D Cox

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jan 17, 2011


Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AksCT: I have over 500 rolls of films to be scanned (color and B&W). Bought and tried a Plustek scanner, but was not satisfied with the quality and speed of scanning (4000 dpi at 10-12 bits). Also tried flatbed scanner and DSLR/MacroLens combo.

Based on Kodak offering it costs $14-20 per roll (although it is not clear at what dpi and bit depth).
500x($14 to $20)=$7,000 to $10,000
I was wondering if you have tried alternatives, that makes sense for 500 roles.

I digitized all my colour slides some years ago with an Olympus OM macro lens on a Sony NEX-5N.
More recently I did all the B&W negatives with the same lens on a Sigma sdQH.
You can copy three or four hundred pictures in an evening with a camera, once you have it set up.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2018 at 09:19 UTC
In reply to:

Tom K.: That's all well and good. Now how about giving us a negative/slide scanner that will scan at 9600dpi with dust removal, in seconds rather than eons?

9600 dpi gives you roughly a 140 Megapixel image. To get some speed, it would be best to use a camera type sensor rather than a scanner.

But I think 100 Megapixels would be enough. Hasselblad offer a 100 Mpix back, which I believe can be used on some view cameras as well as on their own camera bodies. You would have to find a very good macro lens and set up a film or slide holder.

Dust removal is a bit more tricky as it needs two exposures, one in Infra-red light and one normal. But it doesn't seem impossible.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2018 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

jay jay02: "Raw histograms or Raw clipping warnings that would help optimize exposure. It means no development has been done to create more sophisticated tools that would help you judge the quality implications of exposing to the right, and when to let the highlights go" magic Lantern does all of this!

I don't see how the histogram can come from a JPG file. There is no JPG until you press the shutter button and save a file.

The histogram comes from the EVF or the LCD. It is visible as soon as you switch the camera on.

The histogram display in the playback feature does come from the file on the card, but by then it's too late to use it for adjusting exposure.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2018 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

DiffractionLtd: These simple renderings always look a lot better than the tumourous horrors that come out of cheap 3D plastic printers.

You can focus a 35mm (or wider) lens quite well by estimating the distance and setting it on the lens. The Rollei 35 and Minox 35 cameras are examples of models with no focus aids.

It gets less practical with longer lenses as the depth of field is less.

The example shots shown on the web site are very poor quality. I wonder why.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: I do wish people would stop calling things "Holograms" that aren't, just as it sounds cool. I've not no chance with that though have I, as marketing people really don't care. Microsoft's Hololens isn't a Hologram either....

BTW I never thought of the screen on my Fuji W3 as holographic, but while it sounds trendy I can't bring myself (it's a glasses-free 3D screen). Ditto for AR devices other than Microsoft's low-resolution (and expensive) effort.

Just call it 3D, if it has proper parallax.

Stereoscopic pictures and movies, where there are only two images, don't have proper parallax.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2018 at 12:35 UTC

Those square things that are lying around in the top photograph look like 6x6 cm slides, which this gadget does not support (according to the text).

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2018 at 13:47 UTC as 13th comment

I think this could be very useful for selecting photos that are likely to be popular with the general public.

It would be useful for designers of packaging, designers of travel web sites, or publishers of calendars. Also, some stores sell photos in frames for interior decoration. There is a big market for nice pictures.

The scoring would have to be redone every few years as fashions change.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 13:38 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply

Nice one. Congratulations.

2017 was the year I too finally got good shots of soap bubbles, after decades of trying. Interesting to see that your settings are the same as mine.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 08:28 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1100 comments in total)
In reply to:

photog4u: Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? what a title ... sadists! ;)

The grammar is wrong, too. There are only two items, so it should be "better", not "best".

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Doug Frost: I can pick up a used Nikon F3 in great condition on eBay for under $200. Why the heck would i want this thing?

Or you can buy a Kiev that is probably just the same as the Kickstarter camera for $23.

and that's more than it's worth.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: Hype, hype everywhere. Fifteen hundred bucks... that makes roughly 90 thousand Russian rubles or about 40 thousand Ukrainian hrivnas. With any luck that will buy you a complete outfit of almost any non-highly-collectible manual-focus Nikon, or, for that matter, any 35mm or medium format film camera with a decent outfit of lenses. Even a Leica to fap! Not necessarily it will be used at all, there's plenty of new old stock. That may end someday, of course, but if even more than a century-old BNIB/NOS Graflexes and Icas still surface here and there, and price tags are not necessarily extortionate in all cases, I wonder about customer base of such projects. Ok, there are Japanese geeks who buy the most unimaginable stuff and pay weird sums for that, but outside Japan... Well, functionally identical BNIB/NOS Kiev-17 costs $100 tops. This thing should have titanium composite all-proof body and ultra-durable shutter, and be decorated with luxury materials to justify such outrageous price tag.

Many people learned from the Zenith, but it was still a really bad camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 12:43 UTC
In reply to:

David610: It is Kodachrome we all miss. I don't remember any popular songs about Ektachrome or E6.

I agree that Kodachrome II was the best. But ASA 25 is not easy to use except in sunny weather.

My recollection is that Ektachrome in medium and large formats had lower contrast than the 35mm. Results could be very good, but it easily shifted toward a magenta cast if at all out of date.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

Adam Sharp: Look at the stupid prices that all of the camera manufacturers now charge for average products I'm amazed they still sell as much as they do . The brexit rubbish excuse in the uk has pushed prices up so stupid levels I've not seen for years . They should focus on value rather than stupid high end products that will only bring little profit . For the first time in thirty years I won't be buying a dale and lenses because they are all over priced Nikon now paying the price . And as for quality control they all suck . If any Pentax still better value for the quality of the products just limited options . Nikon neglected the average person who likes the travel family photo .

The value of the pound went down after the poll, not because of the result but because of a completely unnecessary reduction in interest rates.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 11:44 UTC
On article 10 macro photography tips for beginners (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Charles Sidney: You seem to imply that magnification depends on sensor size. A 1:1 macro lens will give a 1mm image of a 1mm bug on any sized sensor. Magnification is defined as the ratio of image size to object size.

You would get more pixels per mm of insect on the smaller sensor if the pixels are also smaller, as they often are.

The ideal is a big sensor with a lot of very small pixels; but these are expensive.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 07:54 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: The only thing I'm interested here is the supposedly new Bayer Filter technology they're talking about...

Any chance we could get a tech article?

There is in fact no point in trying to make a camera (as opposed to an eye for a robot) work like the human eye.

The purpose of a camera is not to see, but to copy the incoming data so that it can be offered to the person viewing the picture. What they should be imitating is a window or a mirror, not an eye.

Stick a camera on an outside wall next to a window. Stick a big monitor on the inside of the wall so it is side by side with the window. If the camera and monitor are perfect, they should appear exactly the same. We are a long way from that.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

D Cox: The naming seems rather silly. All colour photography (at least, since 1930) is Trichromatic. If the camera was tetrachromatic or hexachromatic, then it would be interesting.

And "achromatic" means monochrome, as in the Leica monochrome models. This device seems to a normal three-colour sensor.

The word "achromatic" came up somewhere in the guff for the new sensor. But you are right -- it seems they do offer a monochrome sensor too.

Still, trying to use Trichromatic as a product name is foolish. They may as well call it "Photographic".

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 17:07 UTC

The naming seems rather silly. All colour photography (at least, since 1930) is Trichromatic. If the camera was tetrachromatic or hexachromatic, then it would be interesting.

And "achromatic" means monochrome, as in the Leica monochrome models. This device seems to a normal three-colour sensor.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 15:44 UTC as 53rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

KevinG: Wow!! I'm all in favor of evolving tech and image quality and have spent many $$ on equipment since 1999 but 50 grand is just stratospheric. I sure hope whoever buys this can make some money with it.

Kevin in CT

It would be much cheaper to use large format film.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: The only thing I'm interested here is the supposedly new Bayer Filter technology they're talking about...

Any chance we could get a tech article?

They claim it is more like the human retina. The medium and long wavelength cones in the eye have a wider pass band than the usual Bayer filters, with a great deal of overlap. So presumably this sensor is fitted with wider bandwidth filters than usual, rather than narrower as Conurus suggests.

Narrower band filters tend to give higher saturation, but less stable colour mixtures, with more problems with metamerism failure. Kodak used to use this effect to produce a range of more and less saturated films.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: What short memories we have. Reversal processing is as old as the hills. My hat's off to anyone who goes to the effort of perfecting this on their own, especially these days, but for anyone less energetic, you can send your unprocessed B&W negatives to http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/dr5chrome.html. (I'm not affiliated.)

Yes, I used to reversal process B&W film for making lecture slides about 30 years ago. It's easy enough -- simpler than E6 colour processing.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »