[Rhodes22-list] slides vs digital camera

Wed Aug 6 14:04:05 EDT 2003

Roger,

As I said, I agree with all your points.  For applications that are
appropriate, digital cameras are great.  For others, especially in the
rough, film is still better.  BTW I did hear that digital worked well in
Iraq, a lot of people were worried that the sand and dust would kill them.

Another  difference between film and digital is grain.  All film has grain
and it shows up mainly in uniform mid level areas such as sky.  Grain is a
very big issue with high resolution scanning  as it tends to be be
exagerated (possibly diffraction or scattering).  Digital is essentially
grainless.  You can enlarge a uniform area well beyond the point of loosing
resolution and see no grain.  Noise is another issue.  At higher ISO speeds,
noise can be seen in shadow areas as random pixelization.  Since it is truly
random, there are a number of in camera and post processing averaging
algorithms available that  can reduce visible noise greatly.

Incidentally, the Kodak 14n is considered to be a good studio camera, but
its noise levels increase dramatically above ISO 200.  14 to 20 MP backs for
medium format cameras are available at Mega prices, and huge 50+MP scanning
backs are available for view cameras.

I just got back this morning from helping prepare the Main Topsail for our
tall ship Friendship of Salem.  We'll probably bend it on the yard next week
some time.  Bending it on involves hauling it up to the yard with a tackle
and getting a crew of about 6 to climb out onto the arm (~50 over the deck)
and lash it on with twine at about 20 cringles.  Then all the running
rigging gets attached (2 sheets, 2 reefing tackles, 2 leechlines and 2
buntlines lines). We now have 8 sails on (spanker, 2 staysails, 3 jibs and 2
topsails).  This will be the third topsail and the final one I think for
this season.  Sail training is next.  Sailing with 9 sails, the smallest one
twice the area of all the sails on a Rhodes is going to be fun.

Dave Walker

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Pihlaja" <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] slides vs digital camera

> David,
>
> I agree there is no intrinsic technical barrier to making a truly rugged,
> water resistant digital camera.  However, it is not something the average
> camera owner can do with an existing digital camera.  The available
housings
> for converting standard cameras for underwater use render the camera truly
> clunky & unwieldy for most outdoor uses.  All I'm saying is that the major
> digital camera manufacturers haven't yet offered an easy-to-carry,
> point-&-shoot product that is able to stand up to real world outdoor use.
>
> Certainly, there is image degradation & it requires an extra processing
step
> to shoot 35 mm film & then digitally scan the image.  But, this is still
> better than no pictures at all because the digital camera expired during
the
> trip or had to be so well protected that the photographer couldn't get to
it
> in real time to take the shot.  Thus, at least for me, a digital camera is
> not really a viable option.
>
> By the way, a 35 mm film negative contains about 20 mega pixels.  Thus,
the
> 35 mm film image is not the image resolution limiting factor.  The scanner
&
> image processing software are always the resolution & image quality
limiting
> factors.  They still yield a scanned, digitized image that is adequate for
> most purposes short of high magnification enlargements or glossy magazine
> layouts.
>
> The highest resolution digital camera I've seen so far is a 14 mega pixel
> professional model from Kodak for about $5000.  That's pretty pricey for
> most people & this camera is certainly not rugged or water resistant.
>
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Walker" <david.walker5 at comcast.net>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] slides vs digital camera
>
>
> > Roger,
> >
> > No argument.  Although the Canon 1Ds (at $8,000) is said to be as well
> > sealed as the the 1N) which is the pro stanfard for SLR's.  Water damage
> is
> > explicitly not covered in my warranty for the D100.  There is nothing
> > inherently difficult about weatherproofing a digital, it just needs to
be
> > done as the products mature.
> >
> > Another way to look at the digital/film issue goes back to a systems
> > analysis professor I had in college.  He said, "remember, everything in
> life
> > is a low pass filter".  Every step an image goes through degrades
> > resolution.  Digital sharpening (using USM) can recreate the appearance
of
> > resolution but its only creating local contrast increase.  Digital in
> > general requires fewer low pass steps to get an end image.
> >
> > Dave Walker
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roger Pihlaja" <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
> > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] slides vs digital camera
> >
> >
> > > Wally, David,
> > >
> > > 35 mm film cameras still have an edge over digitals when it comes to
> water
> > > resistance & ruggedness.  On my outdoor adventures, I use a Pentax
> IQZoom
> > > 105-WR Date.  This thing is Class V weather resistant, meaning it's OK
> to
> > > shoot in heavy rain & spray.  Heck, when it gets dirty, the manual
> > > recommends washing it under running water from the tap in the sink!
> I've
> > > cleaned it under the water from a hand cranked well pump & by
squirting
> it
> > > with water from a water bottle.  Try that with your digital camera &
> watch
> > > it fry!  The 38 mm - 105 mm autofocus/power zoom optics are coated
with
> > > special abrasion/scratch resistant coatings.  All the moving parts are
> > > sealed with gaskets or O-Rings & the case is rubber armored to be
grippy
> &
> > > take a beating.  I've been using mine just about 3 years now & it
hasn't
> > > glitched once.  This usage has included my "Around The Tip Of The
Mitt"
> > Lake
> > > Huron/Lake Michigan catamaran delivery cruise last fall, a cruise
> vacation
> > > to the Virgin Islands, a couple of canoe trips, several backpacking
> trips
> > > including three Polar Bear Winter Camping Trips & eight days in the
> rugged
> > > Isle Royale National Park, a couple of mountain bike trips complete
with
> > the
> > > usual wipe-outs with the camera on board in a handlebar pack, two
> > horseback
> > > riding trips, & numerous day sails on our R-22.  My son, Daniel, used
> the
> > > Pentax on a white water rafting trip on the Class IV - V rapids on the
> New
> > > River in W. Virginia in the spring of 2003.  If you are going to get
> good
> > > action or wildlife shots; then, the camera must be always readily
> > accessible
> > > & thus vulnerable to receiving punishment.  The Pentax has been very
wet
> &
> > > dirty more than once.  Before I bought the Pentax, I looked at
digitals
> &
> > > couldn't find anything on the market at that time that was even close
to
> > > being rugged & water resistant enough.  Just this year, Olympus has
> > started
> > > offering digital cameras that are starting to close this outdoor
> > performance
> > > gap, but they're still not on par with 35 mm film cameras.  I hate
> having
> > to
> > > baby my equipment, including cameras.  It may be more work to digitize
> > > pictures after the fact with a scanner; but, that's much preferable to
> no
> > > pictures at all because your digital camera wasn't up to the
> environmental
> > > punishment or it was packed safely away & you couldn't get to it in
real
> > > time to take the shot.
> > >
> > > Roger Pihlaja
> > > S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Wally Buck" <tnrhodey at hotmail.com>
> > > To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:22 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] slides vs digital camera
> > >
> > >
> > > > David,
> > > >
> > > > I used to sell high end Macs, image setters, slide and drum scanners
> to
> > > the
> > > > digital pre-press industry. A few years ago all of my customers
still
> > > liked
> > > > slides. It sounds like digital has bridged the quality gap. You
still
> > see
> > > a
> > > > bunch of the pros sticking to the old gear though. Is this because
> they
> > > > don't want to spend the money on new equipment?
> > > >
> > > > I have always been a autofocus (point and shoot) guy and don't know
> much
> > > > about cameras.  I love my Fuj Digital camera though!  You can't beat
> the
> > > > instant gratification and the low cost to view a pic.
> > > >
> > > > Wally
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "David Walker" <david.walker5 at comcast.net>
> > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm - slides vs digital
> > camera
> > > > >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:39:22 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > >Wally,
> > > > >
> > > > >I spent a number of years convincing myself that scaning slides was
> > > better
> > > > >than direct digital.  That changed about a year ago when I worked
> along
> > > > >side
> > > > >another pro documenting our son's championship soccer season.  I
shot
> > > film
> > > > >and scanned, he shot a Nikon D1.  His stuff blew mine out of the
> water
> > > (and
> > > > >the D1 is a generation behind, 2.2 MP camera).
> > > > >
> > > > >I finally bought a Nikon D100 about 6 months ago.  I shave shot
very
> > > little
> > > > >film since.  The D100 is a 6 MP camera and produces phenomenal
> images.
> > > > >
> > > > >The way I look at it is that the 35mm slide itself may have
> inherently
> > > > >higher resolution, but getting that resolution into some useful
form
> (a
> > > > >print or a digital file) requires additional resolution degrading
> > steps.
> > > A
> > > > >camera direct digital file is already digital and is ready for
> > whatever.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dave Walker
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Wally Buck" <tnrhodey at hotmail.com>
> > > > >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:40 PM
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm - slides vs digital
> > camera
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Scan from slide still provides the best reslults doesn't it?
> Digital
> > > > >cameras
> > > > > > have come a long way but unless you have an extremely high end
> > digital
> > > > > > camera there is still a big difference in quality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wally
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: "Michael Meltzer" <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com>
> > > > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm
> > > > > > >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:26:05 -0400
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >not shocked that he is cheap, got that impresstion too, he has
a
> > > > >website
> > > > > > >that looks like limited runs of sailing/boating books,
> > > > > > >tight margins i am sure. It is mosty to get a rhodes22 on the
> > cover.
> > > My
> > > > >bet
> > > > > > >that who ever is doing the jacket only know how to work
> > > > > > >with slides and has been doing slides for the last 50 years,
seim
> > > > >retired
> > > > > > >and do not  know digital.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >MJM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >From: "David Walker" <david.walker5 at comcast.net>
> > > > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:13 PM
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jim Connolly and I are trying to get together on the water
> this
> > > > >weekend
> > > > > > >for
> > > > > > > > some pictures, but the weather forecasts don't look
promising.
> > > Had
> > > > >a
> > > > > > >call
> > > > > > > > with Stan Grayson about it.  He is publishing a book, but
> trying
> > > to
> > > > >get
> > > > > > > > everything in it donated (ie no $ for licensing the photo).
> His
> > > > > > >business is
> > > > > > > > not listed in the Marblehead local directory but his home
> number
> > > is.
> > > > > > >Also
> > > > > > > > his requirement of a slide (vs direct digital) goes against
> all
> > I
> > > > >know
> > > > > > >in
> > > > > > > > the publishing industry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Michael Meltzer" <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:35 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW were you able to do anything with the picture?, saw
stan
> > > take
> > > > >a
> > > > > > >pass.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > MJM
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "David Walker" <david.walker5 at comcast.net>
> > > > > > > > > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:30 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Careful where you drill the hole, too far forward and it
> > will
> > > > >drain
> > > > > > >into
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > cabin.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Rob Lowe" <rlowe at vt.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
<rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:58 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've thought of the same thing, so I'm curious to hear
> > some
> > > > > > >responses.
> > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > > > tells me the water is supposed to drain down the
> > centerboard
> > > > >line
> > > > > > > > hole,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > mine has a thicker line than his and tends to get
> clogged
> > > with
> > > > > > >junk
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > drain well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rob Lowe
> > > > > > > > > > > S/V Getaway
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Robert Dilk" <Robert.Dilk at TRW.COM>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:44 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] First Rain Storm
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Had the Rhodes 22 out in a real down pour Sunday.
> > > > > > > > > > > With the girls in the cabin and close hauled the rain
> > water
> > > > >built
> > > > > > >up
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > forward area of the seat drain track and seat. The
> forward
> > > > >Corners
> > > > > > > > have no
> > > > > > > > > > > drains. The result was wet bottoms.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My thought was to drill some drain holes in the
forward
> > > > >Corners
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >the
> > > > > > > > > > seat
> > > > > > > > > > > drain tracks and let the water drain to the cockpit
> floor.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any comments, suggestions?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > > > > > > S/V knot Necessary
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >__________________________________________________
> > > > > > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > > >
> > > > >__________________________________________________
> > > > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list