I hope no one minds a few comments.
Sure, digital projector. Use it for TV too. Amazing sharpness -
better than any slide projector I've seen. (of course, you did say
"economic"...)
I have not seen many of these, but the ones I have seen are not
what you would call sharp. Its main advantage is that it can
represent the movements on a computer screen and use software
provided by Microsoft.
Comparable to most colour printing, and the pigment inkjets (e.g.
Epson 2000p) are better than any chemical print.
"better"? Longer lasting maybe, but virtually every article talks
about the reduced color gamut of archival inkjet inks including the
new Epson inks. Of course it is possible to make pleasing prints with
reduced color contrast, but not better.
There will always be a split, but better quality will
migrate downwards, and better convenience will migrate upwards. Look
at how fast the entry level computers are today.
That is really debatable since the standard that most people accept
is a soft 4x6 inch print with burned out flash highlights. That has
not changed for years even with the virual replacement of simple box
type cameras with more sophisticated 35mm and APS gear.
> And if non of them is sharp?
Try again.
I think the point was missed here. I think that it was that digital
images are not sharp, not that more quality could be gotten by making
a more intense effort.
Amateur and professional astronomers prefer CCDs: c.f.:
Of all the advances available to amateurs, none has changed the art
of astrophotography more than the affordable charge-coupled device
(CCD). ...
The devices are so efficient that a 30-second CCD exposure is
equivalent to a 30-minute film exposure.
Of course light sensitivity is the whole point of it, not necessarily
any of the other qualities of film. This is a highly specialized
activity that really does not seem to have too much to do with more
usual kinds of photography. To use your own example, with the fast
exposure, you are leaving out the need for filtered multiple
exposures and construction of a color image on the computer, usually
labelled false color images. Great for scientific work or artistic
representations of the cosmos. In addition the small size of most of
the CCDs in comparison to the field being looked requires stitching
software to piece together multiple images as you might for a
panorama shot.
I do predict that the size of these cameras will be limited by our
ability to control it with our hands. Some are already the size of
credit cards (except thickness), and 190 grams, with lens, is less
than an OM body alone (460+ grams).
I am confused. Hasn't that point been reached already by film
cameras? An Olympus Epic Stylus Zoom is 225 grams and I think it has
reached the point in size reduction beyond which I don't think I
could operate it. Certainly it would be impossible now were it not
auto-everything.
I think Richard was talking about creating the kind of beautiful
images requiring the craft that he puts into them. Small camera size
and astrophotography are beside the point.
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|