If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
RichA wrote:
Good thing they have lots of "Leaf" lenses to do it with. Hah hah ahah ! As Alan has mentioned, this system can use the lenses designed for the 6008i series of cameras. So, there are a full range of lenses available. Neil None of them actually made by Leaf. They can't take on Hasselblad, or Phase, or..... All of them having a leaf shutter... By the way: none of the lenses you can put on a Hasselblad camera are made by Hasselblad. Perhaps that could be a reason too why Hasselblad can't take on Hasselblad either? ;-) Hasselblad is a direct competitor of Leaf, and vice cersa, since the Hasselblad H-cameras too are no more than a platform to take Imablad digital backs. In a similar way, Sinar and Leaf commissioned Franke and Heidecke to build a platform for their respective digital backs. The Hasselblad camera takes Fujinon lenses. The Leaf camera takes Zeiss or Schneider lenses. And both use Kodak (Leaf's owner) sensors. ;-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Scott W wrote:
In fact, it is relevant information, pure information, image information. Whereas you need additional information, irrelevant, non-image information, information about the compression algorithm, to compress and (more importantly) decompress compressed information. Let me give a very simple case, take a string of 1,000,000 1s, that may be a lot of data, but very little information in all those 1s. Let me explain another way. How many bytes are used to store information is one thing. Te thing however is that the value, the information content, in your example above is 1,000,000. All 9 digits used to describe/hold that bit of information indeed contain information. You can perhaps use less storage to hold that same information (increase the information per bit density), but the full "1,000,000" still is "information content". Not something that remains, forms a "rest", besides "information content". ;-) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Neil Gould wrote:
For that matter, the camera isn't made by Leaf, either. It's made by Franke & Heidecke, recognized as "Rolleiflex" at other points in history, hence the use of lenses compatible with the Rolleiflex 6008i, their previous generation camera. It wouldn't take much study on your part to gain an understanding of this, rather than post more misinformation. Uhm... Rolleiflex goes with the Rollei company, the direct descendant of Franke and Heidecke, and a company that still exists today. Rollei no longer make Rolleiflex cameras (or do they still?). But the Franke and Heidecke company of today, the engineering company do. They also produce the Sinar/Leaf thing. Yet they are neither Rollei nor the Franke and Heidecke of yesteryears. Should therefor not be "recognized as". |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
RichA wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:52 am, "Neil Gould" wrote: Richard wrote: "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... Hasselblad are not alone with a 50 Mpix MF... Good thing they have lots of "Leaf" lenses to do it with. Hah hah ahah ! As Alan has mentioned, this system can use the lenses designed for the 6008i series of cameras. So, there are a full range of lenses available. None of them actually made by Leaf. They can't take on Hasselblad, or Phase, or..... For that matter, the camera isn't made by Leaf, either. It's made by Franke & Heidecke, recognized as "Rolleiflex" at other points in history, hence the use of lenses compatible with the Rolleiflex 6008i, their previous generation camera. It wouldn't take much study on your part to gain an understanding of this, rather than post more misinformation. The bottom line is that these companies are direct competitors in the photographic marketplace, and have been for many decades. -- Neil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
____ wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote: So, when I used dpi, above to describe how many pixels I get off of a film scanned at so many dpi, you still complain? C'mon John! Cheers, Alan When you bring the scanned image into photoshop the dimensions say (x) pixels by (y) pixels not x dpi by y dpi..... thats a function of your printer and unfortunately your scanner software. Actually, when you bring the image into Photoshop, it will report both x by y pixels and the resolution in ppi. Since dpi has been historically associated with ppi because the application of the terms is identical, there is no valid reason for confusion, and even less for the misinformation that is being presented in this thread. Dot gain is a non-issue w/r/t the ppi (or dpi) of the image, and neither cameras nor scanners capture "dots" in any case. -- Neil |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote: If you can't understand what is meant by dpi in this standard usage/meaning, you really shouldn't be posting in a photo forum; your mind just isn't up to the task. I am quite surprised by this, David J., coming from one who is generally solid and doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight. My dog in this fight is that I object to stupid obnoxious pedantic lecturing, especially when it's basically wrong. As it is in this case, since Alan was talking about scanning, were dpi is the standard term. Well, as I hope you've seen by now, it wasn't wrong, and if you think using correct terminology is pedantic, so be it. Yes, DPI is used a lot in scanning, but the results are always pixels, expressed as ppi. Clear now? -- john mcwilliams |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Neil Gould wrote:
Not really. Pixels per inch (ppi) has no meaning that isn't communicated equally well as dpi. Both describe an abstraction that has nothing to do with the image itself, as a digital image only contains a matrix of pixels that have no size. Not quite the image itself, no. That only has pixels. But with the processes of scanning and printing. A scanner is able to produce only a certain number of pixels per unit of length or width. The pixel size of the image is limited/determined by that. So the PPI of a scanner has indeed something to do with the image. But only until it is scanned. A print consists of dots of ink, thrown, or transferred onto a bit of paper. There too the machinery involved and technique it uses is setting limits to what the picture it produces can be. It has very much to do with the image itself. Whereas a pixel is a pixel, a dot is not a pixel. How much dots make up a pixel is determined by the print technology. So PPI and DPI are not (!) interchangeable. However... the incorrect usage of both terms is already so widespread that... On the other hand, we have managed very well to get rid of the silly use of the word "prime". I, for one, are hard working trying to irradicate the use of "mirror lock up" when pre-release is meant. And would you believe it, signs are beginning to show that people take notice! So why not try to set this "dpi" thing straight too? ;-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Neil Gould wrote:
Hmmm. This smacks of the pedantry of the "dpi" discussion. ;-) Uhmmm... Yep! ;-) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Q.G. de Bakker (yes, that's me) wrote:
I, for one, are hard working trying to irradicate the use of Those too-big-words again... 'eradicate', of course. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: Q.G. de Bakker (yes, that's me) wrote: I, for one, are hard working trying to irradicate the use of Those too-big-words again... 'eradicate', of course. Since you are trying and doing well! I will add that the phrase: I, for one "R" hard working, is a plural use when an exact use phrase - I for one, am hard working (or best) - hard at work to eradicate -sounds better. -- Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Walt Hanks | Digital SLR Cameras | 56 | April 12th 05 08:43 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Walt Hanks | Digital Photography | 89 | April 2nd 05 09:27 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Walt Hanks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 79 | April 2nd 05 09:27 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 0 | April 1st 05 06:22 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 1st 05 06:22 AM |