Professional Web Applications Themes

No more Contax... - Photography

On 4 Mar 2005 14:47:47 -0800, com <com> wrote:  > > An inefficient way to just click on "desaturate". (When you set a and > b to zero and retain L "from LAB" step copies the CIE "Y" value to all > output channels ... which is basically what you get when you > "desaturate" an image in RGB space.)[/ref] No. Try it, you'll see: the results are different. -- Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall...

  1. #41

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    On 4 Mar 2005 14:47:47 -0800, com <com> wrote: 
    >
    > An inefficient way to just click on "desaturate". (When you set a and
    > b to zero and retain L "from LAB" step copies the CIE "Y" value to all
    > output channels ... which is basically what you get when you
    > "desaturate" an image in RGB space.)[/ref]

    No. Try it, you'll see: the results are different.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  2. #42

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Has anyone else noticed it only took until the second reply for this thread
    to turn into an anti-Olympus bash? That adds a certain amount of weight to
    the accusation that there are those in this NG here only for the purpose of
    slamming other people's choices of camera equipment.

    Rob


    Basic Guest

  3. #43

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    "HvdV" <nl> wrote 

    Leica spun off their camera business into a separate company some years ago.
    The camera company is a division of Hermes and has no connection to the
    company making the optical devices to which you refer. Panasonic has
    publicly stated that they have no interest in acquiring Leica Camera. If
    true, there is little hope for Leica.


    jfitz Guest

  4. #44

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    Ben Rosengart wrote:
     

    If the results are different then what you described is not what is
    occuring. You can google up the CIE->LAB and LAB->CIE transformation.

    eawckyegcy@yahoo.com Guest

  5. #45

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    On 4 Mar 2005 15:05:26 -0800, com <com> wrote: 
    >
    > If the results are different then what you described is not what is
    > occuring. You can google up the CIE->LAB and LAB->CIE transformation.[/ref]

    Did you try it, as I suggested?

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  6. #46

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    On 3 Mar 2005 22:59:38 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >The strangest part of this is thet Oly told us that
    >the new fantastic 4/3 system had some extra ordinary
    >properties that made it superior - that the real advantage
    >was that it was the choice of professionals that wanted
    >a tool that produced outstanding results. It was lots
    >of talk of tele centric lenses etc, etc, ... The site was
    >full of fashion photography made by very good photographers.
    >
    >And now? Cheap cameras and lenses to try to save the system.
    >Back to the roots - amateurs.
    >
    >
    >/Roland[/ref]

    Olympus really lost their way. Originally, the OM-1, OM-2 and OM-4
    were terrific cameras, offering a number of advantages over the
    competition. Everyone liked them. Then, they get into digital,
    there was word they were going to dispense with the lower end
    completely. That never took off. Now, they get into DSLRs,
    with an expensive model with too few pixels, an a cheap model with
    too many flaws. They should cut their CEO off a the knees.
    -Rich
    RichA Guest

  7. #47

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:30:18 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
    <br+com> wrote:
     

    The first company that can produce a digital with the contrast
    handling of a film camera and lenses that don't produce
    chromatic aberration with whatever sensor will be heros.
    -Rich
    RichA Guest

  8. #48

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    Ben Rosengart wrote:
     

    I do not own PhotoSlop. I have, however, coded the LAB transformations
    etc. Did you google them up?

    eawckyegcy@yahoo.com Guest

  9. #49

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    On 4 Mar 2005 15:12:35 -0800, com <com>
    wrote: 
    >
    > I do not own PhotoSlop. I have, however, coded the LAB transformations
    > etc. Did you google them up?[/ref]

    I have tried to research LAB color with Google in the past and not
    gotten anywhere. But if you give me a reference, I'll be happy to
    read it.

    Also, when I get home, I can post some sample images.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  10. #50

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Basic Wedge wrote: 


    If it bothers you that much, then usenet might not be for you.

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  11. #51

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:11:26 -0500, RichA <com> wrote: 
    >
    > The first company that can produce a digital with the contrast
    > handling of a film camera and lenses that don't produce
    > chromatic aberration with whatever sensor will be heros.[/ref]

    I can't tell if you're critimacizin' my pictures or not.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  12. #52

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    Ben Rosengart wrote:
     

    You can also try www.wikipedia.org. Anyways, some hits:

    http://www.easyrgb.com/math.php

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_space

    etc. You also need to read about the CIE stuff, since it forms the
    core of everthing colour.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Illumination

    www.photo.net has recently "reviewed" a book on colour:

    http://www.photo.net/learn/books/digitalcolor/

    haven't seen it myself though.
     

    Cool! Note that the job of converting a three-channel image to B&W
    ultimately involves the setting of the (a,b,c) coefficients of:

    Y = a*red + b*green + c*blue

    (This is in a linear space.) The results depend on (a,b,c) but also on
    the spectral responses of the R G and B filters in the camera. The
    more over-lapping these responses are, the "better" (or at least
    least-lumpy) the result (but the worse the colour). John P Sheehy has
    noted today how Foveon-based cameras fall into this category...

    There are tools that allow interactive setting of these parameters.

    http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

    (Click on Products, look for "Convert to B&W Pro".)

    eawckyegcy@yahoo.com Guest

  13. #53

    Default Re: 20D B&W

    On 4 Mar 2005 15:42:46 -0800, com <com>
    wrote: 

    I don't see anything directly relevant here, unless XYZ is the same
    thing as RGB ... ?
     

    Dynamite. Thank you. Please forgive me if I don't wrap my head
    around this math on a Friday evening (or, if I can find a way to
    understand it qualitatively rather than quantitatively, ever).
     
    >
    > Cool! Note that the job of converting a three-channel image to B&W
    > ultimately involves the setting of the (a,b,c) coefficients of:
    >
    > Y = a*red + b*green + c*blue[/ref]

    I'm aware of this. A lot of people use Photoshop's Channel Mixer to
    set a, b and c independently. I'll probably catch flak for this,
    but I find that that method gives me more control than I want. It's
    straight-up bewildering.
     

    Sorry, you lost me here, because I'm not sure what "spectral response"
    means.
     

    Do you know the difference between this and "Convert to B&W std" --
    besides $60? Oh wait, you don't use Photoshop. I guess I'll have
    to download them and play around.

    You would not believe how many plugins, tutorials, actions and
    "tips" there are out there for people wanting to do digital B&W.
    I have a list of links half a page long. I am trying to find the
    best methods, but also trying not to get so absorbed in technical
    minutiae that my hobby ceases to be fun.

    --
    Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
    Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
    questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
    --Josh Micah Marshall
    Ben Guest

  14. #54

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    "Ben Rosengart" <br+com> wrote in message
    news:panix.com... 

    Nice shots, did you shoot them in greyscale, or convert from a color file?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


    Skip Guest

  15. #55

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Brian C. Baird <no> wrote: 
    > >
    > > Crikey! What sort of digital camera were you using in 1992? The first one I
    > > saw was in '95 - they were pretty much unheard of much before then, and that
    > > one was probably best described as "utter crap" (about the quality of the
    > > nastiest phonecam of today). Were you using some sort of scanning back or
    > > something?[/ref]
    >
    > I think it was the digital camera made of of bull.[/ref]

    Are you its not your own claims that are made of bull? For example,
    any particular reason you don't consider the Kodak DCS100 and DCS200
    to be digital cameras? DCS200, Kodak's second DSLR, a 1.5 megapixel
    camera based on the Nikon F801, was launched in 1992.

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
    Sander Guest

  16. #56

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    Chris Brown <no_uce_please.com> writes:
     

    My first digital photo was shot around 1976. It used a video camera and
    a strange frame grabber attached to a PDP-11. It would digitize one
    single scanline of a video image, any line you told it to. So you'd
    tell it to capture line 20, then it would pass you the data, then you'd
    ask for line 21, and so on. At 15 lines/sec or less, it took a long
    time for a full-resolution 480-line image. And it was B&W only.

    But it was a digital camera, more or less. No film anywhere. I think
    it might have even used an og "bucket brigade" CCD to capture the
    one video scanline at video rate, then slow down the clock so the A/D
    conversion could take place at a more leisurely pace.

    Later, there was a graphics frame buffer that could capture a whole
    video frame in real time. That was the early 80's

    Then there was an Eikonix 2048x2048 camera. It used a linear photodiode
    array (2048 long), mechanically scanned across the focal plane for the
    other image dimension. Colour scanning used 3 passes and a colour
    filter wheel. This was around 1988.

    Sometime in the early 90s, I used another Eikonix camera, now 4096x6000
    or so, still mechanically scanned and with a filter wheel.

    Sometime around 1995, I wrote some software for a Photometrics 3072x2048
    pixel camera. This used an area-array monochrome CCD, cooled to reduce
    dark current to nearly nothing, but still a colour wheel and 3 exposures
    for colour.

    But all these cameras were owned by someone else, and bought for a
    particular purpose. The first digital camera I bought for myself was a
    Canon G2, in 2001. There certainly was digital photography long before
    this, but it used to be beyond what most consumers would pay. Also, you
    often had to write your own software to run the camera!

    Dave
    Dave Guest

  17. #57

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    "Basic Wedge" <ca> wrote in
    news:2D5Wd.573723$6l.377264pd7tw2no:
     

    Oh yeah- Its like the old days of Usenet. What you generally have is a few
    posters who are excelent resources and then some s come along who
    for whatever the reason, subject people to their own issues. One merely has
    to learn how to "filter" out the intestinal gas in order to get to the
    clean air.

    This whole Olympus is next/s thread is only my second favorite. My
    first is still the whole PC/Mac thing. Now THAT was entertainment.
    Nunnya Guest

  18. #58

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 01:03:42 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss <com> wrote:
     

    http://www.bash.org/?462310

    :-)
    --
    Chris Pollard


    CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
    http://www.cginternet.net
    Christopher Guest

  19. #59

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    "Basic Wedge" <ca> wrote in message
    news:2D5Wd.573723$.. 
    thread 
    of 

    I've been reading the rec.photo groups for years, and never was aware of any
    Olympus bashing, either in film or digital. The C-8080 is certainly the best
    of the 8 megapixel models with long zooms. Olympus has been taking a lot of
    heat for the 4"3 fiasco, but D-SLRs are a very small part of their business,
    and will remain so.

    I really like my Olympus XA.


    Steven Guest

  20. #60

    Default Re: No more Contax...

    "Basic Wedge" <ca> wrote in
    news:2D5Wd.573723$6l.377264pd7tw2no:
     

    Changing the topic from Cotax to Olympus was somewhat confusing.
    But - what bash are we talking about?
     

    Looking for it, I assume. A hobby of yours?


    /Roland
    Roland Guest

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Contax Bodies
    By Miro in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 28th, 03:38 PM
  2. Contax question
    By Peter in forum Photography
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 8th, 11:13 AM
  3. Contax RX II
    By Peter in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 7th, 09:59 PM
  4. Contax SLR AE and MM lenses
    By Chris Wakeen in forum Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 11th, 06:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139