HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Photo CD Resolution 
Summary: actually, re: PhotoCD availability
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:10:53 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <YfA_zDe00WBOI2_0cR@andrew.cmu.edu> "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Last week I viewed a Photo CD that had of 12 slides I took on it.  It
>prompts the following questions.

Aha!  This discussion of resolution spilled over into rec.arts.books,
for some reason, and I followed it back here for more data.  The
resolution question doesn't much interest me -- this technology is
not in any immediate danger of replacing halide chemistry, but it
DOES look like a wonderful consumer alternative to buying a (very)
expensive slide scanner or sending one's slides/negatives to a service
bureau.

But I have asked at some of my normal NYC photo sources (Willoughby's
for example) and NO ONE seems to offer the service or to have any
real information to give me (they are all expecting stuff from Kodak
"real soon now".)

Here I seem to find someone who has used the damned thing -- so I
ask, what can you tell me about fee structure for your CD on a per-
slide/negative or per-CD basis?  I have a thousand or so images from
a recent trip to Egypt that I need to feed in to my Mac for inclusion
on a video I'm putting together ...

(BTW: on another thread, someone asked about the new Tamron 28-200;
I got one of these for my trip, and was mostly very pleased with it
-- but it had an odd tendency to screw up the mounting of my other
lenses (admittedly on a rather archaic Nikon 2020); I *do* have to
get an 8008 some day ...)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: EOS 630 (650 and RT) Interchangable screens - any experience?
Distribution: na
Date: 19 Dec 92 09:55:23 GMT

In <1992Dec18.225754.4985@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> I wrote:

>With the bi-split, I do notice that the AF doesn't always agree with
>the focusing screen.  The AF likes to go just a tad long.  This is
>particularly apparent at 300 mm (on my 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM).  I played
>around with the AF so that it had to go from close-to-far and far-to-
>close, and it still insists on focusing a tad long.

>I'm quite not sure what to do about this.  I tried my bi-split and my
>100-300 on my friend's 630 (which I helped him buy, and which seems
>newer than mine) and it seems to have the same problem.  Maybe I'll
>give Canon a call sometime.

Well, I played around with this a bit more, and it seems to be that
*I'm* the cause of the focus being slightly out.  All of my "tests"
were with relatively short distances and handheld.  It would seem that
I first point the camera, then depress the shutter button halfway, and
then I adjust my eye position to check focus.  (Since I'm at 300/5.6, I
have to move my eye a lot to get it perfectly centered so that neither
of the half-moons is darkened.)

Turns out that the adjusting of my eye position moves the camera enough
to put the focus a bit out.  The focus confirmation light stays lit
because I'm in "one-shot" AF mode!

I tested this by using a tripod, and I also tried the camera on
AI-servo.  Sure enough, it attempted to correct for my every movement,
and was in noticably better focus (according to the focusing aid).

So, my faith in AF is restored!  (Within its limitations of course!)

ACS

-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: rheinze@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Maxxum 7000 accessories
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:21:28 EST
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

I have a Maxxum 7000 camera.  I am in the market for
some accessories for that camera (used items), such as
the wireless controller, etc.
Please send e-mail as I do not keep up with the newsfeed.
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Film Flatness
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:32:38 GMT
Organization: nope

>In article <1992Dec13.201504.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>>In article <334@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>>...
>>> BTW, I don't know if this matters, but I do not consider tacks to be
>>> very sharp.  Needles, yes.  Scalpels, yes.  Razor blades, yes.  Tacks?
>>> 
>>> Where did this phrase "tack sharp" come from, anyway?
>>> 
>


Needles are point weapons, a la epee.  Scalpels and razors are
edge weapons, a la sabre.

Tacks (of the carpet variety), having both a point and a sharp
edge are thus a la rapier.

Each has its purpose, strengths and weaknesses.

Who has not had the experience of reaching into a bag of tacks,
and withdrawing one's unclenched hand covered with the little
buggers?


-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
From: rbhank@wsl.dec.com (Ron Bhanukitsiri)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: PZ-10/PZ-1 additional features - worth the price ?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 02:23:43 GMT
Organization: Western Software Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuba.pa.dec.com

In article <BzBMC8.5In@inews.Intel.COM> kortikar@mipos2.intel.com (Aniruddha Kortikar) writes:
>From my FAQ file I can gather that PZ-1 has these additional features 
>1. Landscape Program
>2. Focuss Assist Light
>3. Slow shutter (30 sec) and 1/8000 fastest shutter
>4. delay timer 2 -12 sec (variable, PZ-10 has fixed 12 sec)
>5. DX- Override
>6. Trap Focus
>7. Rewind With Tounge
>8. Front/Rear Curtain Sync            
>9. Depth Of Field Preview.
>10. Change Focus Screen
>11. Modulation transfer Function/Hyper PRogram Mode etc ..
>
>Camera World has 359$ kit for PZ-10 with 28-80 lens. 
>Simlar PZ-1 kit may cost about 550 or so (prices not confirmed)       
>
>The question is do you use features above ?are they worth 200$ more ?
>
>regards,
>
>Aniruddha Kortikar (kortikar@mipos2.intel.com)

Well, it depends on how serious you are with Photography and how much money
you want to spend.  The PZ-10 can do most of the things PZ-1 can do, albeit,
slower and at times inconvenient.  I'm pretty active in photography and
these are what I use.

>1. Landscape Program
Don't have one.  Use depth of field preview if you have one or depth of
field scale.

>2. Focuss Assist Light
I shoot at night (like party) but the light level is rarely a problem.
I had to use focus assist light a couple of times I think.

>3. Slow shutter (30 sec) and 1/8000 fastest shutter
Absolutely, if you shoot existing light (eg. street scene).  Alternatively
you can use the Bulb mode.  I never use anything faster than 1/2000 since
I don't shoot action.

>4. delay timer 2 -12 sec (variable, PZ-10 has fixed 12 sec)
Fix timer is fine.

>5. DX- Override
This is fine too unless you're particular about slide and wants the
extra saturation like Kodachrome.  I never use it.

>6. Trap Focus
I use it sometimes with my manual focus lens.

>7. Rewind With Tounge
Use very often.  I missed this very much on my SF10, but I have developed
a technical of catching it before a complete rewind ;-)!

>8. Front/Rear Curtain Sync            
Never use

>9. Depth Of Field Preview.
Use often on my manual focus camera.  Really miss it on my AF camera

>10. Change Focus Screen
Never use

>11. Modulation transfer Function/Hyper PRogram Mode etc ..
Never use MTF - just set your f/stop to between f/5.6, f/8 and f/11
and you got it.  I don't have HyP, but I imagine it would be much
easier to go into manual mode than currently available.

Ron B[ee]
The Pen(tax) Pal
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Subject: Re: Filter/Optics Question...
Followup-To: rec.photo
Summary: Don't stop down
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.040116.19838@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>In article <2024@intermec.UUCP> jay@intermec.com () writes:
>>   Question:  Is is possible to use a filter somewhat smaller than
>>	      the front element of the lens it's put on and avoid
>>	      vignetting by stopping down.
>>		 
>>	      Put another way, does stopping down result in a smaller
>>	      area of the front element being used to create the image.
>
>You can probably do this.  To find out, open the back of the camera
>and open the shutter using bulb or the slowest shutter speed and the
>desired f-stop.  (With many whizzo electronic cameras you have to
>defeat an interlock.)  Now look through the corner of the frame.  If
>you see just the shape defined by the diaphragm you are ok.  If you
>see a football (American usage) shaped area defined by two circles you
>have vignetting.  but if you can't see the filter ring you are no
>worse off than the lens was by itself.  It might be hard to tell, and
>you will have to compare filter off vs. filter on.

Stopping down is the wrong thing to do to avoid vignetting. One way of
thinking of the optical situation is that you have put a small
circular object in front of and very close to your lens. You don't
want to be able to see the object. But stopping down will help to
BETTER FOCUS it, thus making its dark image appear on your film (i.e.
vignetting). 

Bill


-- 
Bill Tyler      wtyler@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mapres@gdr.bath.ac.uk (R E Slade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Sigma 50mm macro
Date: 10 Dec 92 12:54:56 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

I've read a lot recently about how sharp the Sigma 90mm macro lens is.  Does
anybody have experiences with the 50mm version?  It appeals to me more because
it allows 1:1 reproduction without the need for further extensions.  The greater
working distance offered by the 90mm doesn't really matter much to me.  Also, it
would be nice to use the 50mm as a prime lens.

Please email me with your comments and experiences.  I would be grateful if
anyone knew an approximate price in the UK for the EOS AF version.

	Thanks,

		Robert.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Canon USM 100-300 & 75-300, why the strange pricing?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 10:59:09 GMT

In article <Bz34sG.1J1@fulcrum.co.uk>, rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor) writes:
> In the UK (and maybe elsewhere?) the following Canon USM lenses have these
> specifications and pricing:
> 
> 75-300	4.5-5.6		190 pounds
> 100-300	4.5-5.6		255 pounds
> 
> They have the same filter size, minimum focus, but the expensive one weighs a
> little more (540g versus 495g). Why is the 75-300 not more expensive? I can
> only presume that they have different mechanisms/glass.
> 
> Anyone got any ideas?
> 

I think the word you are looking for is 'cheap'. Put the 2 side-by-side and you
will very quickly see the difference.

~Paul
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Price of Nikon F head?
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:17:05 GMT
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine

In article <1992Dec14.084005.1999@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, dtalmage@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
> What's a reasonable price to pay for a working metered head for a 

> Nikon F? 
I suppose $150 would be good for the last style Ftn head,
but it's 20 years old minimum and very difficult to repair if the notorious
resistance ring goes out.
 
 If I can't find an F head, can I put an F2 head on an F body 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and expect them to work and play well together?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No.
Couple of reasons, 1) F2 shutter speed dial won't register with the F body
			shutter speed dial.
		   2) The battery compartment on the F2 is in the body, on the 
                        F, it is in the head
Reason #1 is indicative of a general incompatibilty.


> 
> I'll check Shutterbug ads for prices, of course, but I don't expect to 
> find anything.

(IMHO: I'd buy an FM2 and put the F body on a copystand )

David N. Chorley, sorcerer's apprentice
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: improvise view finder magnifier?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:44:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Dec12.073507.12139@microsoft.com> peterwu@microsoft.com (Peter Wu) writes:
>I have a view finder magnifier for my EOS 10s, but it's only 2X. I need
>a higher magnification (and a wider field please) one. Since Canon
>doesn't make any other ones, I wonder how I can improvise one.
>
>I have no background in optics. I just look thru the 2X magnifier and
>it seems to have the effect of a telescope. So I grab a 8X binocular
>and put it over the view finder. It almost work, except I can't put in
>into focus.
>
>Any ideas?

Yes.  Get about a 1/2 diopter lens and put it over the front of the
tube of your binocular.  Well, that is for the Nikon 8008.  Its
viewfinder image is at about 1.5 meters away.  So a 2/3 diopter lens
would make it come out just about at infinity.  A 1/2 diopter lens
should make the image move out to 6 meters.  You will have to check
what the image distance is for an EOS 10s yourself.  

  -- David Jacobson
From: swanger@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Nikon School
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:31:02 GMT
Organization: Auburn University, AL

I recently saw an ad for "Nikon School" in one of the photo mags.  I think
it is 75 dollars for a one day photo course, sponsored by Nikon.  Has anyone
out there attended this course?  Is it worth attending?

Thanks for the help!

-- 
David Swanger,   Auburn University, Alabama,   swanger@accs.duc.auburn.edu
From: samuel@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mirror lock-up, Has anybody really tested?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:45:35 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: cheech.cs.ubc.ca

hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song) writes:

>I have seen people yearning for a mirror-lockup with their 35 mm SLRs.
>However, I have never seen any article reporting an actual resolution 
>test with and without mirror lock.  The only picture I saw was in a 

>length of the lens as well.   Please confine the discussion on 35 mm
>SLRs.
Another use of mirror lock-up is where you want very accurate timing.
I remember one photographer who was trying to get a picture of another 
picture tru the window of a MOVING train -- a bitch of a task even if
you're intimate with your camera's timings.  With mirror lockup, it's
much easier, (though he did end up with slightly less accurate framing).
-- 
-- 
Stephen Samuel 		(604)822-9248		samuel@cs.ubc.ca
The first prerequisite to winning is playing the game.
From: mcfarlan@aurigaxerox.com (Doug McFarland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Zone VI 4x5 view comments ?
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:25:51 GMT
Reply-To: mcfarland.henr801c@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation


I'm thinking of moving into large format with a Zone VI 4x5 view.

Does anyone have any comments good or bad on this camera ?

--
	always learnin'

		doug

********************************************
        McFarland.henr801c@Xerox.com    
********************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mas@porgy.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc A. Sarrel)
Subject: shutter speed (again)??
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:49:32 GMT

Well, thanks to all who responded to my earlier posting about wether
shutter speeds were really powers of two.  I did some tests on my
8008s and I found that when I set it to 30 sec in manual mode, the
shutter stays open for 32 secs (as timed by my watch).  Set at 15 sec,
the shutter actually stays open for 16 sec (again, my seiko comes
through).  It's not conclusive, but one might infer that they made the
same adjustment to real powers of two for shutter speeds less that one
second.  Maybe I'll give Nikon a call...

--marc
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson)
Subject: Re: Polorid/Land cameras
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:41:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

>How old are they? I have a Polaroid Land 104 camera, and I have had
>a hard time finding a battery for it (finally found it but it cost a lot :( )
>and then I've not found color film for it yet.
I think the 400 series came after the 100 series.
I think that these are the cheap follow-on to what you have.  They take pack
film, I think yours takes roll?  I have heard of the 110a/b cameras being
converted to pack film.  Then you can use the very available 107/108 667/668
films that i see in mail order.

Mark
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 06:01:41 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pit-manager.mit.edu

(I don't normally read this group, but I've scanned the last two weeks
of traffic in it and read all of the FAQ postings I could find, and I
couldn't find any mention of this topic, so I'm forced to ask about
it.  Sorry if it's been discussed before.)

For the past several weeks, the coupon leaflets in the Boston Sunday
Globe have had in them an advertisement for a company calling itself
"Signature Color."

They claim to have come up with a new, better color film, by taking
35MM motion picture film and adapting it for use in 35MM cameras.

They offer to let people try this film for free -- by sending in a
coupon and $1.99 for shipping and handling, you can get two
20-exposure rolls of the film.

OK, so I'm saying to myself, what's the catch?  Either (a) the film
really is much better, so much so that they think people who try it
will decide to buy more rather than buying other film, or (b) the film
is different enough from normal 35MM film that it requires a special
developing process that only Signature Color can provide (and, of
course, if this is the case, I'm sure they charge an arm and a leg for
it).

The (b) possibility is strengthened by some of the fine print at the
bottom of the coupon -- "Processing available at Signature Color with
limited availability from other labs.  Process ECN-II."

So, am I right?  Am I going to have to send the film back to them and
pay a lot to get it developed?  If not, then what's the scam?  Is this
really something for nothing, or is there a catch I'm missing?

Thanks for any answers you can give.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens                                         jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena              Moderator, news.answers
From: marc@milan.East.Sun.COM (Marc Thompson-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Info on Elle Photographer Gilles Bensimon
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:33:15 GMT
Reply-To: marc@milan.East.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: milan.east.sun.com

Group,

I really enjoy this guys work.

Does anyone know where I might get  information on him (e.g photo style,
equipment, film choices, etc).

American Photo featured several pros as well as up and coming
photographers a while back.  They mention Gilles in an article, but 
did not give any technical information.

Anyone with information (e.g mag articles, books, etc) please
post or send me email.

Thanks,

Marc &&
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dbsbanka@solomon.technet.sg (Teo Pit Koon)
Subject: Phantom lights-pse explain
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:38:12 GMT


Subject: Phantom lights on print-plse explain

	I am an amateur photographer and I have a question to ask.
It seems that once, when taking some photos during Christmas, I 
was surprised to see some phantom lights on print. The lights seemed
to be wavy lines extended from the silhouette of a person or a bright
object, such as a candle, or the lamp post, ceiling light etc.
I am quite sure during the shooting the camera was held steady,
at least, the objects were in sharp focus. There were no other
attachments to the camera, it was a simple SLR model, manual style.

	There were also some photos in that particular roll of negative that 
show my friends appearing in a ghostly outline, with the background, wall
etc showing through! I couldn't recall the model of the camera (it was
a good Japanese Canon SLR which seldom gives problem) but
other than the phantom streaks of light, the objects of the photo
were in sharp focus. Could someone plse explain? I did not use any
fancy trick like time exposure etc, because I don't know how to!
(The camera did have a 10 sec delay timer but the freak lights appear
even when the shooting was done without delay!)

	Also I have came across similar photos in books on yoga and
Buddhism in which the author claimed that such lights were divine
lights of the holy man in the photo, etc. Is there some scientific
explanation to the effects? Have someone taken similar phantom lights
in the photos before? Would appreciate a reply.

       I used to take photos which showed the person with red eyes, and
I have since learned that it was caused by the proximity of the flash
unit to the camera's aperture. I would like to find out from photo
experts if there is a normal explanation for these unusual lights.
I have not repeated the freak results since.
    
      Thanks in advance.       
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Photo CD Resolution 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:36:44 GMT

From article <YfA_zDe00WBOI2_0cR@andrew.cmu.edu>, by "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu>:
> With scanned images is there a simple way to tell what you have?  A
> monitor with higher resolution will tell you (show you) more about the
> image, right?  But what if you do not have one handy?  Is there some
> simple way to evaluate the resolution of images on Photo CDs?  
> 
> I do not know if this is directly related to the above questions, but
> how do the five resolutions of the Photo CDs relate to the monitor you
> may be using?
> 
> 

To view PhotoCD effectively, you only need a 24-bit VGA card, and a
regular 14" $200 VGA monitor.  Sure, you get only 640x480x16.7million colors,
but if you have enough RAM to load the 3000x2000, you still can view
parts of it at a time, at least in Windows.

Of course the best way is to get a 2M 24-bit VGA card, and a 20" monitor,
and run the thing at 1024x768x65000 colors.