kng

The difference between 4700K and 5000K is imperceptibly small, about 12 mireds to be exact. Instead of changing the voltage, how about just putting a correction gel filter under the lamp? A 1/8 CTB gel gives about a -18 to -20 mired shift, which brings you to about 5100K...and 1/8 CTB is the smallest increment they make.

What do you mean by it looking opaque on Luster? Meaning it's not clear; cloudy? Or that it's

not as visible?

 

I use the GO on Luster with the R1800; but my main paper is the Ilford Galerie Pearl. This

paper hides gloss differential quite well and doesn't really need GO, but GO does make a very

slight improvement in highlights. Premium Lustre definitely improves with GO.

Think of the meter as being in 'shutter priority' mode. You gotta set the ISO first, then take a

reading, and use the buttons on the side to bring the shutter speed up or down; the aperture

will change accordingly. Conversely, you can keep your eye on the aperture readout as you

go up/down until it matches the aperture you want, then use the shutter speed it says.

 

If the LCD shows 6 as the shutter speed, then it means 1/6 of a second. If there's a

superscript 's' above the 6, then it's 6 seconds.

None of the Googling I've done shows that Premiere Pro supports DVCPRO HD or any

professional compressed HD format. It supports HDV, yes, and uncompressed HD with

third party hardware. So my guess is no, Premiere Pro will not convert them since it

doesn't support your source material. An NLE like Final Cut Pro that does support both

formats will convert them. In terms of Windows solutions, I don't know.

 

Your idea of going from a pro format to HDV and then maybe HD DVD or blu ray when it

comes out introduces quite a bit of generational loss. Going from DVCPRO HD to HDV

means a loss of chroma information, and then further conversion from HDV to blu-ray

can't be good (even though the latter has a higher bitrate). I'd agree with Emre and wait

until you decide on a destination format, then maybe you can axe the HDV as an

intermediary codec.

This doesn't sound too feasible via software. 1080i HD video would be on either DVCPRO HD

tape, or DVCAM HD. A transfer to those tapes aren't going to be very useful to you unless

you have a $40k HD deck lying around to get it on your computer. And let's say you have

access to one and import it at the rate of roughly a gig a minute, converting it to HDV via

software (assuming it's possible) is going to require an impractical amount of processing

power and time. My suggestion would be to either have a direct conversion to HDV from the

film, or find a facility that will do a direct dub conversion from DVCPRO HD/DVCAM HD to

HDV via hardware.

It's not a focal magnification, it's a crop factor of 1.5. The focal length of the lens remains the

same, and that's what you use to determine the hyperfocal point.

Try using a microfibre cloth. Lens paper is not terribly good at removing smears when it's

dry.

I second Simon's Cameras; I bought my D70 from them. Since they're in Montreal,

Torontonians like us pay only the GST, no PST. That saves you a bundle right there.

 

Aden Camera has good prices, but I have no experience with them.

 

If something happens to your camera, I'm sure you can bring it to a Minolta service centre; if

you brought it back to Aden's or any brick and mortar store they'd send it there anyway. If

you buy from the States, however, in most cases you only get a US warranty, which doesn't

help you at all.

Here's a <a href="http://www.inkjetart.com/news/book/index.html">comparison</a>

between the Chinle and Stone Hinge

Also please see <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00Adop">this thread.</a>

Thanks Steve, that's really helpful. Not having seen Entrada Natural before I was concerned

that it would look very beige, or ivory, but now that there's a quasi-objective measurement of

its warmth I think I'd be pleased with this paper. Thanks again.

You bought it in a *can*? It must be very old...almost a decade probably. D-76 has since

been sold in bag/sachet/pouches. But the powder lasts a while...open it up and see how it is.

It should still <i>be</i> a powder, and white. If it's clumpy or brown, chuck it.

Ilford postcard paper has been discontinued.

Alright, thanks. I'm trying to imagine it's colour based on your descriptions. I've been

searching the Yahoo DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint forums, and the best description I've seen

is that Entrada Natural looks like the back of Epson Enhanced Matte. Since I actually have EEM

on me, that doesn't look nearly as warm as I worried it'd be. Could anyone confirm this

comparison?

I was wondering, for those with experience with Moab's Entrada Fine Art Natural paper, how

warm is it exactly? Is it warmer than Velvet Fine Art?

I'd say that's the perfect reason to dump that obsolete browser (it hasn't been developed for

OS X for about four years...) and move to a vastly superior and more modern browser like

Firefox, or Safari.

Bruce, that's what I meant by variances in ISO sensitivities of film vs digital sensors. The

ISO ratings on digital camera are merely equivalencies to film as rated by the

manufacturer; there isn't a standardization. Just as your 20D overexposes 1/3 to 2/3 of a

stop compared to an incident meter, many people report that their D70's underexpose.

 

That's why one needs to do tests to familiarize oneself with a digital camera's "true"

sensitivity, i.e, having to set an over/underexposure compensation amount. Just like when

working with film, you have to try to find your 'working' ISO, rather than using the one on

the film box.

 

But once the sensor/film sensitivity variances are taken care of, the point is that digital can

be a good way of 'Polaroiding' exposures because aperture/shutter/ISO combinations

work across any format.

Your friend doesn't know what he is talking about. A given aperture/shutter/ISO combination

is the same exposure across any format.

 

That said, it does help to do a test beforehand because ISO sensitivities will vary a bit

between films and sensors.

Hmm. On page 24 of the manual it says that Auto Picture mode only works with FA and F

lenses, whereas Green Operation Mode works with A-lenses, ie, Auto wouldn't work with

manual focus lenses (although it works just fine on mine...)

 

Also, in Auto Picture mode the flash mode sets to auto-popup, so it will always pop up if it

thinks flash is needed. In Green mode, you can cancel the popup flash.

 

All of which is more complicated than just using aperture priority mode to begin with....

It's the noise created by some of the circuitry near the sensor, and it becomes a problem with

long exposures (about 30 seconds or longer, in my experience.) The way to get around it is

to use the noise-reduction, if you can bear having your exposure time doubled.

The closest would be the Premium Luster.

I wish I had diafine or some fancy technique available the time I exposed APX100 at 400. Not

only did I push it two stops, but I did it in Rodinal (1+25, even!)....and hey, the world didn't

end. Grain was there, obviously, but surprisingly controlled. Burning needed to bring down

the highlights, but the result is quite acceptable and I wasn't as doomed as I thought I would

be. So really, APX100 at 250, souped in Diafine or something really isn't an issue at all.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2405081">This is the 100 at

400</a> (the JPG artifacts really mess things up)

Nikon did have an AF-S version of their 80-200mm. It was discontinued and replaced with

the AF-S 70-200mm with IS, and now only the regular AF-D 80-200mm remains. If you look

around used, you might find the 80-200 in AF-S.

Never mind. I read your post too quickly.

Visit your local photo lab and ask for them. They've got them by the handful and they'll offer

them to you at no cost (they get them when customers drop their film off to be developed; it

would otherwise go to recycling).