Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,714   Posts: 1,483,032   Online: 770
      
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 111

Thread: Perez

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,265
    People upgrade their phones all the time. Getting them to switch to film is another story entirely.

  2. #32
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,421
    Images
    104
    41 megapixel is around the same capability with 25000 dollar Leica body. Amazing ! I can put it to the back of a frosted glass of a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and take amazing bw images. I am thinking for a long time to buy a scanner linear array with card , battery and memory altogether 10 dollars from Sony and Wrap around pinhole anamorphic camera and scan slow and record gigapixel image.

  3. #33
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,421
    Images
    104
    And when the digital cameras around 4 megapixel , someone offering a free software to stitch hundreds parts of a arizona scene and make gigapixel image. I will never go to Arizona , mountain , desert or forest or nude models house and 4 dollars per roll is the most economic to me.
    But that linear array is in my dreams.

  4. #34
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,547
    Images
    14
    Mustafa for prez I say

  5. #35
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,714
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Tests at Kodak when the PhotoCD was being developed said that a 35mm image (including the results of the optical system) had about 16 megapixels. This would mean that to get 5000 megapixels, the film image would have to be 19 x 24 inches and the camera optical system would have to have 35mm camera quality.
    Fred, I think that you are right here. This is due to the pixel size of about 10 microns right now which is close to the grain size in 400 or 800 films. But, did the study look at the optics of a digital camera? Did it compare anything to MF or LF cameras? And, most importantly, did the test factor in the effects of aliasing introduced by the side-by-side pixels?

    All of the questions I raise offset the absolute nature of what you have stated, which is right AFAIK.

    PE

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    897
    Ron, the test looked at the system response (film plus optical system), since it was done to set resolution aims for the PhotoCD System I doubt they looked at the optics of a digital camera or compared anything to MF or LF cameras. Note that the Professional PhotoCD went up to 64 Base (25 megapixels).


    Now that I think about it a bit, I think the test said that normal consumer 35mm images contained about 6 megapixels of information due to things like focus errors, camera shake, flare, etc. - this was the 16 Base resolution on the regular PhotoCD. The 16 megapixel value was base on the resolving power of a film (don't remember what film).

  7. #37
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,421
    Images
    104
    Mr.Fred,

    If we scan an 16megapixel film to 50 megabyte , where the information comes from ?

    Thank you,
    Umut

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    Mr.Fred,

    If we scan an 16megapixel film to 50 megabyte , where the information comes from ?

    Thank you,
    Umut
    A 16 megaPIXEL image will be 48 megaBYTES in size.

    It is possible to overscan a film image which contributes nothing to image quality and, in fact, may reduce image quality by adding non-image related 'noise'.

  9. #39
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,421
    Images
    104
    And photo cd ,I gave my last 48 hours on learning about video codecs. With greatest possibility , photo cd was recording with YUV 4.2.2 codec.
    The ideal is 444 codec and canon video slrs are using 4.2.0 codec.
    YUV records 3 things , bw image , red and blue image. Computer finds the green from remaining.
    At 444 , HD system uses it , there is YUV record per pixel.
    At 4.4.2 system , photo cd is using it , more than % 35 of color information throwed.
    At 420 system , system throw away % 50 of color information.

    If photo cd records with 422 and records 48mb , the ideal is around 70 mb.

    Umut

  10. #40
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,421
    Images
    104
    A 16 megaPIXEL image will be 48 megaBYTES in size
    Thank you.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin