thomas_janik
-
Posts
396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by thomas_janik
-
-
<p>I would like to take exposures at 1-20 sec intervals and then combine them into video at 24 frames/s. Please point me in the right direction - it's all new to me. Thanks</p>
-
<p>Bill said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Last week I had the privilege - and pleasure - of using Phase One's new IQ180 MFDB. It clearly out-resolves my (admittedly quite old) 4 by 5 images.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Steve replied:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>The IQ180 back is 80 megapixels. If you are comparing it to 4x5 film of 20 square inches then that's 2 megapixels per square inch. If you translate that to the 1.33 square inches of a 35mm frame then that's 2.66 megapixels.</em><br /><em>I don't think anyone will try to claim that 2.66 megapixels of digital would equal or even exceed the resolution of a 35mm frame. Therefore, 80 megapixels will not out resolve 4x5 film.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ray replied:<br>
<em>What we're seeing here is the difference between potential and actual performance. Steve is right: potentially, 4x5 film is way better than 80 megapixels. Bill is also right: in actual use, most 4x5 shots probably won't exceed that. I can think of 4 reasons why this is so:....</em><br>
<em> </em><br>
Surprising to me are the vastly different conclusions in the continuing film/digital comparisons. I realize that photographic “quality” is somewhat subjective, but the disparity in conclusions is remarkable. I did a number of comparisons of Pentax 645D files to those from 6X7 and 645 scans (using the same lenses for both cameras). I concluded that the 40 MP file of the 645D was roughly equivalent to a good 67 scan. I later read a review of the 645D on the Luminous Landscape in which the author compared the 645D quality to that of 4x5. Anyone have a theory as to how conclusions can be so varied?</p>
-
<p>The haze is likely lens separation, which is common in this lens. The haze seems to have little effect, unless the light source is in the frame. Pentax did make a 100mm extension tube that allowed greater than 1:1 with this lens. Terrific lens with a great build, typical of the M lenses.</p>
-
<p>Surprising. The positive comments in the thread below have convinced me to try a 18-135:<br>
Photozone was not very positive about the 35mm macro either, despite the praise from other quarters, e.g. Mike Johnston and Carl Weese. Lab measurements don't always correlate with real use perhaps?</p>
-
<p>Another<br>
<a href="
-
<p>Works well for wildlife as well. 645D, 400mm @f/8 (accurate, fast enough AF)<br>
<a href="
<a href="
<p>Heavy crops</p>
-
<p>Scott (Ferris): I'm glad you found it useful, thanks.<br>
Scott (Cole):<br>
Yes, fringing is a problem. I assume you're referring to the shot with the 35mm, not the 120 FA. The 35mm A has a red/cyan fringe which is correctable in ACR (these images were not corrected).<br>
A more severe example can be seen in this series from the same shot:<br>
-
<p>Hi Susan:<br>
You've received a number of quality responses. I'll just add my own experience. I have been using a Pentax 67II or 645N and a Nikon 9000. I've never printed large enough to consider a drum scan; I have sent troublesome slides to be scanned with an X5 and found the quality no better than what I can get from the 9000. I have a 15 MP DSLR, but do not find it competitive with MF. I purchased a 645D in December and have done a number of tests and my conclusion is that is comparable to 67 film scanned on the 9000. There are a number of advantages to digital but I prefer the fall off to fuzziness and grain that Stuart Richardson mentions. Here is a comparison using the Pentax 120mm macro on a 645D and 645N (9000 scan). The test completely removes the lens as a variable (assuming correct focus, which is not a given) and in my eye the 645D is clearly better. <br>
Here’s another comparing 645D, 645N and 67II. In this case, different lenses were used:<br>
I'd go for your option #2 and then determine which system gives you what you want. I'm not entirely convinced the 645D was a wise purchase for me (only because of the cost/benefit, not the quality of the camera), but traveling with film is very difficult nowadays and digital solves that problem.</p>
-
<p>"Optically as good as the wonderful 300mm F4 EDIF", that's quite a recommendation. Thanks Ed, I feel better already.</p>
-
<p>Thanks for the replies fellows. I don’t really need the 75, as I have the 55-100mm. I can rationalize by thinking it is faster, close-focusing, small (for a 67 lens) and easier to carry. Anyway, it’s too late, I bought it. I know this lens is rare and was afraid I might never see one again. I was hoping someone would tell me that it is the 67 equivalent to the 35mm 77mm f/1.8 or some other “magical” lens.</p>
<p>Steve, I know the lack of f/32 or 45 in the 67 lenses is a sore point with you; interestingly, many of the 645 lenses have f/32. I wonder why the difference</p>
-
<p>I have an opportunity to purchase a 67 75mm f/2.8 AL. I can't find much information about it however. Anyone have any opinions, experience or links?</p>
-
<p>Ouch! You’re right of course; it is not a sharp photo. When I originally posted this, I was involved in a discussion as to the best procedure for the 9000. I was corresponding with others who did not yet know everything. It is an illustration of the difference in grain between the two methods.<br>
I suggest you visit the Nikon 8000/9000 user group in Yahoo groups and search for posts involving the depth of focus:<br>
Then, using your Nikon Holder, focus on a test slide in the corners and center. Note the variation in focus distance.<br>
Finally, I took the time to post this in response to question and gave the best information I have. Your response was a mean-spirited and added nothing. </p>
-
<p>I used link mentioned by Clive to get Nikonscan and Dimage Scan (for a Minolta 5400) to run in Windows 7 (64 bit). Similar fix is here :<a href="http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html">http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html</a><br />I use the Focal Point glass as well. I made a glass sandwich carrier from the Nikon stock, useless, carrier the same way Paul Swenson reports. I use framer's AN glass on top (somewhat heavier than the FP glass). I have scanned many times using both FP clear and AN glass on the bottom (for the AN glass the matte side is up facing the emulsion); I have never found any difference in sharpness. The only real difference is the Newton Rings using the clear glass. I tried making masks for use with the clear glass bottom, but that didn't keep film flat enough. I tried using a single sheet of glass on top, again the film was not perfectly flat. Example here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=694413">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=694413</a><br />So now I just use FP AN on the bottom with framer's glass on the top.</p>
-
<p>Still having trouble with the upload.<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TLoPpoBGjWI/AAAAAAAAXt4/XOA14-I5kHA/s1600/openroadFRA.jpg" alt="" width="1080" height="837" /></p>
-
<p>It's a day overdue, but here's mine (Pentax 67, 35mm fisheye)</p>
-
<p>Ok, I had trouble with the attachment. The upload is a bit squirrely</p><div></div>
-
<p>another failure</p>
-
<p>Seems we missed last week. I plead too many other things to do. I've tried, for me , a new technique. The attached photo was taken with a Pentax 67II with a 105mm, but the lens was not attached to the camera. The lens and camera were angled to give the weird plain of focus. The squirrel just added some interest</p>
-
<p>Thanks for the reply Andrew. Cleaning the contacts was the first thing I tried and I have no other body available with which to test the lens. I'm wondering if anyone else who has had a SDM failure has seen "MF" appear in the viewfinder, if not, it's possibly a camera issue.</p>
-
<p>Hi All:<br>
This thread caught my attention since I have one SDM lenses (17-70) which stopped autofocusing about a month ago. I tried the fixes suggested, no luck. What's interesting is that when that lens is mounted on the camera, "MF" appears in the viewfinder, regardless of the camera settings; replace the lens with functioning (screw drive) lens and everything is fine. My question: is this a failure in the lens, or the body which is not recognizing an SDM lens? I can't test it with another lens, since I don't have access to another SDM lens.</p>
-
<p>Thanks for the reply Brad. I can't imagine why the original has problems. I've never seen anything like this, even though I often work with large files. I usually save as a TIFF, I will avoid PSD in the future.</p>
-
<p>I have CS4 on an i7 with 12 GB RAM, Windows 7 (64). I opened a 1.4 GB, layed PSD image in Bridge. Photoshop launched and revealed an image which consisted of a red horizonial bar in the top quarter of the screen, the rest was black. I closed both programs and relaunched Bridge. The thumbnail shows the original image for a moment and then transforms to the red and black. Anyone have any experience with this and advice?<br />Thanks</p>
-
<p>Ok folks, Leo seems a bit autocratic about starting on Saturday. So here's a whimsical one:</p>
<div>
</div> -
<p>Welcome back Leo. Here's another from your part of the world: Paradis Marin, a campground along the St. Lawrence, where the shoreline is beautiful exposed Canadian Shield as <img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TJZ9psTdxVI/AAAAAAAAXW8/EF0U3mN67Rk/s1600/IMG729.jpg" alt="" width="936" height="727" />seen in the foreground. Pentax 67, 35mm fisheye; just scanned today.<br>
Stacy, I love the style of your photos; please keep posting</p>
How can I convert interval captured jpeg images to a video?
in Video
Posted