"dennis@home" wrote:
On 26/12/2012 22:08, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:54:36 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Pulling the battery is the only sure way, but even that discloses the
information that you possibly don't want to be tracked at a
particular time ;-)

Pulling the battery does not.

A phone vanishing from a network at a certain time and location does
disclose information potentially of interest. i.e. that (failing the
battery simply running flat) one does not what to be "visible" for a
period. Not much value on its own, but potentially interesting when
combined with other sources of intelligence.

Agreed but dennis isn't the brightest of the posters in here though.

Abscence of information could be far more useful than the precense of
information. Turning off your phone when "up to no good" is probably not
wise, particulary if your phone is normally on. Better to leave it some
where then collect afterwards but then it would be static which is also
an indication... Maybe give it to someone else to carry about for a while
but you'd need to know where they went and at what times in case you were
questioned.


Not very bright are you?

Pulling the battery doesn't show where you pulled the battery and the
last known position for the phone could be miles away.
It also doesn't give the exact time when it was done.

Turning the phone off will always give the position of the phone and the
exact time it was turned off.

Also the phone battery could have gone flat while turning it off is a known action.

Any modern phone will turn itself off when it runs out of battery -
shutting down properly rather than acting as if the battery was pulled.

"tim....." wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Simon Finnigan wrote:

Broadback wrote:
On 24/12/2012 20:34, Caecilius wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:14:15 -0000, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
Any guesses at what time he lost the days pay?

I think smartphones warrent their own entry in the survival "rule of
threes": 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water, 3 hours without
shelter, 3 minutes without air, 3 seconds without facebook.

I have a mobile phone, that is what it is, a phone. If I want a camera I
buy one. I also have an e reader, now my daughter wants one, but she
wants it combined with...., so is having awful trouble deciding which
"tablet" to buy. She claims that she does not want to carry different
gadgets with her, so want a combi. Mind you perhaps I should buy one with
a decent memory, as mine is failing!

But having a decent camera built into a smartphone means I always have a
decent camera with me, and am able to send the pictures taken immediately
to other people in high quality.

Poor quality, you mean. The optics is unavoidably going to be crap.

Much better than having to say "hang on
half an hour while I go and get my camera, find it the batteries have lost
charge since I last used it, charge them up and get ready to take a photo".

Eneloop batteries of similar.

I find I have many more pictures that I like and keep just because it takes
me a few seconds to get the camera ready and take the photo.

Yes, I really regret not having a camera in my pocket at all times, for
those bank robberies, car crashes, flying saucers, and other similar
things that happen to me on a daily basis.

You've got that the wrong way round.

If these things did happen on a daily basis then you would carry your
proper camera with you at all times.

It's because they don't that you need an occasional use camera
immediately available as a backup

tim

I do carry my proper camera round with me - in my smartphone. I've not used
my proper camera is over three years now since its just not worth it. It's
too bulky and annoying to have with me, so never gets taken out unless its
a special occasion, and I kept forgetting it then.

"tim....." wrote:
"SteveW" wrote in message ...
On 26/12/2012 10:09, Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-25, ss wrote:
On 25/12/2012 21:34, stuart noble wrote:
On 25/12/2012 21:09, Owain wrote:
On Dec 24, 4:14 pm, "ARWadsworth" wrote:
8am this morning he said that he was waiting for an important call
and could
he keep his phone with him. I said yes and that if I caught him using
the
phone for anyother reason he would lose a days pay.

Are you allowed to dock pay below minimum wage?

Owain


It's important that he does lose a day's pay. They don't learn anything
otherwise

We will soon rue the day we get too attached to these mobile hi tech
mobile phones, next generation will have tracking systems that can have
the information recalled without you knowing,

The next generation? They do that now.

Indeed. Some companies already ban smartphones from being brought into
some meetings, as any such phone infected with a virus could be remotely
commanded to enable the microphone and/or camera and forward confidential information.

Good god you are taking conspiracy to a new level.

Everywhere, that I've come across such a rule it's just been because you
can't be 100% sure that you can "trust" the human attendees. However
nice people that they are, they are just your (fellow) employees and
statistically one in a few thousand of them is going to be dishonest (and
you don't know that you haven't got him in the room with you).

tim

I was in a presentation once from the security services where all phones
where physically taken off you and locked in a differ room before it could
start :-)

John Rumm wrote:
On 26/12/2012 23:34, Simon Finnigan wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article


and for those of us that only need good quality
photographs, a smart phone is ...

... totally inadequate.

Hardly - not even the camera snobs I know are making the claim that a good
smart phone camera is inadequate. Maybe if you want to print photographs at
A0 and bigger, but for most people in most situations, there's so little
difference between a smart phone and a consumer level camera you'd be hard
pushed to tell the difference when printed out at normal size, or viewed on
a normal monitor.

No really, a phone camera really is inadequate for pretty much any real photography...

Even when the clarity and resolution are adequate, the inability to
change lens is a show stopper. The physical size of the optics and hence
the tiny apertures make for unattractive results in many cases simply
because you can't limit the depth of field adequately.


So for the 0.01% of people into that kind of photography a smartphone isn't
suitable. For the vast majority of people, a smart phone take perfectly
good pictures. It's like claiming that because you live on a mountain only
accessible by dirt track road that the only vehicle that's any good is a
4x4 - you seem to have unusual needs in a camera, but to extend that to the
idea that smartphone cameras aren't fit for purpose is just ridiculous.

In article
,
Simon Finnigan wrote:
alan wrote:
On 27/12/2012 13:48, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/12/2012 23:34, Simon Finnigan wrote:
Huge wrote:

Even when the clarity and resolution are adequate, the inability to
change lens is a show stopper.

All you need these days is the smallest of compact 16M pixel cameras
with a x20 zoom.

And pocket space to carry it in, and some way to backup the photos by
WiFi, and to share the photos without having to remove the memory card
into a laptop,which is again something else to carry with you..........

You should be able to store over 100 photos on a memory card. so saving
them to a computer can wait till you get home, back to hotel or whereever.
The same "storage to somewhere else" applies to a phone, too.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-29, John Rumm wrote:

Historically there has been
too much fuss about number of pixels and not enough on other quality
indicators.

Hear, hear.


It's easy to sell pixels, you just count them. It's harder to sell a
better signal/ noise ratio, as the numbers are (a) manipulable and (b)
not defined by a generally used standard. Something else that is easily
manipulated is the jpeg compression ratio, so you can get *thousands* of
pictures on a card, if you compress them enough, which means people will
think you have plenty of room on the card. You can't use them for
anything after they've been compressed, though, and this is where a lot
of camera phones fall down, as their compression ratios are designed to
fit as many pictures as possible into the internal phone memory.

I recently bought a Panasonic camera which actually boasts *fewer* (12
megapixels) than the one it replaced (14 megapixels), and sold this as
being better. Unfortunately, it also processes all the pictures to have
flourescently bright colours, so increasing the chroma noise while the
luminance noise is better. You can't turn the processing off, either.

I prefer the results from an old Fuji 9500, which only boasts 9
megapixels on jpeg files, but when saving raw files, can give a real
non-interpolated 14 megapixels with impressively low noise.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 29/12/2012 16:37, Simon Finnigan wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 28/12/2012 17:45, Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/12/2012 13:48, John Rumm wrote:
The physical size of the optics and hence the tiny apertures make for
unattractive results in many cases simply because you can't limit the
depth of field adequately.

Funny that. I have seen photos where the depth of field has been used
deliberately - but I don't like the effect, and never do it.

IME not being able to adequately control depth of field basically makes a
whole range of shots either impossible, or gives results that either lack
impact, or are significantly less appealing. I would say it is one of the
fundamental skills to master in photography (right up there with control of exposure time).

Simple example - taking pictures at a zoo. You want a good shot of
something, but its behind a wire fence. Now normally I get close to the
fence, focus on the critter of interest and select a wide aperture on a
fast lens and photograph away. The fence will be so out of focus as to be
invisible. Try that with a camera phone though and you will typically get
a distracting image of a fence right over your target.

However it really depends on if you are after "snaps" or photographs.

A shot like:

http://internode.co.uk/temp/bud.jpg

Would lose much of its impact if you could clearly see the distracting
and ugly fence not far behind the subject. (in reality that particular
shot actually needed an extra couple of inches of depth of field rather
than less - but the wind was blowing stuff about so much at the time it was hard to setup)

(photographed at around f1.7 IIRC on Fuji Velvia colour reversal film).

Most people are perfectly happy without having to carry a SLR and multiple
lenses round with them, and are happy with the trade off in picture
quality. Which for most people is minimal - how many people care enough to
learn how to use a high end camera?

Most people don't - but most would not count photography as a hobby.

For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they
need. For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR for
the large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same way
they would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera phone)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/12/2012 16:37, Simon Finnigan wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 26/12/2012 23:34, Simon Finnigan wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article


and for those of us that only need good quality
photographs, a smart phone is ...

... totally inadequate.

Hardly - not even the camera snobs I know are making the claim that a good
smart phone camera is inadequate. Maybe if you want to print photographs at
A0 and bigger, but for most people in most situations, there's so little
difference between a smart phone and a consumer level camera you'd be hard
pushed to tell the difference when printed out at normal size, or viewed on
a normal monitor.

No really, a phone camera really is inadequate for pretty much any real photography...

Even when the clarity and resolution are adequate, the inability to
change lens is a show stopper. The physical size of the optics and hence
the tiny apertures make for unattractive results in many cases simply
because you can't limit the depth of field adequately.


So for the 0.01% of people into that kind of photography a smartphone isn't
suitable. For the vast majority of people, a smart phone take perfectly
good pictures.

Agreed - most people are not interested in photography as such, and
don't really care about the results, so long as they can capture the
"moment" etc.

(although your 0.01% I suspect is obviously way off the mark - the DSLR
industry would not survive on a market of 1 in 10,000 users)

It's like claiming that because you live on a mountain only
accessible by dirt track road that the only vehicle that's any good is a
4x4 - you seem to have unusual needs in a camera, but to extend that to the
idea that smartphone cameras aren't fit for purpose is just ridiculous.

Who said they are not fit for purpose?

I said it was inadequate for real photography. Since most are not
interested in real photography (i.e. photography as an end in itself)
they are not going to be bothered by a camera phones limitations. Also
many people who are into photography will also have a camera phone -
they two are not exclusive.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/12/2012 21:01, John Rumm wrote:

8


For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they
need. For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR for
the large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same way
they would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera phone)

Not a chance.
A trip might beat the flash on some camera phones but it wont beat the
picture quality on a S2.
Not even with a decent film.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 29/12/2012 21:01, John Rumm wrote:

8


For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they
need. For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR for
the large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same way
they would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera phone)

Not a chance.
A trip might beat the flash on some camera phones but it wont beat the
picture quality on a S2.
Not even with a decent film.

I was under the impression that film was equivalent to ~15 megapixels.

On 29/12/2012 23:16, brass monkey wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 29/12/2012 21:01, John Rumm wrote:

8


For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they
need. For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR for
the large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same way
they would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera phone)

Not a chance.
A trip might beat the flash on some camera phones but it wont beat the
picture quality on a S2.
Not even with a decent film.

The trip did not have a built in flash (it had a hotshoe for a top
mounted flash, and a flash socket for external or tripod mount attached
flash).

It had a decent Zuiko 4 element lens that was quite well thought of, and
IME held its own in image quality stakes against a reasonable optical
quality SLRs. (as sharp as my early Praktika SLRs prime lenses, better
than my later Ricoh 35-70mm zoom, and slightly inferior to the f/1.7
50mm Richonon prime)

I have seen the results from an S2 and they are certainly not bad, but
still short of the trip I would say (which I used for a few years as a
kid).

The camera was basic and offered insufficient control to satisfy a
serious photographer for long (4 focus zones, two shutter speeds, but
full aperture control from f/2.8 to f/22, as well as a full auto
exposure mode).

There are some examples here where someone compares results from one to
a high end full frame Canon 5D DSLR:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

I was under the impression that film was equivalent to ~15 megapixels.

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/12/12 01:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/12/2012 23:16, brass monkey wrote:

I was under the impression that film was equivalent to ~15 megapixels.

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

Depends if you are looking at just resolution or also consider dynamic
range etc. Above 12MP you will need a top quality lens to notice much
difference. 25-36MP would be equivalent to a high resolution scan of a
35mm negative, which would probably resolve more film grain than actual
image detail. Film still has the potential to cover a wider dynamic
range. A digital sensor can practically see in the dark.


--
djc

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

I have some prints of a football crowd taken I believe circa 1950 with a
Hasselblad. The detail is just stunning, but they also capture the
atmosphere somehow, and this can't be measured.
I'm amazed at the gulf between what modern cameras can do and what the
average user understands. I'm at the point and shoot end of the spectrum
but I do move the dial now and then. Still amazed that the S2 has no
action setting

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:44:04 +0000, djc wrote:

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

Depends if you are looking at just resolution or also consider dynamic
range etc. Above 12MP you will need a top quality lens to notice much
difference. 25-36MP would be equivalent to a high resolution scan of a
35mm negative, which would probably resolve more film grain than actual
image detail. Film still has the potential to cover a wider dynamic
range. A digital sensor can practically see in the dark.

Google gigapan film - still plenty of life in film yet using that in
35mm and also if you do large format, using more mainstream films.
Anyway, the film vs digital arguements became tedious a decade ago.

On 30/12/12 01:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/12/2012 23:16, brass monkey wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
b.com...
On 29/12/2012 21:01, John Rumm wrote:

8


For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they
need. For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR
for
the large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same
way
they would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera
phone)

Not a chance.
A trip might beat the flash on some camera phones but it wont beat the
picture quality on a S2.
Not even with a decent film.

The trip did not have a built in flash (it had a hotshoe for a top
mounted flash, and a flash socket for external or tripod mount attached
flash).

It had a decent Zuiko 4 element lens that was quite well thought of, and
IME held its own in image quality stakes against a reasonable optical
quality SLRs. (as sharp as my early Praktika SLRs prime lenses, better
than my later Ricoh 35-70mm zoom, and slightly inferior to the f/1.7
50mm Richonon prime)

I have seen the results from an S2 and they are certainly not bad, but
still short of the trip I would say (which I used for a few years as a
kid).

The camera was basic and offered insufficient control to satisfy a
serious photographer for long (4 focus zones, two shutter speeds, but
full aperture control from f/2.8 to f/22, as well as a full auto
exposure mode).

There are some examples here where someone compares results from one to
a high end full frame Canon 5D DSLR:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

I was under the impression that film was equivalent to ~15 megapixels.

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.


I think you are wildly optimistic about film grain. Fast film is as bad
as 2Mp more or less. good film like velva is around the 8MP mark and
only Kodachrome sends you up to the 20MP arena.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

John Rumm wrote:
On 29/12/2012 16:37, Simon Finnigan wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 28/12/2012 17:45, Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/12/2012 13:48, John Rumm wrote:
The physical size of the optics and hence the tiny apertures make for
unattractive results in many cases simply because you can't limit the
depth of field adequately.

Funny that. I have seen photos where the depth of field has been used
deliberately - but I don't like the effect, and never do it.

IME not being able to adequately control depth of field basically makes a
whole range of shots either impossible, or gives results that either lack
impact, or are significantly less appealing. I would say it is one of the
fundamental skills to master in photography (right up there with
control of exposure time).

Simple example - taking pictures at a zoo. You want a good shot of
something, but its behind a wire fence. Now normally I get close to the
fence, focus on the critter of interest and select a wide aperture on a
fast lens and photograph away. The fence will be so out of focus as to be
invisible. Try that with a camera phone though and you will typically get
a distracting image of a fence right over your target.

However it really depends on if you are after "snaps" or photographs.

A shot like:

http://internode.co.uk/temp/bud.jpg

Would lose much of its impact if you could clearly see the distracting
and ugly fence not far behind the subject. (in reality that particular
shot actually needed an extra couple of inches of depth of field rather
than less - but the wind was blowing stuff about so much at the time it
was hard to setup)

(photographed at around f1.7 IIRC on Fuji Velvia colour reversal film).

Most people are perfectly happy without having to carry a SLR and multiple
lenses round with them, and are happy with the trade off in picture
quality. Which for most people is minimal - how many people care enough to
learn how to use a high end camera?

Most people don't - but most would not count photography as a hobby.

For the large section of the population who used to buy basic point and
shoot cameras, a camera on their phone will do pretty much all they need.
For those that used to buy SLRs, they still need to buy an SLR for the
large part - a phone is not going to be a substitute in the same way they
would have not considered an Olympus Trip a substitute...

(although a trip would wipe the floor with pretty much any camera phone)

So for most people, a smart phone camera is perfectly fit for purpose.

charles wrote:
In article
,
Simon Finnigan wrote:
alan wrote:
On 27/12/2012 13:48, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/12/2012 23:34, Simon Finnigan wrote:
Huge wrote:

Even when the clarity and resolution are adequate, the inability to
change lens is a show stopper.

All you need these days is the smallest of compact 16M pixel cameras
with a x20 zoom.

And pocket space to carry it in, and some way to backup the photos by
WiFi, and to share the photos without having to remove the memory card
into a laptop,which is again something else to carry with you..........

You should be able to store over 100 photos on a memory card. so saving
them to a computer can wait till you get home, back to hotel or whereever.
The same "storage to somewhere else" applies to a phone, too.

But the moment my phone connects to WiFi, it backs the photos up -
including when using my mifi portable wifi hotspot. So I can have the
photos backed up as soon as they're taken anywhere in the UK.

On 30/12/2012 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think you are wildly optimistic about film grain. Fast film is as bad
as 2Mp more or less. good film like velva is around the 8MP mark and
only Kodachrome sends you up to the 20MP arena.

me too

I'm currently digitising my parent's slides. I find that 1200dpi is
quite adequate, anything over that and all you are doing is digitising
the grain.

The dynamic range, OTOH, is quite impressive. I'm pulling them down to
standard JPEG with 24-bit colour, and I have to fiddle with the tone
curve on a lot of the pictures - the detail is there in the shadows
and/or the highlights, but you can't see it without some care.

Andy

On 30/12/2012 11:44, djc wrote:
On 30/12/12 01:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 29/12/2012 23:16, brass monkey wrote:

I was under the impression that film was equivalent to ~15 megapixels.

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

Depends if you are looking at just resolution or also consider dynamic
range etc. Above 12MP you will need a top quality lens to notice much
difference. 25-36MP would be equivalent to a high resolution scan of a
35mm negative, which would probably resolve more film grain than actual
image detail. Film still has the potential to cover a wider dynamic
range.

That isn't really true..
it is true that jpegs cover less dynamic range than film.
However the sensors can easily cover more and RAW output is generally
more than film.

A digital sensor can practically see in the dark.



A digital sensor can be exposed for longer periods than colour film and
still produce "proper colours", film gets colour casts if you expose it
for long and bright spots also diffuse into the surrounding areas.

You might want to run multiple shoots of digital and combine them if you
want to photograph in very dark conditions, something that is hard to do
with film as you may never actually record anything on film if its
really dark. Unlike film digital sensors can get down to ~single photon
sensitivity.


I don't think photography would be as popular if it still relied of
film, its the immediate results that make most people take pictures
these days.

On 30/12/2012 11:47, stuart noble wrote:

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

I have some prints of a football crowd taken I believe circa 1950 with a
Hasselblad. The detail is just stunning, but they also capture the
atmosphere somehow, and this can't be measured.
I'm amazed at the gulf between what modern cameras can do and what the
average user understands. I'm at the point and shoot end of the spectrum
but I do move the dial now and then. Still amazed that the S2 has no
action setting

If it doesn't do what you want then download a different camera app that
does.

Anyway the s2 has a sports setting which is what you probably mean by
action setting.

On 30/12/2012 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think you are wildly optimistic about film grain. Fast film is as bad
as 2Mp more or less. good film like velva is around the 8MP mark and
only Kodachrome sends you up to the 20MP arena.


I think some are confused..
20 MP will resolve the grain in the film so that you can print it and
still have the grain.
It doesn't mean the film has as much detail as a digital image taken
with a 20MP sensor.

On 30/12/2012 15:42, Simon Finnigan wrote:

So for most people, a smart phone camera is perfectly fit for purpose.

This seems to be a repeat of a post elsewhere in the thread - see my
reply there.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/12/2012 19:18, Tim Streater wrote:
What scanner you using ?

Epson Perfection Photo 1670. Flatbed with a scanner in the lid.

It might not be as good as a dedicated scanner (although TBH when I
borrowed one and tried it there wasn't much difference) but it will scan
anything up to the size of the light, which is about 6x2. Inches. I
always used to take 126 slides, and most dedicated slide scanners don't
like the square image.

Also the price was good (Freecycle!)

Andy

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:21:41 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

So, all you camera snobs - shove that up your arses.

It's you that's the snob, Brother Grim.

Hahahaha. I don't care what maker's name is on the front or how lowly
it is, if it can take a pic I don't care about anything else - I'll
use it.

Leonardo mode

"Keep still there jesus, only another hour and 20 mins to go"

--
geoff

On 30/12/2012 17:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/12/2012 11:47, stuart noble wrote:

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

I have some prints of a football crowd taken I believe circa 1950 with a
Hasselblad. The detail is just stunning, but they also capture the
atmosphere somehow, and this can't be measured.
I'm amazed at the gulf between what modern cameras can do and what the
average user understands. I'm at the point and shoot end of the spectrum
but I do move the dial now and then. Still amazed that the S2 has no
action setting

If it doesn't do what you want then download a different camera app that
does.

Anyway the s2 has a sports setting which is what you probably mean by
action setting.

The Canon S2? No, the shooting modes on mine a

• Portrait
• Landscape
• Night Scene
• My Colors
• Foliage
• Snow
• Beach
• Fireworks
• Indoor
• Night Snapshot
• Stitch Assist

On 31/12/2012 09:11, stuart noble wrote:
On 30/12/2012 17:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/12/2012 11:47, stuart noble wrote:

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

I have some prints of a football crowd taken I believe circa 1950 with a
Hasselblad. The detail is just stunning, but they also capture the
atmosphere somehow, and this can't be measured.
I'm amazed at the gulf between what modern cameras can do and what the
average user understands. I'm at the point and shoot end of the spectrum
but I do move the dial now and then. Still amazed that the S2 has no
action setting

If it doesn't do what you want then download a different camera app that
does.

Anyway the s2 has a sports setting which is what you probably mean by
action setting.

The Canon S2? No, the shooting modes on mine a

Since the discussion was camera phones, I was assuming he meant the
Galaxy S II

http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxys2/html/

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/12/2012 14:59, Huge wrote:
You must be a very patient man. I started to digitise the several thousand
I've taken over my life, but gave up after a few hundred.

They seem to average about a minute each. I can usually answer a news
post between each one

Andy

On 31/12/2012 13:44, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/12/2012 09:11, stuart noble wrote:
On 30/12/2012 17:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/12/2012 11:47, stuart noble wrote:

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

I have some prints of a football crowd taken I believe circa 1950
with a
Hasselblad. The detail is just stunning, but they also capture the
atmosphere somehow, and this can't be measured.
I'm amazed at the gulf between what modern cameras can do and what the
average user understands. I'm at the point and shoot end of the
spectrum
but I do move the dial now and then. Still amazed that the S2 has no
action setting

If it doesn't do what you want then download a different camera app that
does.

Anyway the s2 has a sports setting which is what you probably mean by
action setting.

The Canon S2? No, the shooting modes on mine a

Since the discussion was camera phones, I was assuming he meant the
Galaxy S II

http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxys2/html/


Ah...

On 31/12/2012 18:08, Andy Champ wrote:
On 31/12/2012 14:59, Huge wrote:
You must be a very patient man. I started to digitise the several
thousand
I've taken over my life, but gave up after a few hundred.

They seem to average about a minute each. I can usually answer a news
post between each one

Andy

I have a flatbed with an A4+ transparency lid.
It will do 5 off 6 exposure strips of 35mm at a time (or 16 mounted
slides IIRC).
Its not exactly quick (maybe the PC wasn't as I haven't used it for a
couple of years) but I did a few thousand negs using it.
I could load it up and start a scan and do the same again when I got
home from work.

dennis@home wrote:
On 31/12/2012 18:08, Andy Champ wrote:
On 31/12/2012 14:59, Huge wrote:
You must be a very patient man. I started to digitise the several
thousand
I've taken over my life, but gave up after a few hundred.

They seem to average about a minute each. I can usually answer a
news post between each one

Andy

I have a flatbed with an A4+ transparency lid.
It will do 5 off 6 exposure strips of 35mm at a time (or 16 mounted
slides IIRC).
Its not exactly quick (maybe the PC wasn't as I haven't used it for a
couple of years) but I did a few thousand negs using it.


I could load it up and start a scan and do the same again when I got
home from work.

So it is an old scanner then?

--
Adam

On 31/12/2012 13:44, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/12/2012 09:11, stuart noble wrote:
On 30/12/2012 17:21, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/12/2012 11:47, stuart noble wrote:

Its hard to make comparisons since film does not have pixels as such,
but 15 to 20 is often quoted as an approximation. Having said that,
others claim you would need something like 90MP to fully capture the
detail on a very fine grain film like Velvia for example.

I have some prints of a football crowd taken I believe circa 1950
with a
Hasselblad. The detail is just stunning, but they also capture the
atmosphere somehow, and this can't be measured.
I'm amazed at the gulf between what modern cameras can do and what the
average user understands. I'm at the point and shoot end of the
spectrum
but I do move the dial now and then. Still amazed that the S2 has no
action setting

If it doesn't do what you want then download a different camera app that
does.

Anyway the s2 has a sports setting which is what you probably mean by
action setting.

The Canon S2? No, the shooting modes on mine a

Since the discussion was camera phones, I was assuming he meant the
Galaxy S II

http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxys2/html/

Fujifilm Finepix S2?

On 31/12/2012 14:59, Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-30, Andy Champ wrote:
On 30/12/2012 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think you are wildly optimistic about film grain. Fast film is as bad
as 2Mp more or less. good film like velva is around the 8MP mark and
only Kodachrome sends you up to the 20MP arena.

me too

I'm currently digitising my parent's slides.

You must be a very patient man. I started to digitise the several thousand
I've taken over my life, but gave up after a few hundred.

Not so bad with a slide feeder - load up 50, leave em running overnight...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/01/2013 01:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 31/12/2012 14:59, Huge wrote:
On 2012-12-30, Andy Champ wrote:
On 30/12/2012 12:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think you are wildly optimistic about film grain. Fast film is as bad
as 2Mp more or less. good film like velva is around the 8MP mark and
only Kodachrome sends you up to the 20MP arena.

me too

I'm currently digitising my parent's slides.

You must be a very patient man. I started to digitise the several
thousand
I've taken over my life, but gave up after a few hundred.

Not so bad with a slide feeder - load up 50, leave em running overnight...



Mounted slides are quite easy compared to negative strips.

They are easier to handle and the software can find the black border
easily and remove it.

IME with strips there is always a bit of leeway as to where the exact
edge of the picture is in the holder and sometimes needs a bit of
pre-scan and adjustment if you are to avoid cropping.

On 02/01/2013 01:01, John Rumm wrote:

Not so bad with a slide feeder - load up 50, leave em running overnight...



So why is it my camera can take pictures click click click several times
a second (until the buffer fills, and it has to write to flash) and yet
a slide or flatbed scanner takes a minute? Hasn't anyone built a scanner
with a DSLR sensor behind it instead of a strip?

Andy

On 02/01/2013 20:38, Andy Champ wrote:
On 02/01/2013 01:01, John Rumm wrote:

Not so bad with a slide feeder - load up 50, leave em running
overnight...



So why is it my camera can take pictures click click click several times
a second (until the buffer fills, and it has to write to flash) and yet
a slide or flatbed scanner takes a minute? Hasn't anyone built a scanner
with a DSLR sensor behind it instead of a strip?

Scanners and cameras use different sensor types. A scanner will have a
linear sensor that is physically scanned over the subject rather than a
2D matrix that captures all of the image in parallel like that of a
camera. This makes it slower, but also able to extract more dynamic
range on each part of the image since it is not forced to use the same
settings for every part of it.

In my slide scanner you can select what options apply to each scan. That
means you can have a resolution up to 2700 dpi (optical). It can do
digital defect removal, which requires scanning at several focus
positions to work out what is a scratch or spec of dust on the surface
of the transparency and what is actually something recorded on it and
then doing some nifty signal processing. Finally it can do oversampling
which may require the image to be scanned up to 16 times, and the
results averaged[1]. This dramatically reduces the noise in the dark
areas of the scan and overcomes one of the weaknesses of the CCD sensors
used in scanners that causes them to be more noisy when dimly illuminated.

The result is a quick scan is around 20 secs. A full on all stops out
scan with all bells and whistles turned on is about 10 mins per scan.

[1] You can simulate this with any scanner in photoshop - scan an image
multiple times, then stack all the scans as layers. Set the opacity of
each layer above the base layer to 100/number of layers. This basically
takes advantage of a standard signal processing technique that noise
(being random) is not additive in the way that a real signal is.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/