Prev: Sony crushes the price/build-quality barrier
Next: Camera store in Toronto blowing out inventory
From: Michael on 12 May 2010 01:09
On 2010-05-12 00:10:18 -0400, nospam said:

> In article <2010051123433457568-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
> <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>> No offense, but the Stereo Realist did this all in the 1950s and did it
>> on Kodachrome, which has/had far more pixels than any digital device.
>
> no offense, but kodachrome doesn't have any pixels at all nor does the
> stereo realist work the same way.

Metaphor seems lost on you.
Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any
digital media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad. And 3-D is 3-D no
matter what technology you use to achieve it. There are 3 spatial
dimensions and the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a
different technology does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.
--
Michael

From: nospam on 12 May 2010 01:29
In article <2010051201090774831-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
<adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:

> Metaphor seems lost on you.

facts seems lost on you

> Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any
> digital media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad.

not even remotely true. kodachrome is (was) good, but digital is
better, and one need not spend even 1/10th of the $30k to do it.

what are you going to do when the single remaining kodachrome lab
ceases to process it?

> And 3-D is 3-D no
> matter what technology you use to achieve it.

nope

> There are 3 spatial
> dimensions and the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a
> different technology does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.

some 3d systems do not need special viewers or glasses, so yes, it does
matter.
From: Bruce on 12 May 2010 06:12
On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:29:55 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>what are you going to do when the single remaining kodachrome lab
>ceases to process it?


Thanks for the reminder.

I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
I must ...

etc..

From: Peter on 12 May 2010 06:52
"Michael" <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:2010051201090774831-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet...
> On 2010-05-12 00:10:18 -0400, nospam said:
>
>> In article <2010051123433457568-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
>> <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No offense, but the Stereo Realist did this all in the 1950s and did it
>>> on Kodachrome, which has/had far more pixels than any digital device.
>>
>> no offense, but kodachrome doesn't have any pixels at all nor does the
>> stereo realist work the same way.
>
> Metaphor seems lost on you.
> Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any digital
> media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad. And 3-D is 3-D no matter
> what technology you use to achieve it. There are 3 spatial dimensions and
> the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a different technology
> does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.


Using your logic, 3d viewing has bee around a lot longer than 1950.
http://www.bitwise.net/~ken-bill/stereo.htm


--
Peter

From: nospam on 12 May 2010 12:39
In article <hse4020e2t(a)news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

> So do you have some numbers to present that show that $3K digital
> cameras have higher resolution that Kodachrome?

<http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html>

around 8-10 megapixels, digital starts to eclipse kodachrome 64 and
who wants to be stuck at iso 64 anyway? digital cameras today can
produce grain free images with great colour at iso 800-1600. no film
can do that.

> And sites that compare
> the output of a digital camera with a scan of a slide don't
> count--they're showing you the resolution of the scanner, not of the film.

if the scanner resolution can resolve individual film grains (which
high end scanners can), then the scanner is not a limitation. it's
actually the only way to compare them without introducing additional
variables. if you print the digital image and compare prints, you end
up comparing print quality, not image quality.

> > some 3d systems do not need special viewers or glasses, so yes, it does
> > matter.
>
> Which "3d systems" are these? Or are you talking about stereo pairs
> that require that one strain ones eyes to merge the images?

there are lcd displays that don't require glasses. sharp had a 3d
laptop over 5 years ago, the rd3d. it wasn't a very good laptop but the
3d screen worked rather well, with no glasses at all. it did have a
limited viewing angle but it wasn't as restrictive as it might sound
from the reviews. i saw one at a photo show, with a bunch of 3d images
on it.

<http://www.pcworld.com/article/112887/sharp_ships_notebook_with_3d_scre
en.html>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Sony crushes the price/build-quality barrier
Next: Camera store in Toronto blowing out inventory