All Forum Comments
Comment by LiamD posted on Good bye Pentax! Forever? at 26/05/2006 - 18:18
Hi Simon,
I know you didn't set that standard. The point was made by John, who's a pro, that interpolation is an industry standard. To make a genuine A3 300dpi image without interpolation would require a 17mp sensor, and as the pros here don't seem to need that big a sensor to earn a living, then it's probably unlikely that you do. By the same argument, exporting the RAW file as a jpeg compresses the image data to around ¼ of it's original size, and exporting as a 16 bit TIF can increase the file size by as much 10 or 11 times. Both of which either create or destroy information from the original file, thereby acheiving a technically [sic] dishonest image.
Of course no argument will change that fact, and indeed it was the support of this argument upon which I based my reply.
The argument was a single one, but with the basic tenet being backed up with numbers.
Anyway argument is the wrong word.. debate is a far better definition.
Either way, I wish you well in your career.. with whichever camera you use.
Cheers
Liam
Quote:
LiamD wrote:
Hi Simon
Simon wrote:
johnriley wrote:
I routinely supply A3 sized pictures at 300dpi and they look fine, certainly more than good enough to go to print.
You can only do this with a 6mp camera by creating pixels that weren't orginally there
As you would have to with an 8mp sensor. That works out at 16,920,000 pixels, more than twice that of the 8mp sensor. So your argument would be that you cannot possibly get a decent print above A4 (at 300dpi) even with an 8mp sensor, because if you did, you'd be adding information not there at the original shot.
Why did you mention the 8mp senor? Only thing I said about the 8mp senor is that is the minimum standard required from agencies nowadays. That standard was not set my me.
That argument is quite different from the fact that with your camera, you need to create pixels that weren't orginally there to have a A3 300dpi pix.
No amount of argument will change that and don't merge two arguments
I mentioned the 8mp sensor because you did. LiamD wrote:
Hi Simon
Simon wrote:
johnriley wrote:
I routinely supply A3 sized pictures at 300dpi and they look fine, certainly more than good enough to go to print.
You can only do this with a 6mp camera by creating pixels that weren't orginally there
As you would have to with an 8mp sensor. That works out at 16,920,000 pixels, more than twice that of the 8mp sensor. So your argument would be that you cannot possibly get a decent print above A4 (at 300dpi) even with an 8mp sensor, because if you did, you'd be adding information not there at the original shot.
Why did you mention the 8mp senor? Only thing I said about the 8mp senor is that is the minimum standard required from agencies nowadays. That standard was not set my me.
That argument is quite different from the fact that with your camera, you need to create pixels that weren't orginally there to have a A3 300dpi pix.
No amount of argument will change that and don't merge two arguments
I know you didn't set that standard. The point was made by John, who's a pro, that interpolation is an industry standard. To make a genuine A3 300dpi image without interpolation would require a 17mp sensor, and as the pros here don't seem to need that big a sensor to earn a living, then it's probably unlikely that you do. By the same argument, exporting the RAW file as a jpeg compresses the image data to around ¼ of it's original size, and exporting as a 16 bit TIF can increase the file size by as much 10 or 11 times. Both of which either create or destroy information from the original file, thereby acheiving a technically [sic] dishonest image.
Of course no argument will change that fact, and indeed it was the support of this argument upon which I based my reply.
The argument was a single one, but with the basic tenet being backed up with numbers.
Anyway argument is the wrong word.. debate is a far better definition.
Either way, I wish you well in your career.. with whichever camera you use.
Cheers
Liam
Comment by LiamD posted on Good bye Pentax! Forever? at 23/05/2006 - 13:46
Hi Simon
The above print would mean interpolating by 2.115 times with an 8mp, and by 2.729 times with a 6.2mp sensor. In the scheme of things, that's not a great deal.
I'm sure I've probably got something wrong there.. but what the hey.
Cheers
Liam
Quote:
johnriley wrote:
I routinely supply A3 sized pictures at 300dpi and they look fine, certainly more than good enough to go to print.
You can only do this with a 6mp camera by creating pixels that weren't orginally there
As you would have to with an 8mp sensor. That works out at 16,920,000 pixels, more than twice that of the 8mp sensor. So your argument would be that you cannot possibly get a decent print above A4 (at 300dpi) even with an 8mp sensor, because if you did, you'd be adding information not there at the original shot.johnriley wrote:
I routinely supply A3 sized pictures at 300dpi and they look fine, certainly more than good enough to go to print.
You can only do this with a 6mp camera by creating pixels that weren't orginally there
The above print would mean interpolating by 2.115 times with an 8mp, and by 2.729 times with a 6.2mp sensor. In the scheme of things, that's not a great deal.
I'm sure I've probably got something wrong there.. but what the hey.
Cheers
Liam
Comment by LiamD posted on Good bye Pentax! Forever? at 21/05/2006 - 19:01
.. NB, if Matt and I post at the same time, a little hint; go with Matt's suggestions first every time.
Comment by LiamD posted on Slide scanning issues at 17/05/2006 - 20:35
Hi Phil,
use the ds (IIRC) and a light box. You've got the macro lenses already, so it'll be a snip to get a high res copy of the slide.
http://www.liamsworld.org.uk/galleries/KenyaBB/
these are straight copies, and done just after I got the DL. It's the first time I've looked at them since, and as I now know a hell of a lot more about post-processing now, I'll be able to do something with them, but you get the idea anyway.
Cheers
Liam
use the ds (IIRC) and a light box. You've got the macro lenses already, so it'll be a snip to get a high res copy of the slide.
http://www.liamsworld.org.uk/galleries/KenyaBB/
these are straight copies, and done just after I got the DL. It's the first time I've looked at them since, and as I now know a hell of a lot more about post-processing now, I'll be able to do something with them, but you get the idea anyway.
Cheers
Liam
Comment by LiamD posted on Slide scanning issues at 17/05/2006 - 20:34
Hi,
I'd never buy off anyone who hid their feedback.. ever. As far as postage goes, I tend to just add that to the purchase price and see if it works out as a good deal. For instance, I bought a 15"-42" tripod a couple of weeks ago, just for day trips to Europe, as that is how Mrs Liam and I are going to spend a few Saturdays over the summer. I didn't fancy carrying the bigun, so this is a nice light small alternative. The postage was £8, but the tripod was only a quid!!!!
Don't get me wrong, this is no Manfrotto, but for change out of a tenner it's an absolute bargain, and perfect for my needs. If you add up the lot and it still works out a resonable price anyway, then it's worth it.
Cheers
Liam
I'd never buy off anyone who hid their feedback.. ever. As far as postage goes, I tend to just add that to the purchase price and see if it works out as a good deal. For instance, I bought a 15"-42" tripod a couple of weeks ago, just for day trips to Europe, as that is how Mrs Liam and I are going to spend a few Saturdays over the summer. I didn't fancy carrying the bigun, so this is a nice light small alternative. The postage was £8, but the tripod was only a quid!!!!
Don't get me wrong, this is no Manfrotto, but for change out of a tenner it's an absolute bargain, and perfect for my needs. If you add up the lot and it still works out a resonable price anyway, then it's worth it.
Cheers
Liam
Comment by LiamD posted on ebay..anyone used this Pentax seller? at 17/05/2006 - 20:43
Hi all,
thanks for all the info. The one pint too many explanation fits nicely. As you are probably aware, most dart players like a little something to stiffen their resolve..
Except for the 6 year old son of one of the players, who consistently had red eye, this seems a sound reason.
Sorry, I'd better be off to work now,
Cheers
Liam
thanks for all the info. The one pint too many explanation fits nicely. As you are probably aware, most dart players like a little something to stiffen their resolve..
Except for the 6 year old son of one of the players, who consistently had red eye, this seems a sound reason.
Sorry, I'd better be off to work now,
Cheers
Liam
Comment by LiamD posted on Red Eye in individuals. at 16/05/2006 - 07:27
Hi all,
As I mentioned in a previous post, I took a load of pictures of people picking up their silverware at Saturday's Darts Presentation evening. I'm just going though them and doing a little touching up here and there, and I've noticed that the same people are getting red eye?? I know the hows and whys of red eye, and it's only a few seconds work to select and desaturate the red/magenta pixels, but I was wondering; are certain people more susceptable to red eye than others?
Is it perhaps that they may have been blinking on preflash, and so don't get the iris reduced sufficiently; or that people with certain coloured eyes (hazel for instance, where there is a certain amount of red anyway, and the sensor enhances it more???) are more likely to suffer.
Just a thought, and I know that it's probably out there on the interweb thingy, but it might be useful to someone else here, if it was discussed.
Cheers
Liam
As I mentioned in a previous post, I took a load of pictures of people picking up their silverware at Saturday's Darts Presentation evening. I'm just going though them and doing a little touching up here and there, and I've noticed that the same people are getting red eye?? I know the hows and whys of red eye, and it's only a few seconds work to select and desaturate the red/magenta pixels, but I was wondering; are certain people more susceptable to red eye than others?
Is it perhaps that they may have been blinking on preflash, and so don't get the iris reduced sufficiently; or that people with certain coloured eyes (hazel for instance, where there is a certain amount of red anyway, and the sensor enhances it more???) are more likely to suffer.
Just a thought, and I know that it's probably out there on the interweb thingy, but it might be useful to someone else here, if it was discussed.
Cheers
Liam
Comment by LiamD posted on Red Eye in individuals. at 15/05/2006 - 20:55
It's very encouraging that we can have a robust debate on this forum without the need for us to over-moderate. I see a very different story on some others forums (fora?) with moderators getting very over-excited.....
However, here we are, and well done to all for keeping things civilised!
BTW, from http://area51.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?sid=&f=10&t=10723&start=...
The word "forum" originates from the Latin. In Latin, the rules of pluralisation state that the plural of "forum" is "fora". Therefore, many pedants argue that the plural in English should be "fora"; a loan word should follow the rules of its originating language.
However, in English, the rules of pluralisation state that the plural of "forum" is "forums". And seeing as the word has been fully assimilated into English, it makes sense to follow English rules. After all, how many people are aware of the Inuit pluralisation rules for "anorak"?
On the other hand, English has adopted several pluralisation rules from Latin, as shown by the words "formulae", "fungi" and "indices". Therefore, both "fora" and "forums" are acceptable, but the majority of people are more likely to understand the latter.
Cheers
Liam