V
Vic Dura
Well put!
This was one of the more difficult NGs to read that I have come across
in a long time... until I started filtering the top posters.
Well put!
This was one of the more difficult NGs to read that I have come across
in a long time... until I started filtering the top posters.
G
GP
Arthur said:
Oh, great lover Entlich gets his kicks out of a printer too! It's all a matter
of finess, isn't it? Which one do you prefer for love making?
I see the industry is thriving on something else than sending prints to Third
World contries
I'm afraid you've got other problems than being a dimwit,Entlich.
GP
A
Amishman35
Maybe we don't all have friends with 19" or 21" screens?
DUH!!!!
DUH!!!!
A
Amishman35
Top posting will become standard protocol within the next few years,
And in the most Satanic way, I hope IT HURTS!!!
And in the most Satanic way, I hope IT HURTS!!!
E
Elmo P. Shagnasty
But there are exceptions, and you're one of them.
(See? Isn't it fun to make up the rules as you go along?)
(See? Isn't it fun to make up the rules as you go along?)
H
Hecate
What you've just proved is that you don't understand the terms
resolution, ppi and dpi or understand what they refer to.
H
Hecate
Not quite true. You kissed a word. You can put 3000 CRAP photographs
on a CD. I'd barely manage to get 5 on a CD.
A
Arthur Entlich
For mission critical color work most people still prefer CRTs. LCD
screens are improving all the time, and other technologies are coming,
all of which will bring new advantages and disadvantages, but I think
the method we display larger images will be changing from "paper" to
"electronic paper" of one sort or another over the next few decades.
In POS devices like cash registers, and displays which do not require
exact contrast or color representation, I prefer LCD and so do most. It
isn't about brainwashing, but the eye comfort level not dealing with
flicker (even high frequency has its effects on the brain) and radiation
being directed at you.
From a strictly environmental aspect, I sense LCD is a better
technology. It certainly is from the aspect of discarding the product.
It uses less resources overall as well. I don't know enough about the
manufacturing process and raw materials to comment on that, but CRTs are
a mess in those terms. Lots of heavy metals, phosphors, and other toxic
stuff, and the lead in the glass, which slowly leeches out.
Also, cost of shipping is high in terms of bulk and weight, and desktop
real estate, all of which "costs' the environment.
So, I'm not convinced all this is about consumers being driven by the
manufacturers and sales people. The LCD screens do have some distinct
advantages in some milieu. I admit I still use CRT, but my eyes feel
much better with a LCD screen in front of me.
Art
GP wrote:
screens are improving all the time, and other technologies are coming,
all of which will bring new advantages and disadvantages, but I think
the method we display larger images will be changing from "paper" to
"electronic paper" of one sort or another over the next few decades.
In POS devices like cash registers, and displays which do not require
exact contrast or color representation, I prefer LCD and so do most. It
isn't about brainwashing, but the eye comfort level not dealing with
flicker (even high frequency has its effects on the brain) and radiation
being directed at you.
From a strictly environmental aspect, I sense LCD is a better
technology. It certainly is from the aspect of discarding the product.
It uses less resources overall as well. I don't know enough about the
manufacturing process and raw materials to comment on that, but CRTs are
a mess in those terms. Lots of heavy metals, phosphors, and other toxic
stuff, and the lead in the glass, which slowly leeches out.
Also, cost of shipping is high in terms of bulk and weight, and desktop
real estate, all of which "costs' the environment.
So, I'm not convinced all this is about consumers being driven by the
manufacturers and sales people. The LCD screens do have some distinct
advantages in some milieu. I admit I still use CRT, but my eyes feel
much better with a LCD screen in front of me.
Art
GP wrote:
A
Arthur Entlich
My keyboard just went red hot ;-)
Art
Art
E
Elmo P. Shagnasty
I agree with Arthur--in this and in other things, too. I mean, there's
no need even to quote anything you're replying to, since anyone can go
back and find what it was someone else said.
no need even to quote anything you're replying to, since anyone can go
back and find what it was someone else said.
A
Arthur Entlich
Without wanting to get into a battle over semantics, (I like "kissed a
word", by the way, even as a typo, I may use it in my next poem) storage
issues of images, although not directly a printer issue, is something
I'd like to visit with some of the people here who are photographers.
You obviously feel the need to store images in a pretty massive form, at
about 130 megabytes per image. May I ask what bit depth you are using,
and what the source is?
Is this a digital scan from film, and if so what format is that film?
If digital, is it a raw format, or a very large high res digital camera
back?
The reason I ask is because people I know are trying to decide if a
"fine jpeg" is lossy enough, and if 16 bit depth is valuable enough to
justify the often huge difference in storage size when using raw or tiff.
I don't want to bring the group way off topic, but do you know if there
is any real consensus on this trade off?
Art
word", by the way, even as a typo, I may use it in my next poem) storage
issues of images, although not directly a printer issue, is something
I'd like to visit with some of the people here who are photographers.
You obviously feel the need to store images in a pretty massive form, at
about 130 megabytes per image. May I ask what bit depth you are using,
and what the source is?
Is this a digital scan from film, and if so what format is that film?
If digital, is it a raw format, or a very large high res digital camera
back?
The reason I ask is because people I know are trying to decide if a
"fine jpeg" is lossy enough, and if 16 bit depth is valuable enough to
justify the often huge difference in storage size when using raw or tiff.
I don't want to bring the group way off topic, but do you know if there
is any real consensus on this trade off?
Art
T
Toby
I do a lot of printing of fractal art. Much as I like the luminosity of the
image on a monitor, there is no contest for sharpness and detail between
monitor and print. Perhaps if I had a monitor that displayed 3200 x 2400
pixels and I could stand back a bit I would prefer the monitor, but until
then it has to be a print.
Toby
image on a monitor, there is no contest for sharpness and detail between
monitor and print. Perhaps if I had a monitor that displayed 3200 x 2400
pixels and I could stand back a bit I would prefer the monitor, but until
then it has to be a print.
Toby
G
GP
Elmo said:
You see, Art? This guy agrees with you, and so do I. If you're not quoting,
there's no need to post what you're replying to.
GP
M
measekite
Great!
M
measekite
That is not true. If your newsreader is set to UnRead and you read a
posting on Monday and then return Tuesday the Monday post will not be
there. It will be too inconvenient to keep changing your reader and
hunt down original postings.
I do like top postings. Read the latest and if you need a refresh then
scroll.
posting on Monday and then return Tuesday the Monday post will not be
there. It will be too inconvenient to keep changing your reader and
hunt down original postings.
I do like top postings. Read the latest and if you need a refresh then
scroll.
H
Hecate
16 bit film scans; 35mm and 6x7 medium format
There isn't. Personally, I prefer to store the maximum amount of
information, with adjustment layers as they have no effect on the
"negative". The images are then manipulated as necessary for whatever
out put is required. If anything goes wrong I still have my "digital
negative" and it's in a state where if I want to repurpose it for
something I haven't thought of I have the "rawest" data to work from.
A
Arthur Entlich
OK, got it. I'm dealing with this same issue myself. My 35mm scans at
16 bit are about 120-130 megs each. I haven't yet purchased my dream
digital, so I'm currently using one which uses a 4 MP sensor and doesn't
have raw image storage, only fine jpeg. So, here I am shooting away
lately on this camera (because it's easy to transport and "cheap on film
;-)) and ending up with 2+ meg files, versus my film scans at 120 megs,
and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just a little crazy in storing those
120+ meg files.
Admittedly, I would certainly prefer a 8 to 12 MP sensor and maybe a raw
output file for the digital, and will move there shortly, but the
overhead is getting hard to justify on these monster 120 meg files, and
I am really beginning to wonder how much of that 120+ meg file is just a
bunch of grain and noise...
Art
16 bit are about 120-130 megs each. I haven't yet purchased my dream
digital, so I'm currently using one which uses a 4 MP sensor and doesn't
have raw image storage, only fine jpeg. So, here I am shooting away
lately on this camera (because it's easy to transport and "cheap on film
;-)) and ending up with 2+ meg files, versus my film scans at 120 megs,
and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just a little crazy in storing those
120+ meg files.
Admittedly, I would certainly prefer a 8 to 12 MP sensor and maybe a raw
output file for the digital, and will move there shortly, but the
overhead is getting hard to justify on these monster 120 meg files, and
I am really beginning to wonder how much of that 120+ meg file is just a
bunch of grain and noise...
Art
H
Hecate
It makes a difference if you have to print at larger sizes. It also
makes a difference in the amount of detail you have when printing at
smaller sizes. And storage is cheap so why not get the best scan you
can? There seems no point in having a good scanner and not using it to
provide with all the information available.