vic vic Posted October 30, 2006 Share #141 Posted October 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) lease porsche??? ha ha man... i dont know what about u, but if a detailed calculation is made with all this high end photography (and that includes leica stuff too for that matter even if it small camera) then it simply touches the porsche (at least the boxster) :-))))))))))) im sure u will also can come to about the same count if not higher (leica sys, hassy digi, imacon, and what ever else u use ) :-))))))))) ya - it may seem crazy from the side-look :-)))) by the way - miata is also nice car if u r hot about sporties, not porsche but funny and actually flfilling as well.... :-)))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 Hi vic vic, Take a look here The Future for Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wilfredo Posted October 31, 2006 Share #142 Posted October 31, 2006 Marc, Do you think a scanner like the Imacon 949 will ever be priced for people who are not professionals? Any idea where actual samples of prints can be gotten? Thanks, Wilfredo+ Benitez-Rivera Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 31, 2006 Share #143 Posted October 31, 2006 ha ha wilfredo... i dont know how exactly the new version imacon9 costs, but anyway, we talk here about scanners that go far beyound 10k $. creo scanners only begin here for example. so no, no way they will be less... how much less - 10%, 20, 30 % if by any chance the price will be reduced? honestly, i think that imacon scanners are very comfortably priced within this ligue... scanners of these capabilites are more expenssive... those more expenssive stuff are high volume post-production oreinted.. but as marc describes now, even here the imacon starts to give a match to top quality flatbad high productivity scanners. (i mean in terms of speed). but there is one intresting scanner... "microtek"... silverfast says that it is not so far from the top qality stuff (like imacon, creo, and weired drum scanners)... and it costs a fraction of those top ones. but it makes only up to medium formats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted October 31, 2006 Share #144 Posted October 31, 2006 Vic, Things will always stay interesting in the world of evolving photographic technology. Any suggested websites for Microtek??? I think the Imacon 949 goes for $20,000.00 (U.S.) Cheers, Wilfredo+ Benitez-Rivera Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Gordon Posted November 26, 2006 Share #145 Posted November 26, 2006 I use an M7. The owner of the lab where I have my XP2 Super processed and scanned told me three months ago that at his visits to trade shows this past summer he learned that the manufacturers of the photofinishing machines are discontinuing the models that process film. He also said that more and more labs will only accept digital media for prints. In other words, within a couple of years I might be able to buy chromogenic film but will have to process it myself or switch back to traditional film--assuming it's still being made. I have about a three year supply of XP2 Super in the freezer and am considering buying another 300-400 rolls of traditional b/w film just to be on the safe side. I'm more concerned that silver papers will disappear so I have 500 sheets of Ilford Warmtone in the freezer. But, the reality is that prints from my Epson R2400 are already exhibition quality. I came kicking and screaming into the digital darkroom, but now that the quality of digital prints is so good and that the time savings are so significant, it's going to be a while before I get back to my traditional darkroom. It's entirely possible that I'll end up selling my frozen paper. Keep in mind film itself replaced glass plates and that it's the images that matter, not the technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 29, 2006 Share #146 Posted November 29, 2006 A freezer full of Tri-X and a skid of dry chemicals is my answer to the labs stopping film lines. But there are 3 Pro labs still doing all films 24/7 in my neck of the woods. I mostly want to preserve B&W film use ... which, IMO, will never be duplicated by digital ... and that's the easiest to do yourself. I'm okay with color digital ... sort of. When I kick off, I want to be embalmed in Selenium Toner and buried with a Hasselblad and MP3 surrounded by Pro-Packs of Tri-X Pro 320 ... just in case : -) The 949 is an awesome scanner ... after scanning some negs with it, it was so easy and fast, I bought a ton more film. I use to hate scanning, now I love it. Here's a sample ... web uploads are so tiny it won't do it justice, but take my word for it the prints are wonderful ... nothing like any digital stuff I'm getting with a H2D/39 ... not speciffically better, but instead different ... film different. I found scanning with a touch less contrast provides "on the money" prints. "Summer Treat". Hasselblad 203FE, 50/2.8FE, Tri-X Pro 320 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/5531-the-future-for-film/?do=findComment&comment=106679'>More sharing options...
martinb Posted November 29, 2006 Share #147 Posted November 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've used the Imacon 848 which is the same machine as 949 but slower. Allthough results are amazing it's not that much better than a good filmscanner like my Canon FS4000US or Nikon Coolscan's with good software. And the results would probably only be visible in REALLY large prints. With that said I still would want a new Hasselblad scanner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calshot Posted November 29, 2006 Share #148 Posted November 29, 2006 John I don't think film will disappear. Unless full size sensors start being incorrporated into bodies soon at a resonable price.Although I have become one of those using digital I am already beginning to question. I don't like the loss of the ability to use the f stop to control the area of focus. Read the interesting topics in the Leica mag on this. Reading the post's I am already waiting for my LC1 to break down.I bet that repair will not be possible too far into the future unlike the M. I dont realy need the instant result that digital can provide. I still would like to own an M so s/h film only choice open to me. So taking all the above in to consideration I might when finances are availbale persue my dream. I can't be the only person thinking like this, so I would not be suprised to see a return to film. Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 29, 2006 Share #149 Posted November 29, 2006 Not the same scannner as the 848 Martin. Not only faster, completely different light source ... more diffused for nicer scans ... also increased D-Max from 4.6 to 4.9 ... and the ability to scan multiple trays of film holders in batch mode. Blows away my MF Minolta MultiPro by a mile ... with the difference showing up in even 8X10s. Just my experience to date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnkuo Posted November 29, 2006 Share #150 Posted November 29, 2006 Marc, Beautiful scan. Diffused light source is the way to go. I just ordered scanhancer for my mutil scan pro. I love the look of tri-x. There's nothing quite like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
humanized_form Posted November 29, 2006 Share #151 Posted November 29, 2006 this is a great thread! i think the advent of affordable high quality scanning has made using film a really nice choice at this point. my choice is shooting color slides and with drum scans the images look great. i'm thinking i will probably use this combination of technologies as long as the choice is available. i feel like i can watch digital evolve and jump back into the pool anytime. no rush. i will happily sit out a few rounds of the digital upgrade game. right now there are fine analog cameras available for very cheap prices. i just bought another used OM-4 for $130! you get great performance and simplicity of design, plus awesome results straight out of the camera. i can now afford to have a number of cameras loaded with different films for different shooting conditions, plus take my time shooting the roll, that is incredible fun. i love it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted November 29, 2006 Share #152 Posted November 29, 2006 The Imacon 848 has D-max 4.8 compared to 949's 4.9. You would never spot the difference. These scanners are almost too good for any film. The CCD is also the same on both of the scanners. The real advantage with the 949 is the workflow and speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted November 29, 2006 Share #153 Posted November 29, 2006 Great Scan Marc I love film, shoot digital when I must; shoot film when I can. People often say to me 'what can you do with film that you can't with XXX digicam'?. Well, i can't quantify it, possibly it's the whole creation thing you know, taking the image, developing the film, printing the picture etc. I understand that digital has given the gift of ease of image-making, and instant feedback and 'free film' for Joe Public, but perversely I'd swap that for a 2 week wait for my Kodachrome and the feeling that I've created something. sorry for the ramble:D Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 30, 2006 Share #154 Posted November 30, 2006 The Imacon 848 has D-max 4.8 compared to 949's 4.9. You would never spot the difference. These scanners are almost too good for any film. The CCD is also the same on both of the scanners.The real advantage with the 949 is the workflow and speed. Sorry to disagree Martin. I scanned the same 6X6 negs using both scanners and the differences, although minor, were there to see. While a slight increase in D-Max may no be all that influencial in that difference, I believe the newer 949 diffused light source was. In the end it was a decision between the 848, which the dealer loaned me for a couple of months, and the 949, which was touted on sites like Scanhancer as being better due to the diffused light source ... and considering the considerably faster work flow ... it came down to money. When Hasselblad offered a few remaining new 949s for not much more than the 848 in order to clear inventory for the new rebadged X scanners, it became a no brainer decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted November 30, 2006 Share #155 Posted November 30, 2006 Can someone explain to me why a CD should give better quality sound - as was originally claimed - than vinyl. I thought a cd was a binary source meaning it was series of on'off switches even if the off period was very short. with vinyl I assume that the needle is always in contact with the vinyl so only has a wear problem. Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted November 30, 2006 Share #156 Posted November 30, 2006 Can someone explain to me why a CD should give better quality sound - as was originally claimed - than vinyl. I thought a cd was a binary source meaning it was series of on'off switches even if the off period was very short. with vinyl I assume that the needle is always in contact with the vinyl so only has a wear problem. Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree. Think of CDs as player piano rolls. The CD disk is a 120 mm diameter disk of polycarbonate. The center contains a hole 15 mm in diameter. The innermost part of the disk does not hold data. The active data area starts at the 46 mm diameter location and ends at the 117 mm diameter location. The 46-50 mm range is the lead in area and the 116-117 range is the lead out area[1]. Disks are written from the center to the outside (this increases manufacturing yield, and also allows for changes in disk size). A CD disk contains a long string of pits written helically on the disk. The edges of the pits correspond to binary "1"s. Each pit is approximately 0.5 microns wide and 0.83 microns to 3.56 microns long. (Remember that the wavelength of green light is approximately 0.5 micron) Each track is separated from the next track by 1.6 microns. The difference in height between pits and lands leads to a phase difference between the light reflected from a pit and from its surrounding land. By measuring the intensity with a photodiode, one is able to read the data from the disc. The pits and lands themselves do not directly represent the zeros and ones of binary data. Instead, Non-return-to-zero, inverted encoding is used: a change from pit to land or land to pit indicates a one, while no change indicates a zero. This in turn is decoded by reversing the Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation used in mastering the disc, and then reversing the Cross-Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding, finally revealing the raw audio data stored on the disc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 30, 2006 Share #157 Posted November 30, 2006 Can someone explain to me why a CD should give better quality sound - as was originally claimed - than vinyl. I thought a cd was a binary source meaning it was series of on'off switches even if the off period was very short It's a bit like watching a film, the images rush into your brain so fast you don't see them as individual images, so you don't notice the 'bits'. Anyhow isn't everything digital? Electrons and photons and all that :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted November 30, 2006 Share #158 Posted November 30, 2006 It's a bit like watching a film, the images rush into your brain so fast you don't see them as individual images, so you don't notice the 'bits'. Anyhow isn't everything digital? Electrons and photons and all that :-) Photons are wavicles and exist at many different energy levels and frequencies, so they are definitely not digital (on/off) at all. Electrons and many other things in an atom can have a varible level of "charge" or energy state, so they aren't digital either. Hey, maybe we can start a church that preaches that "digital" is "against natural law". lol... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted November 30, 2006 Share #159 Posted November 30, 2006 Can someone explain to me why a CD should give better quality sound - as was originally claimed - than vinyl. I thought a cd was a binary source meaning it was series of on'off switches even if the off period was very short. with vinyl I assume that the needle is always in contact with the vinyl so only has a wear problem. Or am I completely barking up the wrong tree. IMO (and that of many), CD's do not render "better quality sound" than vinyl. There are a number of audiophiles who believe that vinyl recordings played back on high quality turntables/tonearms/cartridges will produce a more full, rich and pleasing sound than the best CD's. I am only talking about regular CD's here, not 24/96 or super audio CD's, etc. I have quite a few recordings that I own both on vinyl and CD, and I can say that in almost every listening demo I give people, they prefer the vinyl. I also have a pretty high end CD player, so don't go thinking that that is the reason. Granted I have a really nice turntable, but all other components are the same. Sorry for getting off topic, but I thought this was worth addressing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted November 30, 2006 Share #160 Posted November 30, 2006 lease porsche??? ha ha man... i dont know what about u, but if a detailed calculation is made with all this high end photography (and that includes leica stuff too for that matter even if it small camera) then it simply touches the porsche (at least the boxster) :-))))))))))) im sure u will also can come to about the same count if not higher (leica sys, hassy digi, imacon, and what ever else u use ) :-))))))))) ya - it may seem crazy from the side-look :-)))) by the way - miata is also nice car if u r hot about sporties, not porsche but funny and actually flfilling as well.... :-)))))) Hi Vic, had not heard from you on the 30x40 board thought you would like to see the studio delivery vehicle - non digital kodachrome yelllow!! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/5531-the-future-for-film/?do=findComment&comment=107969'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.