Yesterday there were railfans out watching the holiday rush, as usual. I w= as pleased to see many young people with modern equipment taking photos and=
videos. (Instead of using a paper timetable like us oldsters, they keep t= he schedules in their phones).
Glad young people are taking up the hobby.
I think on a relative cost, photo and video equipment are cheaper than it w= as in our day. Back then, a good SLR camera system, including lens, filter= s, and accessories, was quite expensive, not to mention film and processing= . Quality moving picture images were basically unaffordable (8 mm was very=
low quality, and early video cameras weren't much better).
A very basic 35mm SLR was like $350 (camera body + 'standard' 50mm lens).Add
some additional lenses filters, etc. and yes, you could easily spend over $500.
A good 8mm (or Hi8) camcorder cost about $1,000. (Hi8 was not bad quality, just shy of broadcast quality, and was sometimes used for low-end TV production purposes.)
I guess modern camera phones probably exceed the quality of either 35mm SLRs or Hi8 camcorders. I am not sure where MiniDV camcorders fit in terms of quality or really what they cost. Little digital PAS cameras are very cheap and probably do at least as good a job as a good quality 'consumer-grade'35mm
SLR -- certainly *better* than something like an old box camera (eg a Brownie or something like that) and without the wait for film development and with models with removable (eg field replacable) SD cards & batteries, it is possible to take an enormous number of pictures, so long as you have a supply
of charged batteries and a supply of 'empty' SD cards...
I believe a good quality DSLR is superior to most camera phones in terms ofimage quality and, perhaps more importantly, options for taking the picture.
A 35mm film SLR could take excellent quality pictures, and with the rightfilm, superior to those of digital--a Kodachrome slide had more pixels than a digital image. SLR's were definitely superior to than the pocket digital cameras.
DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well asfilm did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes. Digital also seems
On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes. Digital also seems
On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well >>> as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One
must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes.
Digital also seems to have less exposure lattitude than film, although
the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate,
including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not
part of a scene for exposure determination.
There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a
much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle
the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor, before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.
Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a scene and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with film.
I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably not the
best solution for a moving train, though.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:
Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will make your storage medium obsolete.
Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this discussion.
I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100
years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in complaining. All we have now is digital.
Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will make your storage medium obsolete.
Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100
years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in complaining. All we have now is digital.
At Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:27:09 -0500 Michael Finfer <finfer@optonline.net> wrote:
On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:
Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will
make your storage medium obsolete.
Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this discussion. >>
I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two
external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the
industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.
Right. It is more an issue with video tape.
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:05:19 -0600, Robert Heller
<heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
At Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:27:09 -0500 Michael Finfer <finfer@optonline.net> >>wrote:
On 12/4/2014 9:24 AM, conklin wrote:
Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years >>> > will
make your storage medium obsolete.
Has not happened yet, and there is always a transition period when you
can transfer images from one medium to another. The old days of floppy
disc drives are gone, but those discs could not even hold one of the
images that I take today. Those things are not relevant to this
discussion.
I have all of my images in several places, my hard drive, at least two
external hard drives, and good quality CD's or DVD's. One of those
external hard drives is kept at work in case my house burns down. I
just bought a 2 TB drive that will last me for some time. So far, the
industry has made all of its optical drives backwards compatible with
the older formats, which is really just a software issue, and I see no
sign that that is going to change. I am not worried.
Right. It is more an issue with video tape.
Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
which will be replaced.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:14:49 -0500, "conklin"
<nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message >news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...
Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
which will be replaced.
All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes. >I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one >lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router and >everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then >from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too. >And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.
I keep multiple backups, on site, off site and cloud. If a single
event were catastrophic enough to cause the loss of all copies, I
probably would have much bigger concerns to deal with.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
"Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message >news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...
Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
which will be replaced.
All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes.
I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one
lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router and >everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then >from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too.
And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:14:49 -0500, "conklin"
<nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Peter Schleifer" <pschleif@speakeasy.org> wrote in message >>news:vtc38a5e4rv3v1au7qnghapa84khhma1u7@4ax.com...
Yes, I copied all the video tape I want to save onto my hard drives (I
have 10 TB so the space is not a problem) and DVD, but that involves 2
or 3 pieces of aging equipment (depending on the tape format), none of
which will be replaced.
All this is fine if you spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes. >>I've had a number of computer crashes over the years, including one >>lightning strike which smoked the computer, the phone lines, the router >>and
everything else. Gone were the files. As VHS, move that to DVD and then >>from DVD to memory sticks, and hope they last? I've had them crash too. >>And the posted life expectancy of the computer-generated cd is 4 years.
I keep multiple backups, on site, off site and cloud. If a single
event were catastrophic enough to cause the loss of all copies, I
probably would have much bigger concerns to deal with.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Ignorance is easy and you get it for free"
Ok, but few people do that. Thus what used to be a long-lasting photo is
now fragile and since few are printed out, short-lived.
Ok, but few people do that. Thus what used to be a long-lasting photo is >>now fragile and since few are printed out, short-lived.
Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for that
matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.
Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for thatThe trick played by some museums with colour prints was to make three
matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.
B+W copies, each with a different colour filter.
The original Technicolor process used for the Wizard of Oz and Gone
with the Wind used a camera that split the image and ran it through
three filters to three B/W films. That's why those movies still look
great, while more recent ones shot in Eastmancolor don't.
Considering how the dyes in some old color prints (and for thatThe trick played by some museums with colour prints was to make three
matter, early Eastmancolor movies) have faded and shifted, maybe
digital archiving isn't such a bad idea.
B+W copies, each with a different colour filter.
"Michael Finfer" <finfer@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:mZPfw.109818$_R5.56900@fx28.iad...
On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well >>>> as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One
must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes.
Digital also seems to have less exposure lattitude than film, although >>>> the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate,
including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not
part of a scene for exposure determination.
There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a
much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle
the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor,
before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.
Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a scene >> and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with film.
I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably not the
best solution for a moving train, though.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will >make your storage medium obsolete. Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100 >years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of >steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the >day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie >will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in >complaining. All we have now is digital.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:24:36 -0500, "conklin"
<nilknocgeo@earthlink.net> wrote:
While digital media may change, the advantage of the digital format is
"Michael Finfer" <finfer@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:mZPfw.109818$_R5.56900@fx28.iad...
On 12/1/2014 1:04 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
DSLR cameras do not seem to handle to very high contrasty scenes as well >>>>> as film did, with shadows going black or highlights washed out. One >>>>> must do special compensation to get good pictures from such scenes.
Digital also seems to have less exposure lattitude than film, although >>>>> the meters of modern digital cameras seem to be pretty accurate,
including being 'smart' enough to realize a train's headlight is not >>>>> part of a scene for exposure determination.
There are many pros who will disagree with this. Digital actually has a >>> much greater ability to handle contrasty scenes, but one needs to handle >>> the shot properly. It has to be exposed properly. Graduated neutral
density filters, when used properly, are a great tool. Many digital
images need some tweaking on the computer to fulfill their potential.
Almost all of the shots that I take get some adjustments, mostly minor,
before I show them to anyone. With about 30 seconds of work on each
photo, I can have images that I am pleased with.
Newer camera have HDR capability. They take multiple exposures of a scene >>> and combine them into a photo that could never have been made with film. >>> I even have an app on my phone that does that. That is probably not the >>> best solution for a moving train, though.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Unless you print out your pictures from digital media, every few years will >> make your storage medium obsolete. Kodachrome slides are good for 60-100
years. Some my father took in 1946 are still perfect. His 8 mm film of
steam engines at Catskill, NY, on passenger trains are still as good as the >> day they were taken. But my cell phone videos of Engine 12 on the Tweetsie >> will not outlast the cell phone. As for the VHS mini tapes I had for
several years, they are already showing problems. But no sense in
complaining. All we have now is digital.
that a straight copy causes no loss of information unlike copying
negatives or slides. Note this is true only for straight file
copying. If a JPEG is opened and then stored there will be a loss of information because JPEG is a compression which loses information.
Thus having several copies of a picture poses no problem. Just copy
your files every few years.
Clark Morris
Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
them to digital as fast as I can.
Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
them to digital as fast as I can.
As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical
that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.
It was a problem unique to particular emulsions of Cruddychrome and
wouldn't affect film generally.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has
fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
them to digital as fast as I can.
As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical
that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.
This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
mentioned on the page) :-
http://photosol.com/pec-12/
That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
similar software. . . .
I exaggerated, then. Thanks for looking it up as I was too lazy.
But don't toss your Cruddychrome.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has >>>fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of
them to digital as fast as I can.
As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical >>that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.
This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
mentioned on the page) :-
http://photosol.com/pec-12/
That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
similar software. . . .
I don't know what you mean by Eastmancolor. Kodachrome as it was shot in
the camera, was black and white film, with three layers of emulsion,
each sensitive to a different color of light. The actual color dyes were added in processing. Properly cared for, Kodachrome from the 1940s still
can be quite good. It does degrade with exposure to light.
Ektachrome, which came later, had the dyes in the actual film. It tends
to degrade even without exposure to light. But later formulas improved
on this.
Prints, as in 8x10s hanging on the wall are another story. Interesting
thing is the 4 high school portraits of me and my siblings. All have
hung in the same hallway for 30 plus years. My older sister, who went to
a different high school who used a different photographer and obviously, different paper, is very faded. My brother, younger sister and me, all
from a different school district, but only a couple of years newer, are
just fine.
On 1/11/2015 3:14 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Jishnu Mukerji <jishnu@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
Meanwhile my slides which I am sure will last for 100 years also has >>>>> fungus attacking them. It is a royal pain. So I am converting all of >>>>> them to digital as fast as I can.
As I recall, there was a fungus in the emulsion, and there's a chemical >>>> that "disinfects" the slides and would restore them. Don't toss 'em.
This stuff is specifically sold as a cleaner for film (with fungus
mentioned on the page) :-
http://photosol.com/pec-12/
That and similar cleaners will kill the fungus but they won't restore
any damage where the emulsion has been eroded. Now might be the time
to scan some and get in some practice with Gimp, PaintShopPro or
similar software. . . .
I exaggerated, then. Thanks for looking it up as I was too lazy.
But don't toss your Cruddychrome.
No. not tossing. Just preserving as digital too, in addition to keeping
the original.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 910 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 202:20:19 |
| Calls: | 12,116 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,504 |
| Messages: | 2,226,394 |