Digital to Match film…

  • Posted: 13 February 2002 08:44 PM #16

    Holy crap.

    I thought I was lucky ‘cause I have the Frontiers, dye-subs and some megapixel SLRs at work.

         
  • Posted: 14 February 2002 07:42 AM #17

    I’d give it all up for a frontier… <sniff>

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt

         
  • Posted: 14 February 2002 07:43 AM #18

    crap you know, I think when this thread started I had more posts than pagefault.  where the hell did those come from?!

    <walking off humming, I’ve been working on the chain gang, all the live long day…>

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt

         
  • Posted: 14 February 2002 07:54 AM #19

    I heard one too many times that x is an applescript, or something equally nefarious, and decided to turn the Forums into the ultimate contest between man and machine.

    It’s more of a marathon than a sprint.  I’m way behind now, but in 50 years…

         
  • Posted: 14 February 2002 11:54 AM #20

    best of luck to you. 

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt

         
  • Posted: 14 February 2002 11:55 AM #21

    On 2002-02-13 22:23, EDGar wrote:

    On 2002-02-13 17:12, pagefault wrote:

    I work in remote sensing.  (I study satellite data.)  If you think about it, in many ways Landsat is just a gloriphied digital camera.  But its angular Instantaneous Field Of View is on the order of 0.05 milliradians so that it can resolve a 60m line pair from 700km away, with a noise level that is around one digital count, and extremely well calibrated spectral bands… it also costs hundreds of millions of dollars.  There are other commercial satellites that wil resolve a ~1m line pair! and who knows what the military’s got. 

    Is that Landsat 7?
    -Dan

     

    Signature

    "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

    What’s the difference between a Mac and a PC? Macs are designed, PCs are assembled.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 February 2002 06:07 PM #22

    -

    Signature

    -I’m sorry, apparently my Karma has run over your Dogma -

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 February 2002 06:32 PM #23

    Anybody into stochastic printing? Whereby there is no screen per se like offset printing. The dots are arranged “as needed” instead of being on a fixed grid with each dot size changing in size to register density.  I could see a “smart” digital camera using the principle of stochastic printing to get around the daunting task of storing mega pixels of info. The pixels would be arranged as they are needed in a more analog way for detail and density. That way, X amount of pixels would theoretically go alot farther. Whaddaya think?
    Silver based film will never go away because there is so much you can do to it from inception to printing. Digital is garbage in/garbage out like any digital source to final product. You can “push” film but you can’t “push” a zero or one. Oh yeah, digital consumer cams will overtake siver based cams for sure but for real intense large format art imaging good ol’ film will still be around for quite awhile.
    Poor Kodak is in denial,(I worked for them in early 90’s) hence the APS 35mm system which is neither 35mm nor “Advanced”. A last attempt to keep silver around a little longer from the makers of the Disc (remember that turkey?) camera!  I’m out.  d:)

    Signature

    -I’m sorry, apparently my Karma has run over your Dogma -

         
  • Posted: 15 February 2002 09:53 AM #24

    On 2002-02-14 15:55, Photodan wrote:

    Is that Landsat 7?

    5 and 7 both (7 will actually do ~15m pixels size (30m linepair) but only panchromatic. 

    stochastic printing eh?  I’ll get back to that when I’ve got more time

     

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt

         
  • Posted: 15 February 2002 10:26 AM #25

    On 2002-02-14 22:32, CudaBoy wrote:
    Poor Kodak is in denial,(I worked for them in early 90’s) hence the APS 35mm system which is neither 35mm nor “Advanced”. A last attempt to keep silver around a little longer from the makers of the Disc (remember that turkey?) camera!  I’m out.  d:)

    Actually, Kodak is making HUGE strides in digital.  Last time I checked, Sony was out front, but Kodak is very strong in digital.  The have in development and/or in the field kiosks, connectivity to digital labs, dry labs, digital cameras, dye-sub printers, photosharing sites (remember, they appear to be doing the online fulfillment for Apple) and on and on and on.  Kodak appeared to be caught off-guard by digital, perhaps underestimating how fast it would take off, but they’ve turned the corner and are moving full speed into digital, running over the little guys every chance they get.

    Personally, I don’t think they ever cared if APS took off, but there is not enough time in the day to cover that issue.  The next time you are at the local lab, ask the owner what he/she thinks about APS and Kodak.

         
  • Posted: 15 February 2002 10:48 AM #26

    I was still working at a Camera Repair/Sales Shop when APS came out. It was a farce. I think it was a poor attempt at adding modern features to a very mature media.

    Satellite imaging is just waaay too cool!
    I wonder if there’s any truth to the rumor that military birds can and has resolved the ingredients on a French’s mustard bottle during someone’s picnic.

    I would imagine that atmospheric distortion would be a large thing to overcome.
    -Dan

    Signature

    "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

    What’s the difference between a Mac and a PC? Macs are designed, PCs are assembled.

         
  • Posted: 15 February 2002 11:17 AM #27

    On 2002-02-14 22:32, CudaBoy wrote:

    printing to get around the daunting task of storing mega pixels of info. The pixels would be arranged as they are needed in a more analog way for

    It sounds like you are suggesting variable sized CCDs?  Stochastic printing (as I under stand it from what you wrote) it not terribly difficult because it is easy to change the amount of ink put out on the fly.  It is more or less impossible to change the size and location of ccds on the fly because they are physical objects.  Since you don’t know what scene you are going to be imaging it is impossible to put the pixels in the best place for that scene, your best bet is to use an even grid so that it works best for all scenes (as is currently done). 

    If you are just talking about taking up less storage space, that is exactly what the various image compression schemes out there do.  Jpeg in particular looks for areas of similar color and stores one pixel for the entire area, it is a really good compression scheme. 

     

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt

         
  • Posted: 15 February 2002 11:22 AM #28

    Yeah, kodak is getting into digital big time.  They are also getting into remote sensing and hyperspectral imaging (Hyperspectral=REALLY cool satellite images with a continuous spectrum!).  They bought out Research Systems Inc specifically for the ENVI software package which is one of the dominant packages used in the remote sensing world. 

    tbone might know more about atmospheric distortion than I.  Most remote sensing is done on the landsat scale, or generally with even larger pixels so it isn’t too much of an issue.  It wouldn’t be hard to figure out the angular resolving power needed to read a label on a bottle of mustard though.  Does anyone knows when atmospheric distortion becomes and issue…

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt

         
  • Posted: 16 February 2002 07:56 AM #29

    On 2002-02-15 15:22, EDGar wrote:

    tbone might know more about atmospheric distortion than I.  Most remote sensing is done on the landsat scale, or generally with even larger pixels so it isn’t too much of an issue.  It wouldn’t be hard to figure out the angular resolving power needed to read a label on a bottle of mustard though.  Does anyone knows when atmospheric distortion becomes an issue…

    It depends on the equipment, on what you are observing, and, of course, on the atmospheric conditions. In astronomy, this was determined by how far apart two stars had to appear before you could see them as two distinct objects. The old rule-of-thumb, back when glass photographic plates roamed the landscape, was that you were never, EVER going to get more than .1 arc-seconds resolution, and that was prime atmosphere, equipment, two objets of of equal brightness, etc.

    Since then, electronic detectors have taken over, adaptive optics has been developed (though it still ain’t cheap), and new techniques like speckle interferometry have come along, so that astronomers have actually built up a picture of Betelgeuse, the bright, orange star in Orion. I *think* they have the resolution down to the size of the Earth’s orbit around the sun. (Betelgeuse is one of the largest known stars in the galaxy, being larger than Mars’ orbit.) I don’t think that they can read the ingredients on a mustard bottle, though. Or, if they can, that is assuming that there is no atmosphere. Then again, I have no idea how adaptive optics has progressed since I left grad school.

    Atmospheric distortion is one of the reasons that Hubble can do so much, though its mirror is less than half the diameter (and hence less than 1/4 the area) of the largest ground-based scope. Just imagine if they’d actually ground the mirror right and didn’t have all the loss from the extra optical elements they had made to correct for the bad mirror. Being above the atmosphere, you are limited by the equipment ... and, I guess, by the distortion from the interstellar medium.

     

     

    Signature

    Work is the curse of the drinking classes.
    - Oscar Wilde

         
  • Posted: 16 February 2002 01:24 PM #30

    so a back of the envelope calculations suggests

    0.1arcsec = 0.0000005radians?
    0.0000005 * 300000m (very low orbit) = .15m = 30cm/linepair

    I’m not too sure about the arc-seconds to radians conversion, but that seems reasonable.  so no, they can’t read a bottle of mustard.  Even if you assume an amazing ~10x increase in resolving power due to better optics you still get a 3cm line pair.  not bad, but you’re still not reading that bottle of mustard. 

    Incidentally, I think they are building a ground based telescope that will surpass hubble.  It’s going to be ginormous though.  How much can you push the atmospheric limits simply by increasing your lens diameter?  Does that hit a wall pretty quick without adaptive optics? 

    Signature

    All statements are to be taken with a grain of salt