Is the EPSON 4990 really 16 bit?

[Kennedy McEwen]

Here's a real example (one of the worst situations
though):

Late afternoon, you find the street back where you wanted to go take
some pictures - and it's pouring with rain, under a very heavily cloded
sky; teh street is narrow, lined with multi-story buildings and some
trees. There's a film in the camera, nowhere near full. I'm not planning
to shoot a whole roll of film in that one street anyway. No tripod or
even monopod. And by tomorrow I'll be hundreds of kilometers away.

What would you do?

Years ago I would note the number of exposures on the film in the
camera. Wind it back into the canister, feeling for the end of the
spool - its easy to avoid winding all the way back once you know what
you are feeling for. Write "X-shots" on the canister. Load up a roll of
faster film. Set maximum shutter speed and fit lens cap. Wind film on
1 shot beyond "X" if this is part exposed roll. Remove lens cap, adjust
shutter and shoot at correct exposure, obtaining good results as opposed
to barely adequate underexposed ones.

In the past 20 years though I would fit the lens to a second or third
camera body loaded with faster film and shoot with that.

These days, I would just crank up the speed on the dSLR. ;-)

I did that *once*. Carried two bodies (actually two sets, both with two
lenses), and extra, faster film loaded in the other body. And indeed it
did enable me to take some pictures I would not otherwise have been able
to take.

But I said: no more. If you're traveling around for a whole month, with
limitations on the amount of weight that can be carried on international
flights and even stricter limits on what can be carried on internal
flights,

That was one of the major considerations way back in the 1970s when I
heavily bought into the Olympus OM system - two fully functional bodies
for the same weight as one Canon or Nikon. And the lenses and
accessories were all smaller and lighter too. Even today, although I
only need and have one Canon dSLR body, the all-up digital system weight
is much more than its equivalent multi-bodied Olympus OM film system.

and with extra rolls of film since you don't know beforehand
which speed you're going to need, or how much of it, all wrapped in
heavy lead-lined bags because X-ray machines on big international
airports may be trusted these days but those on small internal ones in
third-world countries may not

But a misunderstanding - contrary to popular belief and marketing hype,
lead lined bags enhance the damage from X-ray scanners, not protect
against it, so it is worthless weight to add and carry on trips. All
scanners have a variable X-ray dosage and default to the lowest level
necessary to provide an adequate image through typical luggage. If the
operator sees something he cannot identify - a big white block - he will
rescan the entire item with a higher dose until he can see through it.
Older scanners require this to be done manually, more modern ones
increase the X-rays automatically to avoid whiteouts. Now that doesn't
just mean your film just gets a double scan of X-rays, it doesn't even
mean the film gets the same X-ray exposure as it would without the lead
lined bag, it means it gets more than *twice* the exposure it would if
left unprotected in your luggage. This is because the machine has to
provide enough X-rays to penetrate the lead bag to reach the film
canisters and then penetrate the lead on the other side to reach the
sensor with enough SNR to form an image! So, as far as the film is
concerned, lead bags increase their exposure to X-rays from airport
scanner significantly, they don't protect them.

Lead bags do have their uses, but the main reason they are bought isn't
one of them. Get a transparent, resealable, plastic sandwich bag. Put
your film in that, together with a couple of ISO 1600-3200 canisters
(since no scanner is safe for that speed) and ask for it to be hand
checked. Less weight and a lot less fogging.

... that's a LOT of extra weight to carry
around. And I must be able to carry it all by myself, and I do mean
*carry*, maybe walking a few kilometers to teh nearest bus station.

Everything is a compromise

Maybe you should be thinking your strategy through a little better, both
in choice of burden and the compromises you are making. These days
there is no need to be underexposing film in any situation, and even in
the past it was at best a dubious practice.

Sure. I know that. That's the theory.

You should know its more than theory.

And *carried* all of that gear, plus luggage for 1 - 2 month's worth
travelling in wildly different temperatures, for up to a few kilometers?

Somehow I don't think so...

You think wrong then. ;-)

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

[posted and mailed]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in

Years ago I would note the number of exposures on the film in the
camera. Wind it back into the canister, feeling for the end of the
spool - its easy to avoid winding all the way back once you know what
you are feeling for. Write "X-shots" on the canister. Load up a roll of
faster film. Set maximum shutter speed and fit lens cap. Wind film on
1 shot beyond "X" if this is part exposed roll. Remove lens cap, adjust
shutter and shoot at correct exposure, obtaining good results as opposed
to barely adequate underexposed ones.

The second half I can do - but I don't know of any way to roll back film
safely without access to a dark room. Once my camera starts spooling back
it goes all the way inside the canister.

But a misunderstanding - contrary to popular belief and marketing
hype, lead lined bags enhance the damage from X-ray scanners, not
protect against it, so it is worthless weight to add and carry on
trips.

Huh? How do you explain that? They certainly stop X-rays going through,
given how often I have to open my carry-on bag and show what's inside.

All scanners have a variable X-ray dosage and default to the lowest
level necessary to provide an adequate image through typical luggage.

Correct that to "All current scanners". The ones you find at little
airports (or train stations, for that matter) in third-world countries are
generally old, very old - the ones that are no longer fit to be used at
teh large international airposrt in Western countries, at least partly
because the dosages are so high.

If the operator sees something he cannot identify - a big white block
- he will rescan the entire item with a higher dose until he can see
through it. Older scanners require this to be done manually, more
modern ones increase the X-rays automatically to avoid whiteouts.

I nearly *always* have to open my bag - that doesn't fit your description.
The bags stop plenty of radiation, even in th4 old machines (!), that they
can't see through.

Now that doesn't just mean your film just gets a double scan of
X-rays, it doesn't even mean the film gets the same X-ray exposure as
it would without the lead lined bag, it means it gets more than
*twice* the exposure it would if left unprotected in your luggage.
This is because the machine has to provide enough X-rays to penetrate
the lead bag to reach the film canisters and then penetrate the lead
on the other side to reach the sensor with enough SNR to form an
image!

Then how do you explain that they can't see through? Even the old mahines
don't provide "enough" to see through.

So, as far as the film is concerned, lead bags increase their exposure
to X-rays from airport scanner significantly, they don't protect them.

Maybe with the modern machines - but that's usually not *most* machines my
films are passing through.

ask for it to be hand checked.

Many airports don't do this, period. Even if you can make yourself
understandable to an operator who doesn't speak English or French.

Maybe you should be thinking your strategy through a little better, both
in choice of burden and the compromises you are making. These days
there is no need to be underexposing film in any situation, and even in
the past it was at best a dubious practice.

Without adding more to the weight to be carried? How?

You think wrong then. ;-)

You must be a lot stronger than me then. And not been hampered by weight
limits imposed by airlines either.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Roger S. ([email protected]) wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Consider supplementing your main film camera with a digital P&S like
the Fuji F10- with adjustable ISO (up to 1600) and a zoom lens, it
will help you in situations like that, and the quality should be a
heck of a lot better than neg. film underexposed 2 stops and blow away
your camera phone.

That sounds like a reasonably practical approach, given that I've
already discovered I can use my camera phone in (some) low-light
situations.

How much weight would that add? Oh, I just found that
(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/) - they say 200g with
batteries (but I'd need extra batteries, of course, and it probably
doesn't include the weight of the recharger!). Just about the weight I
am saving with my one camera phone instead of phone + address book +
walkman + radio + alarm clock.

Add to that, of course, something to download images to, which would be
more extra weight (and batteries, and possibly an extra recharger).

Still, it does sound feasible (just). I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

 

[Surfer!]

Roger S. ([email protected]) wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


That sounds like a reasonably practical approach, given that I've
already discovered I can use my camera phone in (some) low-light
situations.

How much weight would that add? Oh, I just found that
(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/) - they say 200g with
batteries (but I'd need extra batteries, of course, and it probably
doesn't include the weight of the recharger!). Just about the weight I
am saving with my one camera phone instead of phone + address book +
walkman + radio + alarm clock.

Add to that, of course, something to download images to, which would be
more extra weight (and batteries, and possibly an extra recharger).

Memory cards are very small, very light and don't need a battery -
remember it's a backup, not your mainstay.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

rafe b (rafebATspeakeasy.net) wrote in

That's easy. Shoot digital.

Not all *that* easy, but Roger's idea of using a p&s digital camera with
good ISO adjustment as a backup might *just* be feasible (Though I suspect
taking all bits of gear needed into account I'd end up nearer 750-1000g
than just the 200g for the camera+battery).

In fact, had I known *then* what the actual capabilities of my camera
phone are I might have tried to shoot the scene with that (at least if I'd
had an umbrella!) - but it was brand-new just before I went on that trip:
I didn't then what I know now.

 

[Roger S.]

I don't know how long you'll be on the road, but I doubt you'll need to
download images, and you may not need to recharge. A 1GB card would
fit a lot of jpegs. If you're worried about backups, photo shops along
the way should enable you to burn CDs from the card. This is much
easier to carry than a backup SLR body which needs lenses and film and
batteries to function.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Roger S. ([email protected]) wrote in

I don't know how long you'll be on the road, but I doubt you'll need
to download images, and you may not need to recharge.

Normally a month at least - in 2004 it was 65 days, last year 5.5 weeks.
A good backup should be able to replace the "regular" camera completely.
Seeing they mention 500 shots on a battery charge (and that's of course
an average) that won't be enough - so I'd need a spare fully-charged
battery (or more) or a loader. At least spare battery/ies because I
never count on having a power supply (experience: I've seen too many
video camera owners not being able to shoot because there simply wasn't
a power outlet for a week or power only for a few hours in the evening,
not enough for a full recharge...) Then there's the "termimal" thingy
that's needed to attach anything external to this interesting camera -
which of course would also have its own weight.

If you're worried about backups, photo shops along
the way should enable you to burn CDs from the card.

Haha. Photo shops. I like the "should be". ;-)

They may occasionally be found in big cities. (In 2004 we had quite a
jhob finding a photo shop that carried APS cartridges for my friend's
camera - she could not take any pictures for several days - partly my
fault because she was inspired by me to take more pictures than she had
expected!) I certainly didn't see any photo shops in Tibetan villages.
Or in Kyrgyzstan. Or...
Then again, photo shops may be about numerous as Internet cafes (larger
cities only) - which sometimes also have a facility for burning CDs.
(Same year, another travel mate had considerable trouble to find places
where he could burn a CD though - or even Internet cafes where he could
use a USB connection to upload images.) But I don't like the feeling of
depending totally on (expensive) memory cards or upload or CD-burning
facilities, so I'd like to take at least a small portable drive to
download photos to. As a backup for the backup camera. But it _is_
extra weight.

This is much easier to carry than a backup SLR body which needs lenses
and film and batteries to function.

Definitely - that's why using a small but capable digital P&S as backup
(in the same way I sometimes used a compact camera with built-in flash
as backup and for faster film) appeals to me. But I need to look at all
the bits and pieces needed for a backup system - and their total weight
- not just the weight of camera+battery: it's not the in-hand weight
that counts but total weight as part of my luggage.

An extra possible complication I need to look at is the behavior of a
digital camera in very high (or low) temperatures and high humidity.
(The very reason I took along my Olympus as spare for my Canon EOS that
one time was that we were going to be in the rain forest in the rainy
season in summer - exactly the circumstances where electronics (even an
analog autofocus camera) may pack up. So waterproof bags and little bags
of silicagel were also part of my kit that time. The Canon performed
flawlessly, but I was very, very careful.) I'm reading stories of
digital cameras not being reliable in high temperatures of high humidity
now.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

The second half I can do - but I don't know of any way to roll back film
safely without access to a dark room. Once my camera starts spooling back
it goes all the way inside the canister.

Touch and feel - easy unless you are using one of those confounded motor
drives that rewind film as well: but then, you are complaining about
weight, so I am sure you have a manual wind/rewind capability rather
than all that additional weight as well as the batteries. ;-)

Huh? How do you explain that? They certainly stop X-rays going through,
given how often I have to open my carry-on bag and show what's inside.

Only if it is an older machine and the operator doesn't wind up the
power level - as they should. Manual checking is the last resort, for
simple safety reasons.

Correct that to "All current scanners".

No - *all* scanners - from the very first X-ray baggage scanner ever
introduced. It may require manual operation to rescan at the higher
level, but they all have a variable X-ray power.

how do you explain that they can't see through? Even the old mahines
don't provide "enough" to see through.

That is down to training and operator mood - maybe you just smile at
them and they like to detain you a little longer. ;-) Seriously
though, a manual search is usually the last thing they do, and usually
only after something that resembles a banned object has been found. The
white blob just gets a power boost until it is no longer white.

Many airports don't do this, period. Even if you can make yourself
understandable to an operator who doesn't speak English or French.

I have never had a problem making that understood in any language. In
fact, the only airport that has actually ever refused to hand check film
for me was London, Heathrow - about 3 days after Richard Reid passed
through with blue touch-paper for shoelaces!

Without adding more to the weight to be carried? How?

You must be a lot stronger than me then. And not been hampered by weight
limits imposed by airlines either.

There are no practical weight limits - only a weight included in the
ticket price limit. ;-)

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in

Touch and feel - easy unless you are using one of those confounded
motor drives that rewind film as well: but then, you are complaining
about weight, so I am sure you have a manual wind/rewind capability
rather than all that additional weight as well as the batteries. ;-)

No motor drive. Rewind is a little recessed button (so you don't
accidentally hit it) - once activated it rewinds the film all the way -
period. No other option. Canon EOS 5 - and this is one of my minor
niggles with a camera I otherwise love.

Only if it is an older machine and the operator doesn't wind up the
power level - as they should. Manual checking is the last resort, for
simple safety reasons.

It's precisely older X-ray machines I am talking about - our cast-offs
now stationed on smaller local airports and train stations in
third-world countries. It's those machines why I use lead-lined bags.

That is down to training and operator mood - maybe you just smile at
them and they like to detain you a little longer. ;-) Seriously
though, a manual search is usually the last thing they do, and usually
only after something that resembles a banned object has been found.
The white blob just gets a power boost until it is no longer white.

Actually, in my eperience, the manual search is something they do
routinely with my bags, and as a apolicy with *everyone's* bags on quite
a few airports now (after x-ray scanning).

I have never had a problem making that understood in any language. In
fact, the only airport that has actually ever refused to hand check
film for me was London, Heathrow - about 3 days after Richard Reid
passed through with blue touch-paper for shoelaces!

So your experience is different from mine. It's a simple matter of
policy and or instruction (weven if I can get myself understood):
everything goes through the scanner, period. This is so common I've
given up trying.

There are no practical weight limits - only a weight included in the
ticket price limit. ;-)

On some planes you may be able to pay for overweight (through the nose).
On some (small) planes they will simply not transport you and your
luggage because overweight is a serious security risk. Weight limits are
very real and practical in some circumstances. Have you ever crossed the
Andes in a small plane?

 

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

For turning off the complete rewind of the film, see the Eos 5 custom
functions at this page:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/EOScf.htm#5

Lots of other interesting functions too. I have the same camera, btw.
Nice camera, but pretty big compared to my old X-700.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen (ole-
hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com) wrote in

For turning off the complete rewind of the film, see the Eos 5 custom
functions at this page:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/EOScf.htm#5

Lots of other interesting functions too.

Thanks for that! (Back to the manual... I find I'm forgetting how to use
functions that I even know exist but rarely need - and this one I didn't
know about, or maybe never really noticed.)

I have the same camera, btw. Nice camera, but pretty big compared to
my old X-700.

I "upgraded" from a Canon EOS 620, mainly to get access to a built-in
flash (I have a SpeedLite external flash, but rarely use it because it
simply adds too much extra weight when travelling. And indeed, I do use
the built-in one, occasionally.)

I have an Olympus OM-1 but never felt quite comfortable with it - don't
know why, really. And though the Canon EOSs are bigger and heavier,
they're more stable in my small hands, allowing even one-handed
operation (a real factor when you need your other hand to hold on to a
mountain face, or something )

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I have an Olympus OM-1 but never felt quite comfortable with it - don't
know why, really.

A lot of people were put off the OMs because they copied the Nikormat
(low end Nikon) positioning of the shutter speed control, placing it
around the lens barrel. I consider myself fortunate in that I was first
considering upgrading to my own SLR when the OM-1 was released, having
used Pentax SP-500s at work previously, so I didn't have any prejudices.
The size and weight really appealed to me, so I invested in that and
never found the placement inconvenient. On the contrary, I find
conventional shutter speed placement clumsy - requiring me to remove my
finger from the shutter release to operate it. Not surprisingly after
all this time, I still find myself reaching instinctively round the lens
barrel to adjust the shutter speed of the EOS 5D - it will be
interesting to see how long that habit takes to wear off.

I even found Olympus using one of my early practices in an advert a few
years later, with David Bailey attending a function with a camera body
in one pocket and a lens in another - I was there before the ad! ;-)

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in

A lot of people were put off the OMs because they copied the Nikormat
(low end Nikon) positioning of the shutter speed control, placing it
around the lens barrel. I consider myself fortunate in that I was first
considering upgrading to my own SLR when the OM-1 was released, having
used Pentax SP-500s at work previously, so I didn't have any prejudices.

The Olympus OM-1 actually was my first 35mm camera - no prejudices there.
I simply never got comfortable with it. When I take it out, I have to
completely relearn it, and while practice helps, "comfortable" is not
where I get. Like I said, I can't really explain it. My Canon "fits", the
Olympus doesn't.

 

[Roger S.]

This is interesting, because the stock software for the Canon FS4000US
seems to drastically clip blacks and darken shadows, presumably to hide
noise and other artifacts. Vuescan doesn't do this and I find the
shadow noise managable.