, ads, illustrative pictures, etc.,
but just doesn't cut it for anything you might want to print out or
otherwise manipulate like I expect to use in "normal" photography.
I want a true 1024x768 or better pixels, optical zoom, then it gets
technical on which storage formats and connections it supports. A Kodak
DC265 looks pretty nice, but I don't want to spend that much and prices are
dropping, so I am waiting.
BTW keep in mind for an extra $15 or so you can request a photoCD when you
develope most rolls of film, or just scan prints yourself.
7:09 a.m.
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:57:50 -0700
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
From: Mike Ford <mikeford(a)netwiz.net>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: digital cameras
Hi!
I want a true 1024x768 or better pixels, optical zoom,
then it gets
technical on which storage formats and connections it supports. A Kodak
DC265 looks pretty nice, but I don't want to spend that much and prices are
dropping, so I am waiting.
Is that 1024x768 considered megapizel type?
3x len does plenty! At pc shop, boss bought Sony camera that
put data onto 1.44MB diskette. That camera can image the tiny
printings and resolve the SMD pins very clearly. The files is
standard format, can view it directly on the pc with normal graphic
viewer.
Wizard
11:13 a.m.
I want a true 1024x768 or better pixels, optical zoom, then it gets
technical on which storage formats and connections it supports. A Kodak
DC265 looks pretty nice, but I don't want to spend that much and prices are
dropping, so I am waiting.
BTW keep in mind for an extra $15 or so you can request a photoCD when you
develope most rolls of film, or just scan prints yourself.
Yes, i'm strongly considering 1280x960 or 1280x1024 capable, optical zoom
capable, for around the low $300's. I cant understand why people are
paying a fortune for 640x480 with 10x zoom, instead of getting the
higher resolutions with 3x zoom.
You also need to realize that my polaroids always come out looking blurry
and crappy, and my regular photos look blurry and less crappy :) So
when it comes to photography i'm pretty inept.
Say, that reminds me... does anyone want to trade anything for a real
collectors item, a Kodak Handle camera from the 70's. Back when Kodak
invented the instant color camera, which Polaroid then stole away from
them... too bad you cant get film for that camera anymore..
-Lawrence LeMay
lemay(a)cs.umn.edu
11:46 a.m.
At 03:13 PM 7/13/99 -0500, Lawerence wrote:
You also need to realize that my polaroids always come
out looking blurry
and crappy, and my regular photos look blurry and less crappy :) So
when it comes to photography i'm pretty inept.
There is a lot to be said for good optics. Get aspherical glass lenses if
you can, plastic, even polycarbonate, don't give as crisp a picture in my
experience.
--Chuck
5:54 p.m.
At 12:57 PM 7/13/99 -0700, Mike wrote:
BTW keep in mind for an extra $15 or so you can request
a photoCD when you
develope most rolls of film, or just scan prints yourself.
That's true but it's great to ber able to take a picture and then
immediately be able to use it on a computer without having to wait to
finish the roll of film and then wait some more for developing. Also I go
to a lot of auctions and sometimes it's hard to remember what was in all
the different lots. With a digital camera you can take pictures as you go
around and then view them on the camera during the bidding to remind you of
what was in each lot. BTW some of the Sony Mavicas will also record and
play back sound so you can also record comments and refer to them later
too. Some Mavicas will also record a minute of full motion video and sound
on a disk. That may be usefull to some people but that hasn't been
important to me.
Joe
11:36 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Lawrence LeMay wrote:
I've been seriously considering buying a digital
camera for some time now.
I assume others on this list already have these in order to photograph
some of their computer items, so i thought I would ask which features
are most important. And which features you really wish you'd spent extra
money for.
Well, I took the plunge recently with a wider view than just shooting
'puters (and having a bit of background in photography), so after looking
at a number of different units I went with the Kodak DC-265.
Having gone thru both the 'photo-CD/Picture to Disc' route as well well as
scanning ,I'm MUCH happier with the digital camera approach.
It seems to me that a macro-focusing feature, which
allows you to
manually focus at very close range would be very useful. Or can
you get by with a 3X optical zoom in order to get detailed shots
of computer boards, or the insides of a computer, etc?
The '265 does not have a macro-focus to speak of. (the macro lens on my
Minolta 35mm takes care of that in a pinch) But the resolution of the
'265 has proven sufficient for most needs.
How important is high resolution? Is a 640x480 camera
with 10X
zoom much more useful than a 1280x960 with 3X zoom and
no macro focusing?
IMHO resolution over all else! (almost) I've been able to shoot small
items at the inner limit of the focus range of the camera at max
resolution, and then crop the image and end up with a very usable image.
Can't do that if you don't have the resolution range as an available
option.
I'm really only interested in photographing
computers and circuit boards,
I assume anything that can handle that to my satisfaction will be able
to handle the occasional photo of my niece and nephews, etc.
Never assume a primary usage! B^} One of the most valuable things that I
have found in using the digital camera is the freedom to just tink around
with shots, setups, lighting, etc... Don't like the way a shot came out?
Hit the 'delete' button! Want to try different approaches/angles? Do it
and drop the ones you don't like! (or not... I learn as much from the bad
shots as the good!)
I just don't hear the cash register going off in the back of my head each
time the shutter releases. A very liberating feeling! (but maybe thats
just me...) B^}
For anyone curious enough to want to do a 'freehand' comparison of
images... Any images on my site with the naming convention "P????.JPG"
are from my DC-265. Others are primarily scanned from print (computers
and such) or from slide (WCCF images).
In general, shots from the '265 are done at the 'medium' resolution
(1152x768) setting of the camera, then scaled to 640x480 through 'Graphic
Workshop' for the (large) posted images.
Questions? You know where to find me... B^}
BTW: I figured that I had to shoot the equivalent of fifty, thirty-six
shot rolls of prints (with processing) to offset the cost of the camera.
I'm nearly half-way there after having the camera about four months. And
having a REAL good time doing it!
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
>> Coming soon to www.computergarage.org - the
CBBS/NW on-line archives
>> Coming to VCF III (2-3 October 1999) - CBBS/NW
live!
1:26 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, James Willing wrote:
The '265 does not have a macro-focus to speak of.
(the macro lens on my
Minolta 35mm takes care of that in a pinch) But the resolution of the
'265 has proven sufficient for most needs.
Do any of the digital cameras support swappable lens like a normal SLR?
IMHO resolution over all else! (almost) I've been
able to shoot small
What is the approximate resolution of a 35mm frame?
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
2:40 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, James Willing wrote:
Take a look at the Nikon D1. Lets just say nothing cheap uses normal lenses.
The '265 does not have a macro-focus to speak
of. (the macro lens on my
Minolta 35mm takes care of that in a pinch) But the resolution of the
'265 has proven sufficient for most needs.
Do any of the digital cameras support swappable lens like a normal SLR?
2:42 p.m.
At 06:26 PM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
Do any of the digital cameras support swappable lens
like a normal SLR?
Yes, all the pro models do, some of the lower end models all for wide angles.
What is the approximate resolution of a 35mm frame?
That question will fry your brain. It depends on what film you use, what
speed you shoot it at, and what process you use to develop it.
The discussion will rapidly degenerate into something like the "green
backed" verus blue backed recordable CD's in the audio groups.
1280 x 1024 printed @ 5 x 7 (approx 200 DPI) is indistinguishable from a
print using the analog process to my eyes.
--Chuck
2:10 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Chuck McManis wrote:
That question will fry your brain. It depends on what
film you use, what
speed you shoot it at, and what process you use to develop it.
But, isn't there a maximum resolution?
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
14 Jul
14 Jul
4:41 a.m.
At 04:42 PM 7/13/99 -0700, Chuck McManis wrote:
The discussion will rapidly degenerate into something like the "green
backed" verus blue backed recordable CD's in the audio groups.
I only use MonsterCable Cat5 myself. It's about two inches thick, all told.
1280 x 1024 printed @ 5 x 7 (approx 200 DPI) is
indistinguishable from a
print using the analog process to my eyes.
And that depends on the printing process.
- John
13 Jul
13 Jul
3:56 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1692 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/9a156d4f/at…
11:42 a.m.
New subject: OT: Re: digital cameras
At 07:26 PM 7/13/99 +0000, Lawrence LeMay wrote:
I've been seriously considering buying a digital
camera for some time now.
... which features you really wish you'd spent extra money for.
Going through this exercise a second time I've chosen the Olympus C-2000Z.
Features that are, in my opinion, essential:
- Macro : Allows near focussing.
- External Flash attachment : allows additional flash assets
which can help the picture tremendously.
- Max resolution feasible - You can always downsample to get
a picture that loads fast on a web page, but you can't go
the other way.
- Smart Media : only one that makes sense these days. Cards
up to 32MB are available.
- Fast upload capabilitity - either an easy access smart media
card or USB. The latter is more convienient, the former is
minimal.
Non-essential but nice to have:
External DC power pack for longer life.
Video out capability for TV preview
Infrared remote control.
--Chuck
12:51 p.m.
New subject: OT: Re: digital cameras
Chuck writes:
- Smart Media : only one that makes sense these days.
Cards
up to 32MB are available.
Interesting...but I'd still recommend Compact Flash:
Compact Flash cards are available with a lot more memory. A friend of mine
just bought an 80 MB on, and you can get them up to at least 128 MB.
Plus, cameras compatible with Compact Flash version 2 should be able to use
the IBM compact-flash-form-factor-and-compatible hard disk drive for 300+
MB. Additionally, Compact Flash has an adaptor that lets you plug it into a
PCMCIA slot. this means I can switch my
Compact Flash between my camera, my HP 200 LX, Libretto, and desktop
(which has a PCMCAI slot).
Pricewatch shows a single 16 MB Smart Media (for $65) (and that's the largest
they list), but they show four sources for 16 MB Compact Flash cards for $42
to $75. Pricewatch shows Compact Flash up to 48 MB. (I.e., yes...we've just
shown that they don't have an exhaustive list ... but that's irrelevant)
Stan
2:14 p.m.
New subject: OT: Re: digital cameras
See comments below ....
Chuck writes:
Actually what I've found is that even with my 8MB SmartMedia, it
stores enough images to make image management a real pita. I
can get a little over 50 images on a 8MB card with my Oly D500L
(1024x768). Keeping track of them all is a hassle.
The only time I wished I had a larger card (or more smaller cards),
is when I've gone on trips and I know that I'm going to be away from
my computer for a while. In any case the cards are so dang small
that you can carry quite a few of them, of course there is no
external indiction on which ones are full, so that becomes a
hassle. You can purchase the cards for ~15 for 8MB, ~$40 for
16MB cards, ~$110 for 32MB.
In either case, when I was deciding on which camera to purchase,
the storage media was purely secondary to picture quality and
features (and price of course). I love my Oly, got the dye sub
printer for it and the pictures I can produce are literally
indistinguishable from 35mm prints.
George
- Smart Media : only one that makes sense these
days. Cards
up to 32MB are available.
Interesting...but I'd still recommend Compact Flash:
Compact Flash cards are available with a lot more memory. A friend of
mine just bought an 80 MB on, and you can get them up to at least 128 MB.
Plus, cameras compatible with Compact Flash version 2 should be able to
use the IBM compact-flash-form-factor-and-compatible hard disk drive for
300+ MB. Additionally, Compact Flash has an adaptor that lets you plug it
into a PCMCIA slot. this means I can switch my Compact Flash between my
camera, my HP 200 LX, Libretto, and desktop (which has a PCMCAI slot).
Pricewatch shows a single 16 MB Smart Media (for $65) (and that's the
largest they list), but they show four sources for 16 MB Compact Flash
cards for $42 to $75. Pricewatch shows Compact Flash up to 48 MB. (I.e.,
yes...we've just shown that they don't have an exhaustive list ... but
that's irrelevant)
Stan
5:46 p.m.
Lawrence,
I've been using a Sony Mavica 81 and I LOVE it! I has 1024 x 768
resolution and a 3X **** Optical***** zoom. Many of the cameras out there
use a digital zoom. That just blows up a portion of your image and you get
a bigger picture but lower resolution. A digital zoom is worthless IMHO.
I've been able to focus in on lots of circuit boards and the like with the
Sony without having a Macro capability. Take a look at
"http://www.intellistar.net/~rigdonj/don-ad.htm". There are links there to
several pictures that I took with the Sony. This were just a quick and
dirty web page for a friend of mine to advertise his stuff and I didn't
take much care to get the best possible picture. Also you should be aware
that ALL the current cameras except the Sonys require Windozes 95 or 98
just to download your pictures to a PC. The Sonys use 3.5" floppy disk in
the camera and save the pictures as standard JPEG files.
Joe
At 07:26 PM 7/13/99 GMT, you wrote:
I've been seriously considering buying a digital
camera for some time now.
I assume others on this list already have these in order to photograph
some of their computer items, so i thought I would ask which features
are most important. And which features you really wish you'd spent extra
money for.
It seems to me that a macro-focusing feature, which allows you to
manually focus at very close range would be very useful. Or can
you get by with a 3X optical zoom in order to get detailed shots
of computer boards, or the insides of a computer, etc?
How important is high resolution? Is a 640x480 camera with 10X
zoom much more useful than a 1280x960 with 3X zoom and
no macro focusing?
I'm really only interested in photographing computers and circuit boards,
I assume anything that can handle that to my satisfaction will be able
to handle the occasional photo of my niece and nephews, etc.
-Lawrence LeMay
lemay(a)cs.umn.edu
5:08 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 746 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990713/0ae9f6c1/at…
8:57 p.m.
Also you should be aware that ALL the current cameras
except the Sonys require Windozes 95 or 98 just to
download your pictures to a PC. The Sonys use 3.5"
floppy disk in the camera and save the pictures as
standard JPEG files.
Not true! Macs handle them just fine. PC Exchange(part of
MacOS) lets the
Mac access DOS/Windows formatted disks without any problems(if you're just
reading files, lock the disk first. MacOS will leave an annoying desktop
file structure in the disk, which isn't handeled well by DOS. Not sure what
Win95/98 does with it, presumably something very similair, which is just an
annoying hidden(?) directory). Definitley great cameras. Check out my
Tripod page for my Series/1, many of the pics of the CPU cards were taken
with a Sony Mavica.
--------------------------------------------------------------
| http://members.tripod.com/~jrollins/index.html |
| orham(a)qth.net list admin KD7BCY |
| ham-mac(a)qth.net Portland, OR |
--------------------------------------------------------------
8:44 p.m.
At 09:57 PM 07/13/1999 -0800, it was written:
Not true twice. There is a GPL'd utility for Linux that will download from
many of the popular cameras, with more being added rapidly. Plus an ever
expanding collection of graphics and photo manipulation programs.
'Dare you to tell which images on my site came thru a Windoze box vs. my
Linux systems... B^}
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
Also you should
be aware that ALL the current cameras
except the Sonys require Windozes 95 or 98 just to
download your pictures to a PC. The Sonys use 3.5"
floppy disk in the camera and save the pictures as
standard JPEG files.
Not true! Macs handle them just fine.
14 Jul
14 Jul
8:36 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 442 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/87490260/at…
6:06 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, James Willing wrote:
At 09:57 PM 07/13/1999 -0800, it was written:
Not true twice. There is a GPL'd utility for Linux that will download from
And
thrice! There's a camera (forget make) that was designed specifically
for the Amiga. Plugs into the erial port.
Kevin
Also you
should be aware that ALL the current cameras
except the Sonys require Windozes 95 or 98 just to
download your pictures to a PC. The Sonys use 3.5"
floppy disk in the camera and save the pictures as
standard JPEG files.
Not true! Macs handle them just fine.
4:49 a.m.
At 09:57 PM 7/13/99 -0800, John Rollins wrote:
MacOS will leave an annoying desktop
file structure in the disk, which isn't handeled well by DOS. Not sure what
Win95/98 does with it, presumably something very similair, which is just an
annoying hidden(?) directory).
DOS and Windows don't care about the extra directory, which contains
the resource fork of your Mac files. In some situations, you might
want to convert your Mac file to MacBinary format, a way of wrapping
the data fork and resource fork into a single file (in the DOS sense)
for preservation or transmission.
- John
9:45 a.m.
DOS and Windows don't care about the extra
directory, which contains
the resource fork of your Mac files. In some situations, you might
want to convert your Mac file to MacBinary format, a way of wrapping
the data fork and resource fork into a single file (in the DOS sense)
for preservation or transmission.
They don't care about it, but at least with
DOS it does show up
occasionally. Also uses up several kb of disk space. Not much, but
noticeable when you're as wierd as I am. Anything to speed up a sneaker
net. Packing small text files into that last 2 or 3kb on the floppy...
As for the MacBinary stuff, it doesn't really matter. At least for images.
If you are going to store Mac stuff on a PC, use Dropstuff to compress and
the binhex the file if you nee to preserve the resource fork. Text and
image files don't matter unless it's a special format. Images only loose
minor things like previews and comments when moving from Mac to PC.
Actually, works quite well for stripping off all those huge previews. Cuts
file size by a third in some cases!
--------------------------------------------------------------
| http://members.tripod.com/~jrollins/index.html |
| orham(a)qth.net list admin KD7BCY |
| ham-mac(a)qth.net Portland, OR |
--------------------------------------------------------------
15 Jul
15 Jul
4:01 a.m.
Whoa! Whoa! First of all I said ****PCs*****, not all computers. Second,
my point was that ALL the current cameras except the Sonys use a cable or
some other sort of physical connection* to upload the image to the
computer. The upload software for a (watch it! There's that word again!)
*PC* requires Win 95 or 98. PERIOD! If you can't or won't use W 95 then
the disk based Sony camera is your only choice. I think it sucks that the
manufacturers only provide Windozes 95 software and I've told several of
them so. I looked at one camera that nor only required a program that only
runs under Windozes 95 but it also requires that you have Micro Slouths
Picture_It AND Micro Slouths Internet Explorer! That's &^%#$^ rediculous!
*Some of the cameras save the images on memory cards that you can remove
and install in an adapter and then insert them into a floppy drive and read
them. BUT it does not read them like they were a disk. You still have to
have special software to read them.
Joe
At 09:57 PM 7/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
Also you should
be aware that ALL the current cameras
except the Sonys require Windozes 95 or 98 just to
download your pictures to a PC. The Sonys use 3.5"
floppy disk in the camera and save the pictures as
standard JPEG files.
Not true! Macs handle them just fine. PC Exchange(part of
MacOS) lets the
Mac access DOS/Windows formatted disks without any problems(if you're just
reading files, lock the disk first. MacOS will leave an annoying desktop
file structure in the disk, which isn't handeled well by DOS. Not sure what
Win95/98 does with it, presumably something very similair, which is just an
annoying hidden(?) directory). Definitley great cameras. Check out my
Tripod page for my Series/1, many of the pics of the CPU cards were taken
with a Sony Mavica.
--------------------------------------------------------------
| http://members.tripod.com/~jrollins/index.html |
| orham(a)qth.net list admin KD7BCY |
| ham-mac(a)qth.net Portland, OR |
--------------------------------------------------------------
7:23 a.m.
Whoa! Whoa! First of all I said ****PCs*****, not all
computers. Second,
my point was that ALL the current cameras except the Sonys use a cable or
some other sort of physical connection* to upload the image to the
computer. The upload software for a (watch it! There's that word again!)
*PC* requires Win 95 or 98. PERIOD! If you can't or won't use W 95 then
the disk based Sony camera is your only choice. I think it sucks that the
manufacturers only provide Windozes 95 software and I've told several of
them so. I looked at one camera that nor only required a program that only
runs under Windozes 95 but it also requires that you have Micro Slouths
Picture_It AND Micro Slouths Internet Explorer! That's &^%#$^ rediculous!
Ey, Joe, calm down. Thats not the way it is. Ok, it looks a lot
alike on the first moment, but there is more out there. Most
manufacturers include at least a Mac conectivity and often there
are second party offers for other systems.
To get this clear, I'm not talking about sub 150 USD cameras
like Mustek & Co (But even here some solutions are available).
For example, I'm using right now an Olympus Camedia 810L,
a USD 700 value, last year when I got it. Olympus is shiping
a CD with Win (3.x/9x/NT) and Mac soft, so most users are
already able to use it. Then there is for example a dealer
who even includes an Atari ST (!) connection software. Oters
are supplying Amiga versions - and even for the Unix (Linux)
Freaks there is support - so wheres the problem ?
I'm quite satisfies - just the resolution ... 2000 x someting
would be desirable...
Gruss
H.
--
Der Kopf ist auch nur ein Auswuchs wie der kleine Zeh.
H.Achternbusch
14 Jul
14 Jul
7:07 a.m.
How important is high resolution? Is a 640x480 camera
with 10X
zoom much more useful than a 1280x960 with 3X zoom and
no macro focusing?
I'm really only interested in photographing
computers and circuit boards,
I assume anything that can handle that to my satisfaction will be able
to handle the occasional photo of my niece and nephews, etc.
I'm using an Camedia 810, but basicly there are 4 ways:
a) using a consumer range digital camera (up to 1024x800)
Pro: - easy to use, _real_fast_ 'klick' to disk turn around
time (neat when designing a web site)
- acceptabe quality for identification process
Con: - medium to high investment for the camera
- Quality to low to magnify details and or identify
details (Source picture resolution is already to low)
- fixed lenses, no exchange possible
b) using a professional digital camera
Pro: - easy to use, _real_fast_ 'klick' to disk turn around
time (neat when designing a web site)
- High quality pictures, thus a source for different usages
- Exchangable lenses with standard connectors
Con: - prohibitive price range - I prefer to buy more old
computers instead.
c) using an ordinary camera and scanning the prints.
Pro: - Cheapest solution (imidiate or in mid range if
a scanner has to be purchased)
- Resolution at least as good as with an customer range
digital camera
Con: - No short turn around cycle - you'll have to wait
for the prints and scan them
- most work (you'll have to scan them)
d) using an ordinary camera and the picture disk service
Pro: - Cheap
- reliable scanning quality
_ _high_ resolution scans (comperable or better
than a digital pro-camera)
- pictures already on a reliable, durable and
fileable storage media
Con: - No short turn around cycle
Each of this solutions can be optimal, as always, it's what
you want, and how you like it. Digital cameras offer you the
McDonalds feeling - go in, order, eat your meat - just the
tast is a little bit different from lets say Outback.
Consumer level digital cameras (up to 1000 USD) are not
very usefull if you like to have a certain level, while
pro cameras (>5000 USD) are way to expansive.
Pick your choice.
Gruss
H.
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
5:17 a.m.
c) using an ordinary camera and scanning the prints.
Pro: - Cheapest solution (imidiate or in mid range if
a scanner has to be purchased)
- Resolution at least as good as with an customer range
digital camera
Con: - No short turn around cycle - you'll have to wait
for the prints and scan them
- most work (you'll have to scan them)
E) do as in D but use a polaroid camara for the prints.
Allison
8:13 a.m.
> c) using an ordinary camera and scanning the
prints.
> Pro: - Cheapest solution (imidiate or in mid range if
> a scanner has to be purchased)
> - Resolution at least as good as with an customer range
> digital camera
> Con: - No short turn around cycle - you'll have to wait
> for the prints and scan them
> - most work (you'll have to scan them)
E) do as in D but use a polaroid camara for the
prints.
Good idea - I didn't think about Polaroid.
Has anybody ever tried to scan a colcour Polaroid
picture ? I suspect it might be problematic due
the glosy film on top of the picture. (Sorry, I
don't have a Polaroid camera).
So e) would be like c), but the klick to file time
is way shorter (almost as an digital camera), with
a high quality resolution, but higher cost per picture
on the long run.
Thanks
h.
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
6:39 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/822ebd4a/at…
10:26 a.m.
::Good idea - I didn't think about Polaroid.
::Has anybody ever tried to scan a colcour Polaroid
::picture ? I suspect it might be problematic due
::the glosy film on top of the picture. (Sorry, I
::don't have a Polaroid camera).
Yes, I have. See
The Amiga, PC-4 and C128 pictures are all Polaroids.
They're out of focus
because my Polaroid OneStop is a fixed-focus unit.
Aha - hard to tell from a reduced resolution, but at
least at the level of chap digitals. Ae there any
polaroids out there with interchangeable lenses ?
If not, one of the mayor advantages from using
35mm cameras is cone.
Servus
H.
P.S.: You page reminds me of one thing I want to tell
you since more than 2 Month: I HAVE A TOMY TUTOR!
(Great thanks to Sallam)
--
Der Kopf ist auch nur ein Auswuchs wie der kleine Zeh.
H.Achternbusch
8:47 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 560 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/fdeabcfe/at…
8:36 a.m.
> c) using
an ordinary camera and scanning the prints.
> Pro: - Cheapest solution (imidiate or in mid range if
> a scanner has to be purchased)
> - Resolution at least as good as with an customer range
> digital camera
> Con: - No short turn around cycle - you'll have to wait
> for the prints and scan them
> - most work (you'll have to scan them)
E) do as in D but use a polaroid camara for
the prints.
Good idea - I didn't think about Polaroid.
Has anybody ever tried to scan a colcour Polaroid
picture ? I suspect it might be problematic due
the glosy film on top of the picture. (Sorry, I
don't have a Polaroid camera).
11:35 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1545 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/adec48b3/at…
5:09 p.m.
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 allisonp(a)world.std.com wrote:
If you don't mind the horrible quality you get with an instant camera. I
have a pretty decent instant from Polaroid (I forget the model) and even
it doesn't output very good pictures, especially not what I would settle
for on a website.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 05/25/99]
c) using an
ordinary camera and scanning the prints.
Pro: - Cheapest solution (imidiate or in mid range if
a scanner has to be purchased)
- Resolution at least as good as with an customer range
digital camera
Con: - No short turn around cycle - you'll have to wait
for the prints and scan them
- most work (you'll have to scan them)
E) do as in D but use a polaroid camara for the prints. 
8:44 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Lawrence LeMay wrote:
How important is high resolution? Is a 640x480 camera
with 10X
zoom much more useful than a 1280x960 with 3X zoom and
no macro focusing?
One thing that has not yet been mentioned in this thread is that the
published resolutions of consumer digital cameras do not necessarily
correspond to the CCD resolution. When I was camera shopping a while ago,
the 1280x960 resolution of the Kodak DC120 seemed impressive - until I
looked at the specifications and found that it uses a single 850x984 pixel
CCD. Check the CCD resolution - it should be at least as high as the
camera's claimed resolution, and preferably higher, since portions of the
CCD are likely to be used as a dark reference or mapped out due to
defects.
Consumer digital cameras generally use a single CCD as the imaging device.
Since CCDs are monochrome, "color" CCDs are produced by applying a dye
filter to alternating pixels in the CCD array to change the hue that
different pixels are sensitive to, in a pattern such as
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
where R, G, and B represent pixels that are sensitive to red, green, and
blue. The true RGB resolution of a device that uses a single "color" CCD
is therefore considerably less than the resolution of the CCD itself,
since interpolation of these values is required to produce the final
image.
Such an arrangement isn't as detrimental to the overall image quality as
it may at first seem, since the human eye is less sensitive to fine image
details as variations in hue than it is to fine image details as
variations in intensity. Indeed, one of the first steps in JPEG
compression is 2:1 chrominance downsampling, so the most commonly used
compression technique would normally discard a large amount of this
information anyway.
After attempting to photograph portions of my collection using a Kodak
DC20 (a nice toy, but little more) and a Ricoh RDC-2E (somewhat better), I
have the following observations:
The noisy images that the RDC-2E produces in low-light situations compress
poorly, leading to more JPEG artifacts and even lower image quality. A
flash should help somewhat (and it would be much more convenient than the
halogen work light that I'm currently using).
The lens on the RDC-2E is too wide-angle for photographing computers at a
distance at which they fill the viewfinder, leading to a "fish-eye"
effect. A lens with variable focal lengths would be a good thing to have.
A standard file format (such as JPEG) would be great. The RDC-2E uses a
type-II PCMCIA card for storage, so transferring image files to my
Linux-based laptop is easy. Unfortunately, the camera stores images in
its proprietary "J6I" format. J6I is relatively easy to convert to JPEG;
however, this involves an a cycle of decompression, scaling, and
recompression which I would rather avoid.
--
Scott Ware ware(a)xtal.pharm.nwu.edu
11:38 a.m.
Scott Ware <ware(a)xtal.pharm.nwu.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Lawrence LeMay wrote:
Consumer digital cameras generally use a single CCD as the imaging device.
Since CCDs are monochrome, "color" CCDs are produced by applying a dye
filter to alternating pixels in the CCD array to change the hue that
different pixels are sensitive to, in a pattern such as
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
Hi
As far as I know, most only use two color filters.
They infer the other color by having an unfiltered
pixel and subtract the signal from the others. The colors
of the actual filters depends on the manufacture. Some
times it is a magenta/red, a red/green or some other
combination with a clear filtered pixel. Blue is
rarely filtered because of two reasons. One is
that because of the fact that they make dielectric
filters and the layers for blue are harder to do.
Also, the sensitivity of the CCD drops off in the blue
so filtering of blue decreases signal/noise ratio.
The effect we see does look like RGB, inside, but
really isn't.
Also, the pixel size isn't the same for all of them.
They are usually layed out in a 4 by 4 array with on
input coming from a two pixel width.
Dwight
11:50 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 4004 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/a68024a9/at…
9140
days inactive
9142
days old
37 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
a2k＠one.net -
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
elvey＠hal.com -
g＠kurico.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jimw＠agora.rdrop.com -
jpero＠cgocable.net -
lemay＠cs.umn.edu -
max82＠surfree.com -
mikeford＠netwiz.net -
rexstout＠uswest.net -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
spc＠armigeron.com -
ss＠allegro.com -
ware＠xtal.pharm.nwu.edu