Jump to content

Recommended Posts

murderone, you kind of sound like your name :guiness:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes about as much sense as judging the quality of software by how much disk space it takes up.

 

 

Allow me to rephrase...

 

I currently output my 3008 on the long side D70 files to 5400 (using the Fred Miranda D70 uprez tool)

 

I know the native format on a 10.4 mb D200 (and the new one as well) is bigger than 3008x2000 of the 6mp D70... surely the upsizing to 5400 with a larger size to begin with is less destructive than doing so with the D70? IE less stretching goin on...

 

I could be wrong.... you are the engineer.. i am but a lowly scuba diver.... :guiness:

 

If i am wrong then please explain, you will save me money if i don't have to ever buy a new camera and housing... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't wait for this ending :guiness:

 

~Matt Segal

 

 

Hey... let me dream! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herb, now I am confused...

 

If Mike has to upres for submission, then the bigger the original file the lower the percentage of upres needed, thereby "theoretically" increasing the quality of the final image.

 

No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the chances of this camera fitting my Aquatica D70 housing are probably ZERO%

 

Andy :guiness:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have a plastic Sea & Sea for my D70....so what if I put it in the oven and heat it up abit so the plastic goes soft then mould it to fit the new Nikon :):D:guiness:

 

Would be cool if it fits in a D70 housing...I would be buying one that's for sure. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herb, now I am confused...

 

If Mike has to upres for submission, then the bigger the original file the lower the percentage of upres needed, thereby "theoretically" increasing the quality of the final image.

 

No?

 

I did not mean to imply that Mike is doing anything wrong. The comment was aimed at those setting a silly rule like that. What's the point? It's simple to upsize any image to 50MB.

 

Image resolution is not alway limited by number of pixels the sensor has, but I'm sure that going from 6M to 10M will improve details on some shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly rule? Seems like simple math to me.... yes, its easy to uprez any file to 50mb.. but which file will look better? thats the important thing here and the point of my original post.

 

As Richard stated, a larger file that a 10mp camera produces would need less percentage of uprezzing to bring it to 5400 on the longest side.

 

So... which image will look better after being uprezzed to 5400? The D200 or the D70s? And therefore perhaps this new camera comin out... which of course we are all guessing is going to be less expensive than the D200... IE, in MY price range....

 

But, if you can convince me 100% beyond a doubt that nope, the 10.4 mp camera will definitely NOT look better at 5400 then i will gladly keep my D70s for years to come...

 

For those of you who take photos for fun and a hobby perhaps it doesn't mean all that much, for those of us who try to sell commercially a better file is important...just ask the QA guy at my agencies who rejects images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's still a misunderstanding. I'm in no way disputing that a 10M pixel camera will in lots of cases give you higher resolution pics than a 6M pixel camera. I'm just saying that it's a silly practice to have to upsize files, which adds no information and cost time and storage and bandwidth, before submission. Is 50 MB an actual requirement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herb, you have to remember that most of the "agency folks" really don't have a clue. They still tell you they want your image at a certain DPI...

 

Seriously, they got used to high end drum scans from the medium and large format film days, and as the creative types are not normally imaging professionals, they really do think file size is everything. I have seen MANY agencies that ask for 50MB as a minimum requirement... don't forget, the average studio still uses a 20+ megapixel digital back on a film body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's still a misunderstanding. I'm in no way disputing that a 10M pixel camera will in lots of cases give you higher resolution pics than a 6M pixel camera. I'm just saying that it's a silly practice to have to upsize files, which adds no information and cost time and storage and bandwidth, before submission. Is 50 MB an actual requirement?

 

 

Aha... now we are on the same wavelength...

 

Yes, that is the way unfortunately... and my hard drives suffer for it....

 

One agency asks specifically for images with 5400 on the longest side, 300dpi (becomes a 56mb tiff)

 

The other asks for a 48mb file, no statement on dimensions or dpi.

 

And yes i agree, the images suffers for it..

 

 

My guess is the clients of agencies want big files...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this practice stems back to film days - an uninterpolated scan from a 4000dpi scanner comes out in the 50-60 MB range - many agencies insisted on 4000dpi scanners being used (such as the Nikon coolscan 4000) when they started accepting digital images scanned by the photographer.

 

I know one of the agencies I use would not accept scans from a Canon FS2710 (2720 dpi) and actually stipulated that a Nikon Coolscan was preferred.

 

I agree with Herb that this policy seems a little antiquated in todays digital age, - the files just take up more space and offer no quality gain (quite the opposite) from upsizing at the destination bureau. More to the point, who knows what size the end customer wants the image to be printed out at - all this practice does is add another resize into the process.

 

But back on topic I think the interesting aspect of this new SLR, is that Nikon seem to be increasing the frequency of replacing their cameras, leaning more toward a 2-3 year lifespan rather than 4-5 years

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote "Silly rule? Seems like simple math to me.... yes, its easy to uprez any file to 50mb.. but which file will look better? thats the important thing here and the point of my original post."

 

Ahhh in a perfect world! I believe that uprezzing to 50Mb is merely an easy way of satisfying those who do not understand the technicalities...... Personally when I send images to an end user I try to size them to the output requrements. But, as I've said before, this depends on the end user understanding the system, not merely working on some outdated 'rules' which grew up from superceeded practices.

 

On the new Nikon subject, I as a Canon (but not biased - I liked/used Nikons for over 20 years) user, am fascinated to see what Nikon do. The teaser seems a bit of a childish marketting ploy though. Now a FF Nikon would put me in a real quandry.

 

On this note, I've been watching for news of a Leica M digital. Interestingly, Leica seem to be suggesting that the next generation of sensors will have better characteristics for wide-angle lenses (especially in the way the corners receive light), I wonder whether this technology will filter its way through to dSLRs before long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, they got used to high end drum scans from the medium and large format film days, and as the creative types are not normally imaging professionals, they really do think file size is everything.  I have seen MANY agencies that ask for 50MB as a minimum requirement...  don't forget, the average studio still uses a 20+ megapixel digital back on a film body.

 

Another way to prove this 50mb minimum rule is stupid: you can take an image from a D100 or D70, save it as a 32-bit TIFF file, and there you have it, a 70mb file that's only 3000x2000 (6mp). Aboslutely no added information, just takes more space :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the ultimate in idiocy... at least one of the agencies Mike is talking about with the ~54MB requirement for submitted files then proceeds to deliver the file to the client as a .jpg. So they ask the photographer to interpolate uprez, then add compression artifacts on top of that!

 

This agency sells a 59 MB file from me (scanned film) and delivers it as a 2MB jpeg, so at least some of that excess information is being thrown away after all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most (not all) designers just don't have a clue. For an inkjet (we are talking print res of only 360dpi) display print job the other day, the client asked for a an image 3metre x 2metre@ 300"dpi", with the .tif to be sent via EMAIL. That would have been 2.34 GB file. ouch.

It as for a shop fit, high up on a 2-storey wall, with a minimum viewing distance of about 6 metres. Needless to say I ended up sending a much more sensible alternative, direct to the guy printing the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote "Silly rule? Seems like simple math to me.... yes, its easy to uprez any file to 50mb.. but which file will look better? thats the important thing here and the point of my original post."

 

 

 

That was my point. As a quality control measure, a minimum files size requirement does nothing as anyone can up size anything to any size. In the end, someone with a trained eye has to look at the photo and decide if it's acceptable. File size requirements are just a waste of time and space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry everyone. It's entirely my fault. I knew I should not have bought the D200 set up. I haven't even got it wet yet (still flooding Fuji S2 s) nor got a housing for a D200. It was tempting fate that I should buy a new camera just before Nikon brought out a new one. I also put my money into stocks the day before Black Wednesday! I'm just that sort of guy.

 

As to file sizes, if we could dissuade art editors and production men from Photochopping the pictures it would go a long way to getting good quality into print. Why do they do it? Because they can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right... so here is the first pic.... of the new D80!!!

 

personally, i don't buy it.. another fake if you ask me..

 

Notice it has an integrated vertical grip... if you look closely at the Nikon teaser.. no vert grip!

 

195878558_6ab11514fc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Mike.

 

As you already picked...

 

For a start flash is the wrong shape - should be flat on the top. Camera has too much vertical elevation (too tall) and the mode dial should be angled rather than flat as it is in the picture above.

 

Looks good either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but anthony... will it fit in my housing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not count out the vertical grip necessarily. Why couldn't the new camera be a D3H? Personally I cannot believe that Nikon is still selling a 4MP body. I think that the H series needs an MP jump much more than the D70 does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not count out the vertical grip necessarily.  Why couldn't the new camera be a D3H?  Personally I cannot believe that Nikon is still selling a 4MP body.  I think that the H series needs an MP jump much more than the D70 does.

The wording on the teaser mentions "affordability" and "enthusiast" which I assume would preclude a new "pro" D3H. I wish it were so though. If my D2H had 10MP I would have little need for another upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there isn't going to be a D3H because the D2x combines the features of an H and an X. Its 7 megapixel, 8fps high speed crop feature takes care of that end.

 

the new one will be a D70 successor at the $1k price point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...