14 Jul
1999
14 Jul
'99
11:05 a.m.
I have little experience with Polaroid since the '60's when I occasonally
used a Polaroid back for my 4x5 (9x12 cm) Linhof. Since then I've only used
Polaroid for 'scope pictures.
However, what I do recall is that while they're OK for use as full-scale
snapshots, the film is too grainy for enlargement. I learned about this
when I used the negative film from Polaroid. I've concluded that the
quality of the photos from this technology is not as high as what's wanted
by users of digital photography in general, i.e. I doubt it's up to the
quality of the 640x480 resolution of the Sony cameras.
My interest in digital photography has been stimulated by the need to
integrate photographs into technical documents and correspondence. There's
plenty of software for rendering the color photos as what they are, up to
"glossy-paper-magazine" e.g. Time or Spiegel but once you start to enlarge
the image, the lack of resolution becomes a major factor. I've considered
other image processing approaches, e.g. scan-rate conversion software which
reduces a raster image to Fourier series in both directions, thereby
allowing you to "fit" the image to whatever resolution you like, though it
requires post-processing to straighten and sharpen edges, etc.
What really puzzles me is whether it can process and render a photo as black
and white line-art. Anyone have
experience with this?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: digital cameras
> 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 
14 Jul
14 Jul
11:49 a.m.
When using the 55P/N Polaroid film (the stuff that gives you a negative in
addition to a print), I found that the optimal exposure for the
negative required more than a complete stop more exposure than the optimal
exposure for the print! Did they ever fix that?
BTW, that was also using a 545 back on a Linhof, but I am NOT Richard.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I have little experience with Polaroid since the
'60's when I occasonally
used a Polaroid back for my 4x5 (9x12 cm) Linhof. Since then I've only used
Polaroid for 'scope pictures.
However, what I do recall is that while they're OK for use as full-scale
snapshots, the film is too grainy for enlargement. I learned about this
when I used the negative film from Polaroid. I've concluded that the
quality of the photos from this technology is not as high as what's wanted
by users of digital photography in general, i.e. I doubt it's up to the
quality of the 640x480 resolution of the Sony cameras.
My interest in digital photography has been stimulated by the need to
integrate photographs into technical documents and correspondence. There's
plenty of software for rendering the color photos as what they are, up to
"glossy-paper-magazine" e.g. Time or Spiegel but once you start to enlarge
the image, the lack of resolution becomes a major factor. I've considered
other image processing approaches, e.g. scan-rate conversion software which
reduces a raster image to Fourier series in both directions, thereby
allowing you to "fit" the image to whatever resolution you like, though it
requires post-processing to straighten and sharpen edges, etc.
What really puzzles me is whether it can process and render a photo as black
and white line-art. Anyone have
experience with this?
Dick
1:06 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 804 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/d5234dae/at…
2:26 p.m.
However, what I do recall is that while they're OK
for use as full-scale
snapshots, the film is too grainy for enlargement. I learned about this
when I used the negative film from Polaroid. I've concluded that the
quality of the photos from this technology is not as high as what's wanted
by users of digital photography in general, i.e. I doubt it's up to the
quality of the 640x480 resolution of the Sony cameras.
Looking at a polaroid (I managed to get one within the last
few minutes), I think the usable resolution is way more than
1200 pixles per row (say more than 200 lines per inch).
Just I never have seen any Polaroid other than these special
'scope units or the tourist cameras, so no interchangeable Lenses.
Servus
Hans
--
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
4:06 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990714/2f51d73e/at…
9:59 p.m.
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
Tony, please! I have an Olympus D-220L, now discontinued, but in its
heyday was selling for only $300 (OK "only" is relative, but still its
relatively cheap for its quality). It takes fantastic pictures!
So just because you can't get the same quality as a regular camera for
less than $10, don't just assume they all suck. If they did, why would
they be so popular?
As for a basic rule for purchasing a digital camera, expect to pay more
than $200 for a decent one that takes pics good enough for a web site
without having to do all sorts of post-processing. Don't settle for a
cheapo one like the low end Kodaks. They suck. Make sure you get one
with removable storage too.
Once you realize you need a really good camera then spend the big bucks,
but don't go wasting money if you don't need all the fancy features. a
$300 digital camera will do you right for any occasion if you're the
casual photographer (like me.
Once I get back home I'll be creating a web site for my visit to Peru, all
the pictures having been taken on my D-220L (max. resolution is 640x400
but most of the pictures are 320x200, except for the closeups of the
amazing Inca stonework, which I took at 640x400). They came out great!
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]
Looking at a
polaroid (I managed to get one within the last
few minutes), I think the usable resolution is way more than
1200 pixles per row (say more than 200 lines per inch).
I've just realised...
If you have a 100mm wide print (normal sort of size) and 640 pixels,
that's only 3 or 6 lpm (depending on whether you think a line is 1 pixel
or 2). That's not a poor resolution, it's a non-existant resolution!
Ouch!. Now I know why I can't stand those digital cameras.
15 Jul
15 Jul
11:23 a.m.
As for a basic rule for purchasing a digital camera,
expect to pay more
than $200 for a decent one that takes pics good enough for a web site
without having to do all sorts of post-processing. Don't settle for a
cheapo one like the low end Kodaks. They suck. Make sure you get one
with removable storage too.
Once you realize you need a really good camera then
spend the big bucks,
but don't go wasting money if you don't need all the fancy features. a
$300 digital camera will do you right for any occasion if you're the
casual photographer (like me.
Once I get back home I'll be creating a web site
for my visit to Peru, all
the pictures having been taken on my D-220L (max. resolution is 640x400
but most of the pictures are 320x200, except for the closeups of the
amazing Inca stonework, which I took at 640x400). They came out great!
Thats exactly what these cameras ar for - taking vacation pictures.
As an example, look at
http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ckb/secret/cbm-b500-backplate.jpg
it took me several atempts to get this picture (and additional stuff
like lightening etc.) with my Camedia 810 and I think it's quite ok
to give an overview. But as you see with the enlargement (done by
Cameron - just factor 2 and I think he did also sharpen it) the
details you can get are quite lousy.
Also it is hard to make a decent picture when you're limited
to one type of lens. To get usable details and figures showing
them _without_ doubts, you just need higher resolution and
interchangeable lenses.
Anyway, Have fun in Peru, lucky one.
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
8 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2620 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/ee02fab1/at…
10:26 p.m.
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
'Fantastic Pictures' tells me nothing. Have
you attempted to measure the
resolution? If so, how?
"Fantastic" being that when you look at the picture you can see the same
detail on a computer screen as you'd get from a scanned photo. As far as
I'm concerend, that's good enough.
Because they're convenient? No film to buy, you
can erase your mistakes,
you can stick the results in a computer document or on a web page, etc.
Exactly, and that's why they are useful. In a few years, this argument
will be moot as the digital cameras coming out will impress even you.
Err... You do realise that's the equivalent of
about 4 or 5 lines per
milimeter on an equivalent 35mm frame. And that the _worst_ SLR lens than
one of the major UK photographic magazines ever tested gave something
like 40 lines/mm. And that was noticeably unsharp...
If I can see the detail of the structures I've taken pictures of in the
tiny 1" x 1" viewfinder then they should come out just fine on a 15" or
17" monitor.
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]
16 Jul
16 Jul
7:01 a.m.
> 'Fantastic Pictures' tells me nothing.
Have you attempted to measure the
> resolution? If so, how?
"Fantastic" being that when you look at the
picture you can see the same
detail on a computer screen as you'd get from a scanned photo.
After _DOWNGRADING_ them to some bumpy 400x300 or less
> Because they're convenient? No film to buy,
you can erase your mistakes,
> you can stick the results in a computer document or on a web page, etc.
Exactly, and that's why they are useful. In a few
years, this argument
will be moot as the digital cameras coming out will impress even you.
Agreed
> Err... You do realise that's the equivalent
of about 4 or 5 lines per
> milimeter on an equivalent 35mm frame. And that the _worst_ SLR lens than
> one of the major UK photographic magazines ever tested gave something
> like 40 lines/mm. And that was noticeably unsharp...
If I can see the detail of the structures I've
taken pictures of in the
tiny 1" x 1" viewfinder then they should come out just fine on a 15" or
17" monitor.
You're argueing within the low (or no :) resolution class of devices.
Just try to fix one of the inscription plates you might see in the
museums on one 320x200 shot and read them afterwards ... and I'm not
talking about the one or two glyphs per stone thingys. You can get
a better result with any USD 10,- camera (including film) ...
Servus
Hans
--
Traue keinem Menschen der 5 Tage blutet und immer noch nicht tod ist.
12:46 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2028 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/29c1fe44/at…
8:16 p.m.
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
But Tony, I don't intend for these to end up as hard copies. That's why I
also have my regular "point n shoot" camera with me, so that I have
something for my photo album. If I was planning to print the digital
photos out on my color ink jet printer then your argument would make
sense.
"Fantastic" being that when you look at the picture you can see the same
detail on a computer screen as you'd get from a scanned photo. As far as
I'm concerend, that's good enough.
Now compare either of those with the original, unscanned, photo. Unless
the camera that took that was a very poor one, you'll find there's detail
missing. They're already out there. But at the moment you
can still do a lot
better (for the money) with conventional cameras. Too many things these
days are simply 'convenient' rather than 'excellent'. I don't mind
having
to learn to do something, having to take time to do something, etc. I do
mind wasting (even small amounts of) time on something that's not that good.
Sure, if the resoultion of the average monitor was 4000x4000 (or whatever)
then my digital camera would be woefully inadequate for my web pages. But
as it is at this point in time, its fine.
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]
15 Jul
15 Jul
10:38 a.m.
> Looking at a polaroid (I managed to get one
within the last
> few minutes), I think the usable resolution is way more than
> 1200 pixles per row (say more than 200 lines per inch).
I've just realised...
If you have a 100mm wide print (normal sort of size)
and 640 pixels,
that's only 3 or 6 lpm (depending on whether you think a line is 1 pixel
or 2). That's not a poor resolution, it's a non-existant resolution!
1 Line == 2 Pixels
Back in the TV time, I've been told that one line equals
a complete black to white cycle or just the maximum possible
frequency (within the visible part of a scan line) where
the signal still reaches top (white) and bottom (black).
To get the same effect on a digitalized display you just
need f(max)*2 pixels - so if an analouge display is capable
of a horizontal resolution of 300 lines, it can display
600 pixels - or it needs a 600 pixel LCD to replace it.
Ouch!. Now I know why I can't stand those digital
cameras.
It's like VHS, DVD, or Windows - simplyfied and just fine
if you look at the average usage - reduced to the minimum
needed quality. For taking a snapshoot and show it to
your aunts - or publish it on your web site (basicly the
same thing ;) these cameras are quite good, since you will
have to reduce the resolution anyway, but while you can get
more aut of a real shot, you can't anhance you digital thing
beyond the starting point (in fact you can't do this with
a real photo either, but the inherent resolution is _way_
bigger than you need).
In fact, this is also why I don't like VHS - maybe good
enough compared to a noisy aired NTSC source, but just
crap, compared to an U-Max or V2000 (I still use V2000
tape machines - still equal to any S-VHS stuff after more
than 10 years of development ...). And of course the same
for DVD vs. Laserdisk.
Gruss
H.
--
Der Kopf ist auch nur ein Auswuchs wie der kleine Zeh.
H.Achternbusch
9:52 a.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Hans Franke wrote:
In fact, this is also why I don't like VHS - maybe
good
enough compared to a noisy aired NTSC source, but just
crap, compared to an U-Max or V2000 (I still use V2000
tape machines - still equal to any S-VHS stuff after more
than 10 years of development ...). And of course the same
for DVD vs. Laserdisk.
What is U-Max and V2000? I know what a Laserdisk player is, but I wasn't
aware that it was better than a DVD, just bigger diameter.
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
8:44 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/bd6d1c24/at…
16 Jul
16 Jul
9:20 a.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
U-max is possibly what we call U-matic, a Sony
semi-professional video
system. I don't know any more as I've not obtained a machine (yet!).
V2000 is/was a Philips (machines were also made by Grundig, but AFIAK the
standard was Philips) system. It was beautiful. For one thing tapes could
Sounds impressive. When did it disappear, and what do the tapes look like?
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
10:46 a.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Max Eskin
<max82(a)surfree.com> wrote:
I found a good WWW site about the various video standards:
http://www.popadom.demon.co.uk/vidhist/mainhall.htm
It's called "Total Rewind".
--
John Honniball
Email: John.Honniball(a)uwe.ac.uk
University of the West of England
V2000 is/was a
Philips (machines were also made by Grundig, but AFIAK the
standard was Philips) system. It was beautiful. For one thing tapes could
Sounds impressive. When did it disappear, and what do the tapes look like?
1:27 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 281 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/2d5cb984/at…
1:09 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
>V2000 is/was a Philips (machines were also made by
Grundig, but AFIAK the
>standard was Philips) system. It was beautiful. For one thing tapes could
Sounds impressive. When did it disappear, and what do
the tapes look like?
Mid 80's, VCRs have been available until 1988 in German shops,
you can still get (some) service from Grundig, Philips or Siemens.
The Cassettes have been just like VHS - same height and deep,
but about 5 cm wider - most notable, smooth corners, and a
lid that could be opened to both sides (needed, since they
where turnable like audio cassettes).
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
5:20 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 459 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/4266686c/at…
19 Jul
19 Jul
7:37 a.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
[V2000]
> The Cassettes have been just like VHS - same height and deep,
> but about 5 cm wider - most notable, smooth corners, and a
I've just held a V2000 cassette alongside a VHS
cassette. The thickness
is about the same. It's marginally deeper (front to back) - say about
5mm. And it's not as wide (again, about 5mm).
Errr... my fault - of course it should read mm.
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
16 Jul
16 Jul
1:10 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 762 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/4971a32f/at…
12:55 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
> >In fact, this is also why I don't like
VHS - maybe good
> >enough compared to a noisy aired NTSC source, but just
> >crap, compared to an U-Max or V2000 (I still use V2000
> >tape machines - still equal to any S-VHS stuff after more
> >than 10 years of development ...). And of course the same
> >for DVD vs. Laserdisk.
> What is U-Max and V2000? I know what a Laserdisk
player is, but I wasn't
U-max is possibly what we call U-matic, a Sony
semi-professional video
system. I don't know any more as I've not obtained a machine (yet!).
Shure, I was talking about U-Matic - sorry, but sometimes
there may be a synchronisation problem between brain and fingers.
V2000 is/was a Philips (machines were also made by
Grundig, but AFIAK the
standard was Philips) system. It was beautiful. For one thing tapes could
be turned over like audio cassettes. For another there was no control
track amd no tracking control. The video heads were mounted on
piezo-actuators and a fairly complex servo system caused them to follow
the video tracks on the tape, based on signals recorded on said tracks.
Since the heads can follow the tracks no matter what speed (within
reason) the tape is running at, you can have noise-free slow motion, fast
motion, still frame, etc.
Jep - faily correct description - The quality way _way_way_way_
better than VHS. There was no difference between a TV picture
or a V2000 taped movie, while VHS did perform _very_ poor -
at least when compared to the state founded (and PAL based)
TV system back in the 80s here in Germany.
Also cassettes with up to 8 hrs recording (4 on each side)
or 14 hrs low quality recording (still better than VHS).
Of course the price was quite a backdraw - a VCR unit was
always between 30 and 100% more than a corosponding VHS.
also the cassetes where more expensive _per_casette_.
I can't remember the bandwidth, but I think it was
better than normal VHS
(although probably not better than S-VHS).
I don't have it at hand, but AFAIR the guaranteed bandwidth
exeded the needed signal bandwidth (for TV) by some 40%.
And it's still enough to record even D2-MAC encoded (simple
widescreen TV signal) without any visible loss on the old
tapes (I have two old SIEMENS Video2000 VCRs) - funny part,
even the older one can even record the two chanel sound
signal, althrough sold long before the first public
transmissions of such a technique ...
And another subjetive impression: there is no visible
difference between a laser disk or a V2000 recording -
both can deliver more than the TV set will show.
But it makes up for that simplicity in the
electronics. There's a
dozen-or-so plug-in cards, 4 or 5 of them for the various servos. 2
microcontrollers (at a time when microcontrollers were not common in
consumer stuff). Looks possible to repair, though, and I have the manual.
Jep, they are heavy on electronics - maybe thats why they
always been to expensive. Anyway, what brand they are ?
If they are one of th common designs (the V2000 manufacturers
did share some of their designs), I may get schematics.
Gruss
H.
--
Der Kopf ist auch nur ein Auswuchs wie der kleine Zeh.
H.Achternbusch
1:46 p.m.
New subject: Old video collectors?
> > >In fact, this is also why I don't
like VHS - maybe good
> > >enough compared to a noisy aired NTSC source, but just
> > >crap, compared to an U-Max or V2000 (I still use V2000
Since this conversation has wandered in every other direction I thought I
would drop this info for consideration. The same place that has the HP
3000/series 950 about to head to the metal scrappers for lack of interest
has a fairly complete Umatic video editing rig (pair of decks, a couple
consoles, and 3 or so small monitors). Not too far from Disneyland in
SoCal, bring truck and a couple hundered bucks and maybe he will throw in
the effects boxes etc. Tripods and lights are gone already though.
BTW I think the brand on one of the decks is Umax.
5:17 p.m.
New subject: Video standards (was Re: digital cameras)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1435 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990716/0c939ab4/at…
9307
days inactive
9312
days old
24 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
John.Honniball＠uwe.ac.uk -
max82＠surfree.com -
mikeford＠netwiz.net