any minolta users out there
Planted Tank Forums
Your Tanks Image Hosting *Tank Tracker * Plant Profiles Fish Profiles Planted Tank Guide Photo Gallery Articles

Go Back   The Planted Tank Forum > General Planted Tank Forums > Photography


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2012, 05:09 AM   #1
wicca27
Planted Tank Guru
 
wicca27's Avatar
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dewey
Posts: 4,811
Send a message via Yahoo to wicca27
Default

any minolta users out there


i just got a new cheap cannon powershot A3300 IS but some times my old minolta is just better. any one else out there use one and if so what one. mine is a D image Z1 3.2 mega pixal i got new in 2003 thing set me back 5 bills but still works great despite being chewed on by a great pyranese and dropped half a mill times.
wicca27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-07-2012, 05:18 AM   #2
Da Plant Man
Nerd Alert.
 
Da Plant Man's Avatar
 
PTrader: (74/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 5,703
Default

I have a friend who shoots minolta film cameras. Them seem pretty decent, never have shot one myself.
__________________

RAOK CLUB #12
Wabi-kusa Pimp #1
"99% of the time, a fish tank with plants will fail. Once you start a dedicated planted tank with fish, then you begin to succeed." - Geniusdudekiran
Da Plant Man is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 04:59 PM   #3
GraphicGr8s
Bow Ties Are Kool.
 
GraphicGr8s's Avatar
 
PTrader: (9/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: West coast of the east coast of the USA.
Posts: 2,406
Default

Still have, and use a Minolta SRT 101
__________________
Quote me as saying I was misquoted.
Once you get rid of integrity the rest is a piece of cake.
Life is simple…People complicate it
Here's to our wives and sweethearts - may they never meet.
If you agreed with me we'd both be right.
GraphicGr8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 06:55 PM   #4
wicca27
Planted Tank Guru
 
wicca27's Avatar
 
PTrader: (2/100%)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dewey
Posts: 4,811
Send a message via Yahoo to wicca27
Default

some times mega pixals dont mean a thing my old as dirt minolta can still get better pics than the new cannon nice to know there are some out there that use them still
wicca27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 07:05 PM   #5
GraphicGr8s
Bow Ties Are Kool.
 
GraphicGr8s's Avatar
 
PTrader: (9/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: West coast of the east coast of the USA.
Posts: 2,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wicca27 View Post
some times mega pixals dont mean a thing my old as dirt minolta can still get better pics than the new cannon nice to know there are some out there that use them still
Especially when you think about the mp equivalent of the resolution of film

Quote:
The Digital Resolution of Film
So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?
Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.
Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.
320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.
35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.
To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.
But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."
At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.
__________________
Quote me as saying I was misquoted.
Once you get rid of integrity the rest is a piece of cake.
Life is simple…People complicate it
Here's to our wives and sweethearts - may they never meet.
If you agreed with me we'd both be right.
GraphicGr8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 05:44 AM   #6
FlyingGiraffes
Planted Member
 
FlyingGiraffes's Avatar
 
PTrader: (3/100%)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GraphicGr8s View Post
Especially when you think about the mp equivalent of the resolution of film
I'm reading different things on different sites. Warning: may not be accurate (referring to the quoted "digital revolution of film".)
FlyingGiraffes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 01:01 PM   #7
GraphicGr8s
Bow Ties Are Kool.
 
GraphicGr8s's Avatar
 
PTrader: (9/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: West coast of the east coast of the USA.
Posts: 2,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingGiraffes View Post
I'm reading different things on different sites. Warning: may not be accurate (referring to the quoted "digital revolution of film".)
IME I've found it to be true. Of course it depends on how the image is finally output. If it's totally an analog procedure this will hold true every time. If it is ever converted to digital then the final image will only be as good as the equipment it is scanned on. I've had folks take different films and digital shots then put them on the photo forum and say "See, the quality is still there". Problem is as soon as they scanned it you've lost any viable comparison.

It's not just digitizing it though. When we print them offset you can only get detail to a certain point depending on the LPI of your halftone screens.
__________________
Quote me as saying I was misquoted.
Once you get rid of integrity the rest is a piece of cake.
Life is simple…People complicate it
Here's to our wives and sweethearts - may they never meet.
If you agreed with me we'd both be right.
GraphicGr8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Planted Tank LLC 2012