In article <537BACCA.3050203 at crash.com>, Steven M Jones <classiccmp at crash.com> writes: If you can make PostScript for it, then just take it to Kinko's and they will print it large format no problem. They can even print directly onto a stiff backing board. I've done it before for things bigger than 11x17, I think I did standard poster size. Something like ANSI C or D (17x22 or 22x34). I'd have to measure the ones I have at home to say for sure. Anyway, the point is that any copy shop service bureau place can do this large format printing from a postscript or PDF file on a thumb drive. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>

In article <CAEfH1SFQwgcxieLQRMP7tm_Opi7fH_L+piO18FcWAueur6_y2Q at mail.gmail.com>, Jason T <silent700 at gmail.com> writes: The more I think about it, the more I think troff may have been used. It was for typesetting, after all :-) -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>

In article <537C13E5.8070001 at oryx.cc>, Jerry Kemp <other at oryx.cc> writes: I was thinking we could reverse engineer it :-) -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>

Here's another clue as to the origin of the two posters - I've been in touch with the seller and she tells me they were purchased (though not necessarily published) through UNIX Review magazine. I can't find a first-publication date for that mag but I think the poster ad (now deleted) says the posters were (C) 1983. Did UNIX Review go back that far? Also, the posters are glue-mounted to a board, which will make scanning difficult :( -j

In article <53858FC9.3030308 at dds.nl>, Simon Claessen <simski at dds.nl> writes: hugin? *barf* Sorry, but that stuff is HORRIBLE to use and IMMENSELY TEDIOUS for making panoramas. Microsoft ICE makes quick work of a panorama in seconds that would take 30-60 minutes of manual point editing to do in hugin. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>

Fine, but... Will somebody digitalize it in some way finally ? Gracias | Regards - Saludos | Greetings | Freundliche Gr??e | Salutations ? -- *Sergio Pedraja* -- mobile: +34-699-996568 twitter: @sergio_pedraja | skype: Sergio Pedraja -- http://plus.google.com/u/0/101292256663392735405 http://www.linkedin.com/in/sergiopedraja http://www.quora.com/Sergio-Pedraja http://spedraja.wordpress.com https://www.xing.com/profile/Sergio_Pedraja <http://spedraja.wordpress.com/> ----- No crea todo lo que ve, ni crea que est? vi?ndolo todo 2014-05-28 21:28 GMT+02:00 Jason T <silent700 at gmail.com>:

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: Yeah, really. Step up your game, peanut gallery! Seriously, though - I am working a deal to pick them up sometime soon. By either the photo-and-stitching method or maybe a heat gun to loosen it off its backing, I will do my best to make it digital once again. Or would it be for the first time? Only the art team knows! -j

I reckoned that Kodachrome was a bit more, but you can't get that now :-( Larger format film doesn't have quite the rsolution you would expect, the larger films are not held flat enough in the image plane But medium format and large format are still higher resolution that any digital caemra you are likely to own. Not tht resolution is the only thing that matters, of course -tony

Sure. As I ahve sid, I did buy a cheap digital camera which I use for snapshots. Quick record photos just to remind me of something. There is _nothing_ wrong with taking such photo, of coruse. But one thing you quickly relaise when you go to large format (5*4" sheet film and above) is tht with digital or 35mm you might well take >100 shots ina day. with alrge format 2 or 3 is doing pretty well (for an amateur). You spend a lot of time settign each one up, getting jsut the view you want, the alignemtn you want, etc. The care takein is IMHO worth it for some subjects (like old buildings, which is the main use of large format for me). I think a good 35mm film, camera on a tripod (of course), good lens (Leica, Nikon, etc prime lens, not a zoom) is rather mroe than that It's always possible somethign else was the limitng factor. I don't know what lens you were using, but I ahve certainly seen some (older) Pentax lenses that wre noticeably unsharp compared to a Nikkor of simialr aperture and focal length. -tony

On 14-05-30 09:25 PM, Toby Thain wrote: I think it depends on how you use it. If you're scanning film and manipulating it digitally, digital capture is at a relative advantage. However, if you're projecting, film wins handily (projection isn't up to the resolution of slide film yet, and certainly not up to the contrast range). If you're printing, traditional silver-based prints fare quite well against digital. I still do all of my black-and-white work on film - mostly because I find the workflow to be more fun and I trust film to be more archival (less intervention is needed; see the recent article about century-old negatives found in Antarctica that are still printable), but also because black-and-white film seems to really suffer from scanning. The sharp edges of black-and-white film grain really seem to have aliasing issues when scanned digitally. I can get really good 11x14" prints out of 35mm black-and-white films of ISO 125 and less... faster films get grainy but it's not necessarily objectionable. If I need higher quality I move to medium or large format. As for digital? It's awfully nice not to have to schlep film with me on trips; it's nice to see the results of my shoot the same day (I rarely chimp as I shoot, but I usually have a quick look on a laptop or netbook to see what I got when I get the time to look). The archiving is more work, but of course I can have perfect duplicates which is a plus. It just takes more work to not need the advantages of passive archiving that I get with film. And my camera captures over 36 megapixels of resolution, so the quality is pretty incredible, even handheld (I have pretty good handheld technique and I have good glass). My DSLR certainly outresolves 35mm film, but I doubt a 14 or 16 MP camera would give me better results than I get on 35mm film right now, and larger formats of film still win. Still, it's not all about quality; it's about fun. I like computers a lot - but I don't always want my other hobbies to involve computers. A night in the darkroom is a great escape from a day at a desktop. Jim

In particualr, I do not want my hobbies ot involve modern PCs... [1] Which is why I stick to flim photography for many applictions and refuse to ahve CNC machine tools in my workshop (now, if someboduy offered me a CNC mill with a PDP8 controlling it...) ]1] Having tried a modern PC, I went back to this ancient machine, which is much more pleasnt to use. -tony

Tony Duell wrote: Even with cameras using Bayer interpolation and scanners not? And how would Velvia compare with Kodachrome in this context? Peace... Sridhar

Large format film (4x5 and 8x10) has the same grain structure as 35mm... It's the degree of enlargment that determines the sharpness of the picture.I still get a kick out of people that are impressed by manufacturer specs. It must be better if it has more MP's. Not neccessarily true. As long as you understand the technology, know it's limitations and work within them, a 2.74MP full frame sensor with good glass will put to shame any new camera that you don't have to mortgage your house to buy. Computers are the same way, which is probably why some people ( you know who you are 8-) ) still hang on to and use 'old' technology. -- alex ----- Original Message -----

On 29/05/14 2:40 AM, Simon Claessen wrote: The shell one is Times Roman, like most early troff that was photoset. (The Craigslist one I can't see because the listing has expired.) --Toby

On Wed, 28 May 2014, Richard wrote: Microsoft ICE worked well for me for some trivial tasks. But, for a LARGE panorama, it managed to leave out some of the images in the middle, and make poor splices between outer ones. So, I thought, . . . since input is JPG and output is JPG, why not splice smaller groups together, and THEN splice the combined ones together. It refused to even try to splice together images that it had created, nor even let me add an image to the end of one that it had created. I haven't yet gotten into it enough to determine where the problem is. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

In article <53864579.4000501 at att.net>, steve shumaker <shumaker at att.net> writes: I used it a bunch of times on schematics that were larger than the 11x17 scan bed of the scanner I was using. You have to have sufficient overlap for it to register the features and then *wham* it just does it. If you get poor stitching and missing pieces, then scan with more overlap and use consistent exposure of the scans. If they vary dramatically in brightness across pieces that need to stitch together, it won't match them. I don't have URLs handy, but I've used it a bunch of times for contributions to bitsavers. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>

In article <5386CDE6.1080303 at att.net>, steve shumaker <shumaker at att.net> writes: OK, found the one I was thinking about as an extreme example. When I was at The Black Hole before it closed, I grabbed a photocopy of the Tektronix 4953/4954 Graphics Tablet Instruction Manual. Because it was a photocopy they didn't have the large format originals for the schematics in the back. Instead they had photocopied it piecemeal. I scanned the photocopies and used Microsoft ICE to stitch together the larger diagrams from the photocopies. When you look at the composite, it's obvious they didn't have full coverage of the schematic, but enough was there for MS ICE to get a reasonable approximation. I did nothing but scan the photocopies and load them into MS ICE and it stitched them together in a few seconds. Look at the last two pages of this PDF: <http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/tektronix/49xx/070-1791-01_4953_4954_Graphics_Tablet_Instruction_Manual_Jun_1980.pdf> -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>

On 15/06/14 8:19 PM, Jason T wrote: Just get a good tripod. --Toby

On Jun 15, 2014 8:48 PM, "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: Looks like they are 28" by 22".

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Chris Pye <pye at mactec.com.au> wrote: Someday I'll have to get a proper copy stand, but so far I've been quite pleased with my Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod, with which you can fully extend the center vertical column then flip it to extend out horizontally instead, to take photographs looking down at items on a table. Sometimes that's more convenient than the method you describe, though it is more sensitive to vibration. I'm using a ball head, but I'd like to get a tilt head, and am particularly intrigued by the Manfrotto MHXPRO3 head.