Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints

Ryadia wrote:

mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240
megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it
than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise,
either.

To be specific there is 'digital noise' on the print. Look near the flower
center, 3 O'clock position in the shaddow area. There are blocked up dark
orange on salmon colored areas. This -is- noise. It's visisble from about 18
inches away from the print.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Yes. I have to go compare these with detail from Cibachromes which I
won't have access to until late March.
Caveat, I have to sit down with the 20D print and really search, there
may be detail above what I stated.

Cheers,
Alan

Would you like me to send you some freshly made Illfochrome prints
(Cibachrome)from my RB67? I can scan the trannie on a Coolscan and use
my digital laser with a different paper holder to make the print.

I still have an old processing drum I can use to develop it. In fact the
Hibiscus are still in flower on the very same bush I shot the digital
pic on, I can't guarantee you the same flower but I sure as hell can
find a similar one. Of course the spider and it's web might not be
available.

Doug
Searching Google for the post you earlier asked for.

Ryadia wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:


Yes. I have to go compare these with detail from Cibachromes which I
won't have access to until late March.
Caveat, I have to sit down with the 20D print and really search, there
may be detail above what I stated.

Cheers,
Alan


Would you like me to send you some freshly made Illfochrome prints
(Cibachrome)from my RB67? I can scan the trannie on a Coolscan and use
my digital laser with a different paper holder to make the print.

Go ahead. Leave off the text. I'll sell them and send you a 10% commission.

(Don't bother).

By the above do you mean using a laser in lieu of a an ink print head to expose
the Ilfochrome paper? Same printer?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:


Go ahead. Leave off the text. I'll sell them and send you a 10%
commission.

(Don't bother).

By the above do you mean using a laser in lieu of a an ink print head to
expose the Ilfochrome paper? Same printer?

Cheers,
Alan

Well almost. I have a laser (well actually an LED) head for my chemical
lab printer. I could, in a pinch, use it to expose Illfochrome instead
of RA paper and process it in an old drum affair I still have left over
from the bad old days before I came out of the dark.

The results may not be any better than the prints I sent you. Certainly
there is no chance of the same consistency in the results.

Doug

Alan Browne writes:

Ryadia wrote:
Colin D wrote:

snip

A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
claims.

Colin
He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing
a final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live
with it mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image
resolution. 240 megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably
more detail in it than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of
it is digital noise, either.

I'm not sure how you set your printer but surely it was at at least
100 dpi, probably higher?

2 lp/mm - 4d/mm = 101.6 dpi

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Ryadia wrote:

Colin D wrote:

A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
claims.

Colin

He can measure all he likes, Colin. This is the reason for providing a
final print and not a file, even an image file on the 'net. Live with it
mate, the printer does 2 lp/mm, nothing to do with image resolution. 240
megabyte TIFF file before printing has considerably more detail in it
than the 4 meg file it started as... And none of it is digital noise,
either.

Lemme get this straight, Doug. You just said 'a 240 megabyte TIFF
file...' you are saying that you have upsized a 4 megabyte file to 240
megabytes, right? ok, lessee about some more math here. a 240 megabyte
uncompressed TIFF file has, by definition (assuming 8-bit color depth
at 3 bytes/pixel), 240/3 million pixels, that's 80 million pixels - up
from a 1.33 million pixel original. That means that each original pixel
has given rise to about 60 new pixels, and generated new detail as it
went.

Assuming for the sake of argument that is correct, then a 3:2 ratio
image from 80 megapixels will be about 7,300 x 11,000 pixels. Printing
this image at 600 x 900 mm will produce about 12 pixels/mm, or about 6
cycles/mm, all with genuine detail.

Forgive me if I say that I find this hard to believe, Doug.

How you derive your calculations is beyond my comprehension. But then so
is your navigation so I shouldn't be surprised what you come up with,
should I? Are you sure you have the right bait this time? Lures are said
to be better for trolling.

The math is easy. If you mean by 'navigation' that I don't know where
you reside, you're right - but it's a cheap shot because I said I
believe you're in Melbourne. If you're not, then I was wrong, and it's
nothing to do with navigation.

Colin

Colin D wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

Colin D wrote:


A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
claims.



Lemme get this straight, Doug.


Colin

Colin,
Unfortunate you thought it a cheap shot but it seemed to fit the flavor
of this group and the people who post here. Making assumptions without
basis.

The History of this thread goes back much further than just the first
post. Alan Browne has in the past attempted to ridicule me. Has refused
to accept anything I've said without backup evidence and told me I'm
full of crap and now, you seem to be displaying his attitude. Is it to
do with cold climates, by any chance?

It's not my fault if you can't see the gallery of prints I have on
display. I would have thought it was sufficient for a 3rd partys to have
voiced their opinion after seeing them... Seemingly not for the very
vocal Alan Browne so...

I sent Alan (at my own expense) 2, 600x900 prints and a mini disc
containing the original 20D file. I also sent a duplicate package to a
photographer of his choice (Gordon Moat). One print from a 20D and the
other from a 10D. To provide him with some visual evidence that I could
in fact enlarge a digital image from one of these cameras *and* with a
not so great lens and it would be at least as good as a print made from
a medium format transparency scanned on a Nikon Coolscan.

The reason for sending a duplicate to someone he had faith in was to
keep him honest. It seems to me that this was a wise move now that he is
is seeking to change the judgment criteria for comparing the quality of
the print to an Illfochrome (Cibachrome) and now not just from a MF
trannie but a 6x9 size too. No doubt about it, is there? Give some of
you geeks an abacus and you'll try and compare it to big blue.

One of the prints I sent him does indeed originate from a 240 meg file.
I initially printed it 52 inches wide as a demonstration for a
Government investigator. It is conceivable that the image underwent some
unpredictable change when I simply resized it rather than recalculated
the original file. I simply didn't feel like buggerising around with a
$250 freebie, OK?

Alan Browne would have more success counting the number of letters in
his name than trying to figure out how many lines per millimeter the
source file of a photographic print has. Certainly he might be able to
measure the file I sent him, it is the original camera file but measure
lpm of an image in a print made up of nano dots from a source I spent
more time obfuscating the data on that interpolating it? I'd like to see
that one happen.

And incidently... If he has to use a loupe to check the detail, how good
a print is it? You can't see all of a 900mm wide object at arms length
so why would you try to view it through a loupe if it wasn't to find
microscopic faults to criticize?

The only purpose of sending a print instead of giving him a file is to
prevent him or anyone else from closely examining the file and
discovering a great deal of how my process actually works. Don't think
I'm going to respond to your attempts to discover something I'm
attempting to conceal anytime soon either.

Doug

Ryadia wrote:

Colin D wrote:


Ryadia wrote:

Colin D wrote:


A 20D image printed at 2 lp/mm will be about 600mm x 900mm. Therefore,
if your observation of no more than 2 lp/mm can be seen on the print,
then there has been no detail added when upsizing the image, as Ryadia
claims.



Lemme get this straight, Doug.



Colin


Colin,
Unfortunate you thought it a cheap shot but it seemed to fit the flavor
of this group and the people who post here. Making assumptions without
basis.

The History of this thread goes back much further than just the first
post. Alan Browne has in the past attempted to ridicule me. Has refused
to accept anything I've said without backup evidence and told me I'm
full of crap and now, you seem to be displaying his attitude. Is it to
do with cold climates, by any chance?

It's not my fault if you can't see the gallery of prints I have on
display. I would have thought it was sufficient for a 3rd partys to have
voiced their opinion after seeing them... Seemingly not for the very
vocal Alan Browne so...

I sent Alan (at my own expense) 2, 600x900 prints and a mini disc
containing the original 20D file. I also sent a duplicate package to a
photographer of his choice (Gordon Moat). One print from a 20D and the
other from a 10D. To provide him with some visual evidence that I could
in fact enlarge a digital image from one of these cameras *and* with a
not so great lens and it would be at least as good as a print made from
a medium format transparency scanned on a Nikon Coolscan.

The reason for sending a duplicate to someone he had faith in was to
keep him honest. It seems to me that this was a wise move now that he is
is seeking to change the judgment criteria for comparing the quality of
the print to an Illfochrome (Cibachrome) and now not just from a MF
trannie but a 6x9 size too. No doubt about it, is there? Give some of
you geeks an abacus and you'll try and compare it to big blue.

Go read the excahnges Doug, 6x7 Pentax Cibas was the mentioned a long time
ago... stop changing history.



Alan Browne would have more success counting the number of letters in
his name than trying to figure out how many lines per millimeter the

So much for civility, eh Doug?

source file of a photographic print has. Certainly he might be able to
measure the file I sent him, it is the original camera file but measure
lpm of an image in a print made up of nano dots from a source I spent
more time obfuscating the data on that interpolating it? I'd like to see
that one happen.

The printed image does have more "fill" information than the original sensor
could possibly take. That's a result of your patented technique filling in all
those megs for the printer. That does NOT give you any more resolved detail
than the original image. You do have a relatively smooth and low noise result,
but the detail remains limited by the original sensor.

Your technique also reveals its limitations in the other image with its crappy
edge definition and contrast. On a 'soft' image like the flower, fine, on hard
details like the engine photo, not so great.

And incidently... If he has to use a loupe to check the detail, how good
a print is it? You can't see all of a 900mm wide object at arms length
so why would you try to view it through a loupe if it wasn't to find
microscopic faults to criticize?

Doug, Doug, Doug, Stop putting the wrong motive to an action. I was using the
loupe to look for actual printed line resolution, not as a means of looking at
the photo proper. And, as stated, I don't need a loupe to see the noise that is
present in the image.


The only purpose of sending a print instead of giving him a file is to
prevent him or anyone else from closely examining the file and
discovering a great deal of how my process actually works. Don't think
I'm going to respond to your attempts to discover something I'm
attempting to conceal anytime soon either.

This is strange Doug. You claim the technique is patented which requires that
you divulge how it is done publicly. So why are you "attempting to conceal" it?

Quote:
"Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a portion of
a file my patented algorythm has altered." --From: Ryadia )
Subject: Finally did it! Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Date: 2005-01-21 15:58:10 PST

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan, Alan, Alan...
-------

Civility? Since when have you ever shown anyone any? Tell me I'm full of
crap because I contradicted your claim a print from MF film, scanned on
a Nikon scanner could not be equaled by a digital and then sent you the
evidence it can. Nice one Alan.

So now the prints I sent you which "are gorgeous in color and detail"
(your words)have suddenly become crappy and full of digital noise? You
should buy some toilet paper Alan, it's much softer than photo paper.
The A model ford engine you said was "gorgeous" must have been printed
with morphing ink, for it to become a "crappy" picture so soon eh? Hey,
maybe I used morphing noise too? Better keep your eye on the loupe.

The bit I have never figured out about you is how you can so forcefully
make such outrageously wrong statements about a subject you have no
experience with and then gain enough knowledge of it along the way to
argue out of the bog you got yourself into in the first place. It
doesn't work when you come against the developer with your totally wrong
and baseless bull****.

Get a digital camera Alan, learn about it's data handling and take some
pictures with it before you start telling experienced users what they
can and cannot do with one.

How can you goad someone with the statement of a medium format film
scanned on a Nikon Coolscan being able to produce "better prints" than a
digital SLR and then when confronted with proof you were wrong, try to
change the comparison to a Cibachrome print and 6x9 Transparency film?
What happened to the Nikon Scanner? Maybe it was a morphing scanner?
Changed into Durst enlarger perhaps? You think I'm strange. Looked in
the mirror lately?

My stance on secrecy is no different to Microsoft's or any other
developer with work in progress. Finding the balance between proof and
protection of IP is and never will be easy.

Doug



Alan Browne wrote:

This is strange Doug. You claim the technique is patented which
requires that you divulge how it is done publicly. So why are you
"attempting to conceal" it?

Quote:
"Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a
portion of
a file my patented algorythm has altered." --From: Ryadia
)
Subject: Finally did it! Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Date: 2005-01-21 15:58:10 PST

Cheers,
Alan

Ryadia wrote:

Colin,
Unfortunate you thought it a cheap shot but it seemed to fit the flavor
of this group and the people who post here. Making assumptions without
basis.
Ok. I guess it's not hard to amalgamate variable attitudes between
posters into a composite attitude against you, but although I have never
had any personal problems with Alan, that doesn't mean I parallel his
views. I try to work in a non-judgmental manner. I will say what I think
about a subject, but I don't denigrate the subjectee (if that's a
word). My original mistake about your domicile was made in a genuine
offer to come and view your prints when my wife and I will be in
Melbourne, Australia, from 27 March to 10 April. However, your reply
about needing a big bus ride of about 500k's, without specifying where
to, I found a bit flippant and somewhat evasive, given that you had said
you would welcome visitors, so the idea was dropped.

The History of this thread goes back much further than just the first
post. Alan Browne has in the past attempted to ridicule me. Has refused
to accept anything I've said without backup evidence and told me I'm
full of crap and now, you seem to be displaying his attitude. Is it to
do with cold climates, by any chance?
Refer remarks about composite attitudes above. I have not said that you
are full of crap, or anything like it What I have said is, I find it
hard to believe, a genuine remark pending further information in the
form of seeing a print (which Alan has done). To clarify further, Alan
is free to say what he wants, but remember he said it, not me.

It's not my fault if you can't see the gallery of prints I have on
display. I would have thought it was sufficient for a 3rd partys to have
voiced their opinion after seeing them... Seemingly not for the very
vocal Alan Browne so...
Again, don't confuse me with Alan. It's nobody's fault that I haven't
seen your gallery. I would like to see your gallery. I made an
international offer to visit your gallery, but you replied evasively, in
my estimation.

I sent Alan (at my own expense) 2, 600x900 prints and a mini disc
containing the original 20D file. I also sent a duplicate package to a
photographer of his choice (Gordon Moat). One print from a 20D and the
other from a 10D. To provide him with some visual evidence that I could
in fact enlarge a digital image from one of these cameras *and* with a
not so great lens and it would be at least as good as a print made from
a medium format transparency scanned on a Nikon Coolscan.

The reason for sending a duplicate to someone he had faith in was to
keep him honest. It seems to me that this was a wise move now that he is
is seeking to change the judgment criteria for comparing the quality of
the print to an Illfochrome (Cibachrome) and now not just from a MF
trannie but a 6x9 size too. No doubt about it, is there? Give some of
you geeks an abacus and you'll try and compare it to big blue.
I'm not too happy about the 'geek' epithet, the rest does not apply to
me or my previous post.

One of the prints I sent him does indeed originate from a 240 meg file.
I initially printed it 52 inches wide as a demonstration for a
Government investigator. It is conceivable that the image underwent some
unpredictable change when I simply resized it rather than recalculated
the original file. I simply didn't feel like buggerising around with a
$250 freebie, OK?
Doug, I took your statement about a 240 MB file at face value. I did
some simple, non-geek calculations about pixels and cycles/mm, and
concluded that I found it hard to believe. That doesn't mean I think
you're lying, or mistaken. It means I don't have sufficient information
to justify a belief in something I haven't seen.

snip irrelevant material

The only purpose of sending a print instead of giving him a file is to
prevent him or anyone else from closely examining the file and
discovering a great deal of how my process actually works. Don't think
I'm going to respond to your attempts to discover something I'm
attempting to conceal anytime soon either.

Your imputation that I'm attempting to discover your secret process is
unwarranted and argumentative. I have expressed a difficulty in
believing what you say you can do. On the face of it, inventing new
detail in 59 times the pixels from the detail in an original image file
sounds impossible. Every rational person would adopt that initial
stance, until they saw for themselves.
Unless something new arises in this thread, I have no more to say.

Colin