[AGL] Mike Attack

[Bill Irwin]

Mike, don't tell me, you should tell Canon about the errors in their ways.
Once they understand that they are wrong I think they will promote you to
head of engenerring.  And since you are so good at math maybe you could
calculate how much compression of a JPEG file it takes to get those numbers.

If Canon only knew that they actually had a 39 meg camera they could sell a
lot of them!!



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>
To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"
<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack



> Ewie,

>

> I understand this resolution thing. You, however, do not understand

> this resolution thing.

>

> Each pixel, using filters, generates 3 values, 1 each for red green and

> blue. The raw file for a picture at max rez on this camera is 39Megs.

> 4,368 x 2,912 = 12,719,616 pixels. 12.7 million x 3 = a 39+ million byte

> file.

>

> According to the figures you quote,  4,368 x 2,912 = approx. 4.6MB.

> If your calculator returns that sum, it is broken.

>

> By the way, this camera is not a Cannon, it is a Canon.

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Mike

>

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>

> To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"

> <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:31 PM

> Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack

>

>

> > Mike, maybe you don't understand this resolution thing, it is confusing.

> > The D5 does not produce a 39meg file, if it did they would be

advertising

> > the fact all over the place.

> > Here is a quote from the Cannon site:

> > File size:

> > (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.6MB (4,368 x 2,912) (2) Large/Normal 2.3MB

> > (4,368

> > x 2,912) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.7MB (3,168 x 2,112) (4)

Medium/Normal:

> > Approx. 1.4MB (3,168 x 2,112) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 2.0MB (2,496 x

> > 1,664)

> > (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 1.0MB (2,496 x 1,664) (7) RAW: Approx. 12.9MB

> > (4,368 x 2,912)

> >

> > If it could produce a 39meg file they would certainly say so.

> >

> > I didn't see Polidori's photos but if they all look a little blue to you

> > that may be a sign that you monitor is not color corrected.  Since you

> > seem

> > to be a computer buff I guess you know that monitors do not always

display

> > the correct colors and for critical work they need to be calibrated so

> > things have the correct color.   I have been doing this stuff for a few

> > years and it is true if a scene is illuminated just by sky light only

such

> > as in the shade,  can have a bit of a blue cast.  But if you have a blue

> > sky

> > that means you have the sun out and scenes in sunlight never have this

> > blue

> > cast - the engineers at Kodak have figured this out and make their film

to

> > show pretty damn good colors.

> >

> > Better get your monitor calibrated if you want to peruse a career as

photo

> > critic.

> > Aloha

> >

> > ----- Original Message ----- 

> > From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>

> >

> >

> >> Ewie,

> >>

> >> You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.

> >>

> >> The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size

> >> as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its

> >> maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that

> >> and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary

> >> colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as

> >> the 40Megs you mention.

> >>

> >> Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of

> >> film and chemical darkrooms.

> >>

> >> As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in

> >> burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time

> >> if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.

> >>

> >> $2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.

> >> It will take some years before a used one will come

> >> close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.

> >> Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,

> >> process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them

> >> for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,

> >> and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.

> >>

> >> Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined

> >> interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook

> >> the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting

> >> without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the

> >> shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by

> >> the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct

> >> light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree when

> >> she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They

> >> don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might

> >> reduce sales.

> >>

> >> Mike

> >>

> >>

> >> > Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like somebody

to

> >> > give

> >> > me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and scanner

combo.

> >> > Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem of them

> >> > getting

> >> > stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500 loss, can't

> >> > afford

> >> > the $3000 loss.  A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to about 40

> >> > meg,

> >> > the

> >> > Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg.  I don't know if the Cannon has this problem

> > but

> >> > many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing the

shutter

> >> > and

> >> > the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing fast

> > action.

> >> > Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.

> >> >

> >> > Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for only

> >> > $31,995

> >> > but

> >> > sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide.  But if

> > you

> >> > are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only way to

go!!

> >> > You

> >> > can buy them on Ebay for around $500.

> >> >

> >> > The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you can do it

> >> > yourself or send it out.  Doing it yourself and sending it out cost

> > about

> >> > the same price.  Only problem is not instant gratification.  Some art

> >> > forms

> >> > require a little work.

> >> >

> >

> >

>

>