frode

<p>PPI (pixels pr inch) is a scaling factor, nothing more, nothing less (just as DPI is, but then you are talking about dots pr inch for a printer). It says how large you intend to print the image.</p> <p>Say you have a 3000 pixel wide digital picture from your camera, if you print this picture with 300 pixels pr inch, your image will print 10 inches wide (you need 10 inches to print all the 3000 pixels in the image). If you instead print it at 3000 pixels pr inch, your image will print 1 inch wide (you need only one inch to print all 3000 pixels).</p> <p>The "math":<br> (printed image width in inches) = (digital image width in pixels) / PPI</p> <p>Same for image height:<br> (printed image height in inches) = (digital image height in pixels) / PPI</p> <p>Note: The PPI could also be used (and is sometimes used) for scaling the image when displaying it on a computer screen. This is however not normal. I guess this is because one usually wants to display the image with the computer screen's native resolution (the screen's PPI) to avoid artifacts like moire and blurring (the later possible corrected for with an automatic sharpening that usually is not very predictable). One just re-samples the image to a reasonable pixel width and height that one guesses will show the image in a usable size on most computer screens (like for example 400x600, 600x900 or somewhere thereabout) and hope for the best.</p> <p>Hope this was of some help. If not, print it out, crumple it up and throw it in the bin.</p> <p>HNY & regars,<br> Frode Langset</p> <p>(and excuse my English, its not my native language)</p>

<p>Since you are on Windows 8, have you looked at Windows Movie Maker? If you don't already have it, I believe it is free download.<br> I have ProShow Producer myself, but I have also successfully used Windows Movie Maker from time to time. It has transitions, some effects, sound and text. Don't be deceived by the very simple look.<br> <br />Wikipedia has an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Movie_Maker">article about Windows Movie Maker</a></p>

<p>And if both cameras had 9 MP?</p>

<blockquote> <p>BTW, neither RawDigger nor FastRawViewer apply any arbitrary processing. Everything is totally under user control, and documented in manuals.</p> </blockquote> <p>In <a href="http://www.rawdigger.com">Raw Digger</a> you have no control at all. There is not a single image processing related setting for the user to control. You get whatever they have selected for you. From the photographers perspective these settings are arbitrarily selected (said in another way: Why on earth would I want the image #3 of the 4 in my earlier post, the colors look ugly). Nothing wrong about that since RawDigger is a RAW image analysis tool (and an excellent one!).</p>

<p>My point is that there is no "standard process". There is however a "process with arbitrary settings" (selected by...well, who knows). That is why different raw converters will show you different results until you tweak the settings.</p> <p>I don't deny that people post process images. But more and more is done in the raw converter itself. Software like Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro have no notion of post processing. You might do all your settings, including sharpening and cropping, then just before you print out your A2 size image, you may re-adjust exposure, noise removal and fine adjust white balance and remove a dust that you didn't notice before. It only take seconds. The "post" has been removed from the processing chain (unless you are doing much more complex things than mentioned in OP). There is only "process" left.</p> <p>Another way to say it is that there is no "Now I have done my RAW conversion process, and I will start my after-RAW-conversion process (post process) where I will make all my adjustments". The whole process is (in principle) run again and again every time you change a setting, including the raw conversion. It is seamless (until you find out that you have to export the image into another application to continue there with things the raw converter cannot do)</p> <p>Well, at least this is how I see it. ;-)</p> <p>;-)<br /> Cheers<br /> Frode Langset</p>

<p>And here is two other default conversions of the same image in addition to image 3 in the previous post (which is from RawDigger 1.1).</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Looking at shots on photo.net and elsewhere on the web, I'm often curious about what the shot looked like before post-processing.</p> </blockquote> <p>I do know what you mean, but the notion of there being a "before post-processing" image when shooting raw is wrong. There is no "before post processing" image. On the contrary, there is a Bayer-matrix stored in the raw file (in additions to various other information needed to render an image).</p> <p>The "before post-processing" images you refer to (and also the posted examples) are in fact already post processed. They are RAW files converted with arbitrary settings for the various parameters in the RAW-converter (contrast, brightness etc). These arbitrary settings was selected by the software designer and are not to be regarded as even near correct values. They are on the contrary usually wrong values, and most photographers will adjust at least black point and contrast, usually also white balance and exposure, especially if you use ETTR.</p> <p>The various RAW-converters (I have at lest 4 of them) will also have their own default settings and will therefore usually show different results for the same RAW file. In ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) you can even define these default settings yourself, so you can therefore have any "before post-processing" image that you may want.</p> <p>The attached "image" shows the following things:<br> 1: A visualization of the bayer matrix in the raw file. This is the neares you can come to a "before post processing" image. It looks green due to the fact that there is twice as many green channels as blue and red channels.</p> <p>2: This is the same image as 1, but zoomed in to show greater detail. You can now see the G R B G2. G and G2 are two different green channels.</p> <p>3: The processed raw image in RawDigger. This is what you call "before post-processing". But it isn't, is it? This is as much "after post-processing" as the next image, but it uses arbitrarily selected default settings instead of the correct settings.</p> <p>4: The image after I have set the correct settings in ACR. This is what you call "after post-processing".</p><div></div>

<p>The funny thing is that what is pro today is toy tomorrow. So pros of today cannot use their present gear to make pro pictures tomorrow. How did they "dislearn" their capability?</p> <p>(Btw: Dimage A2 was promoted as a prosumer camera when it was introduced. It had everything a DSLR had except a mirror and a lens mount. Who would call it prosumer today? The A2 was my first digital camera, back in 2004.)</p>

<p>Sure a fisheye can be used for landscapes, but its projection will be quite different from an ordinary rectilinear lens. The two images shown here and also two other images shown by following the links are examples of images that are taken with fisheye (projection not altered):<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17544070<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/17542582</p> <p>The fisheye used here is a so called full frame fish eye, i.e. it fills the whole image (not only a circle). The diagonal angle of view is (very near) 180 degrees.</p> <p>The key to get images that is not looking ... well "fishy"... is to control the lines and curves in the image. Straight lines going through the center of the image will also be straight lines in the final image. Other lines will be curved. But often lines that in reality was straight may look natural even if they are strongly curved in the image.</p> <p>A fisheye can give you</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry I didn't notice that you already had posted that link.</p> <p>I haven't seen the whole video yet, but I have seen enough that I understand what you meant in your comment. And I have also seen enough to to want to look through the whole video later on. I haven't elaborated on those various histogram types before and what they will show me. Think I'm going to learn something new now! Thank you. ;-)</p>

<p>Hi Andrew,<br> If I have clipping in say the red channel, what color space do I then select for output, and why?</p>

<p>A histogram is just like counting letters in a book, and then make a diagram that shows how many A's there was, B's, C's and so on. A, B, C etc. along the horizontal axis, count along the vertical axis. A histogram can say nothing about what story the book tells, or how good it is.</p> <p>The same goes for picture histograms. It counts how many pixels there are of each brightness, but nothing about the story the picture tells or how good the picture is.</p> <p>However it can be used as a rough guide for deciding correct exposure. Look upon it as an advanced light meter, showing you how much there is of each brightness in the picture. If the histogram is cut of abruptly in either end you _might_ have lost detail in important highlights or shadows (up to you to decide what is important).</p> <p>Usually I use the histogram to see if I have blown any highlights in the picture. It won't say which highlights was burnt, only whether or not any highlights was burnt.</p> <p>Hope this could be of any help.</p> <p>Frode</p>

<p>"Prosumer" is a term used to address amateurs that like to be likened to professionals - I think.</p>

<p>The trick with spinning the fresh/boiled egg does work. I use it regularly to find out if an egg is boiled or not. I trust it 100%. We get fresh and boiled eggs mixed up in the fridge ever so often.<br> ;-)</p>

<p>Hi again<br /> I actually found a comparison between various file transfer services on Wikipedia:</p> <p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_hosting_services</p> <p>And another one listing the most popular ones:<br /> http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/file-sharing-websites</p>

<p>Hi<br> Try searching for "file transfer" on the Internet. There are various services for transferring large files between people, some paid for and some free. Your family/friends upload their files to a file server where you can later download them.</p> <p>Hope this could be of any help<br> Best wishes,<br> Frode Langset</p>

<p>Hi<br /> Using matrix mode in your light meeter might seem intuitively wise, but the problem is that you don't know how the camera is "thinking" (evaluating the scene from the measurements), so the result will be somewhat unpredictable. In my experience it is much more predictable to set the camera to use only the center point for measuring light, and do the thinking yourself. You will then have to compensate for the measurement based on what you measured (where on the "gray scale" it should be placed). Or you can just use the histogram to evaluate the exposure. The latter might be a bit more tricky in some situations since there might be scenes where you will have to clip some of the highlight, but it is not easy the see in the histogram which highlights will be clipped and which will not. If your camera has highlight warning in the preview that might help.<br> <br /> Getting a correct exposure will need practicing and gaining experience with your camera.<br> <br /> By the way: If you are taking exact the same picture and the brightness in the two images look different, there might be a problem with your camera (the camera must not be moved, so your camera on a tripod and in aperture priority mode, only varying the aperture setting, and the scene must be unchanged as well).</p> <p>Hope this might be of some help.<br> Best wishes,<br /> Frode Langset</p>

<p>No, it didn't help. That flag was set to true. Still didn't work. Of course sites like this claimed that it worked, but they don't test the device profile, only the image profile: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter</p> <p>It is actually pretty easy to make a test that checks if Firefox is able to show the colors correct (and that was what I did, and the result was negative). In addition I had Safari and Photoshop that showed same colors, but different colors from Firefox. When I changed to ICC v2 profile for the screen, Firefox, Safari and Photoshop showed same colors, and it was Firefox that had changed. In addition my mentioned test also showed that Firefox now showed the correct colors.</p>

<blockquote> <p>i tried previewing some images on the latest version of firefox and they still didn't match.</p> </blockquote> <p>It does on my PC, but I had similar problem as yours. I believe Firefox doesn't tackle ICC v4 device profiles. If you have a wide gamut screen (my guess is if you have anything other than a sRGB screen), and your calibrator makes ICC v4 profiles, Firefox will fail. At least it does on my Windows 7 PC, and I have also read about others having problems too. The colors will be over saturated. You will have to use a ICC v2 screen profile. Photoshop tackles ICC v4 device profiles and will show you correct colors.</p> <p>You can try the Safari browser. It should work OK with ICC v4 device profiles (it does on my PC). There is also a method for converting an ICC v4 to v2. You will have to search the net (I don't remember since I have never needed to do this, but it included using the windows screen calibration tool or something similar for saving a new v2 profile made from the old v4 one produced by the calibrator).</p> <p>The various test pages for testing whether your browser is ICC compliant or not (v2 and v4) are only testing the image side of the CMS, not the device side. There are software that only handles the image side correctly, but not the device side. They interpret the colors in the image file correctly, but output wrong colors to the screen. My guess is that they convert the image to sRGB and then rely on the screen being a sRGB screen. Nowadays screens tend more and more to have a wider gamut than sRGB, and therefore such an assumption will result in wrong colors (too saturated colors).</p> <p>The principles of color management is really not that complex and incomprehensible (the details can be though). In a way it resembles currency conversion. Your image has one currency, your screen another, your printer yet another and so on. The ICC profiles for the image and the screen together constitute the data that is needed for a currency converter. You (Photoshop or other software) can convert the image's currency to a "standard" currency, and then from the "standard" currency to the screen's currency, or the printer's currency (including the ink and printer paper). Problems are usually related to the software not implementing this process correctly, implementing only a part of it, or not implementing CMS at all (most programs don't). The profiles can of course also be wrong.</p> <p>From the above one (hopefully) understands that it is the process of "currency conversion" that is calibrated, not the screen. The calibrator is making (measuring) the screen's ICC profile. It will however also usually calibrate the screen's gamma curves by manipulating the graphics card's lookup tables (aka LUTs), but this is really not the most important part which is making the ICC profile.</p> <p>All Windows OS will do is keeping track of what ICC profile you (or usually your calibrator) have selected as the standard ICC profile for the screen. It is up to the various programs to actually implement the "currency conversion" using the ICC profile. In Windows 7 (and later) I believe it is the OS that also will load the LUTs with values stored inside the ICC profile (if there are any values). In earlier versions of Windows, this had to be done by a "LUT loader" program that usually was installed together with the calibration software and that was started every time you logged on. Often you can see this LUT loading as a sudden change in the screen's colors, usually slightly warmer colors since most screens have a bluish cast.</p> <p>Hope this could shed some light over your problem.</p>

<p>Don't test it in low light. If it gives Eu in daylight it is obviously wrong. If it gave correct values in daylight, but Eu in low light it is most probably working OK. I remember that I was a bit surprised how much light it needed to show an exposure. You cannot for example use it to measure exposure times for night photography, but most cameras will. Even a landscape lit by a full moon might have too little light.</p> <p>To verify whether you are inside or outside its measuring range, you can set it to measure EV at ISO 100. Then, if it still says Eu, add light, if it do not, lower the light. Notice the reading when it switches between a value and Eu. It should measure at least down to -2 EV. Be sure your ISO is set to 100.</p> <p>Btw: Turning ISO, exposure time and f-number will not change the measurement itself. It is only used for computing exposure from a given light level. Underexposure (Eu) comes as a result of the sensor not having enough light, i.e. before any of the settings are used. So if you think the Eu is a sign of the meter not working, it should not work in daylight either, or at least give a wrong measurement in daylight (and therefore a wrong exposure).</p>

<p>I don't think the profiling has anything to do with it.<br /> There is a limit to how low light it will measure. I have the 758cine (almost the same meter), and its spec says it will measure ambient light down to an exposure of -2 EV for incident measurement and +1 EV for the spot measurement , both at ISO 100. Despite the spec, my meter will pass that limit (but not by much) before it blinks Eu.</p> <p>I do not know your Nikon camera, but my Pentax will outperform the low light limits of my Sekonic. No wonder, since the camera has a rather big light collecting device with very low light loss (aka the lens) compared to the Sekonic. Look at the dome. It is not made for low light loss (it is white, it reflects much of the light). It is design for even distribution in a hemisphere.</p> <p>To compare the Nikon and Sekonic meters, you can measure a gray card with the Nikon and use the incident meter on the Sekonic and then vary the light. You can also measure the gray card with the spot on the Sekonic. The Nikon and Sekonic will probably not read exactly the same, but the Sekonic should not be way out compared to your Nikon. That would indicate a fault in one of them.</p> <p>Hope this was of any help.<br /> Cheers</p>

<p>Ha ha. In a 1000 fps series (i.e. 1/1000th second between each frame), that 10 Mach bullet would travel 3.4 meters --- for each frame</p>

<p>In a way it is borderless printing (100% scaling, centered). There will be an unprinted area around the whole paper. Since the image is white in this area, it does not do any difference.<br> Btw: Borderless printing is only possible on some standard sizes of paper on the 3880 (and I believe that this is the same with the 3800)</p>