ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography



Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach!  Just how long is the lens
you used for this project?  Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see
that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much
wipes out resolution at that distance.  Great job though!  I am
surprised and impressed at the detail you captured at that distance.

Jim

lists@lazygranch.com wrote:
> I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you
> can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week,
> with  the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles.
>
>
>> http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2
>>
>
>
> You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as irfranview.
>
> I didn't bring up the term "reach", so I wanted everyone on the same
> page. I'd like it to be the case that less is more when it comes to
> sensors.
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>> Based upon what you are shooting, you don't need "reach" you need a spy
>> satellite ;-)
>>
>> It all comes down to how much you want to pay, how much weight yo want
>> to lug, and how long the lenses are you wish to carry.  Have you
>> considered a Telescope?
>>
>> Art
>>
>>
>> gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm a person that needs "reach", if you define reach as getting shots of
>>> distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
>>> telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
>>> doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
>>> advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you
>>> can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens
>>> design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal.
>>>
>>> http://www.lazygranch.com/groom_lake_birds.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.