Technology Climax.

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

I've heard that Chandigarh is also less than a smashing success.

it depends as to what you consider a success - you can get a fantastic butter chicken there.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I, for one, would not mind living circa 1969.

it was a great year for me, I was toilet trained.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

Have you heard of 54MP digital cameras? Well that is what you need to match the resolution of analog and then photosens. still remains a problem.

Not according to this:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Also, you realize that CCD and CMOS sensors are analog?

--Andre

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

Not according to this: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html Also, you realize that CCD and CMOS sensors are analog? --Andre
I've been looking for a site like that , thanks. Forgive my ingnorance. I can scan film but if you can't get analog product out of a digital camera, how is it analog?

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

No it doesn't, and you can even do it yourself. OBD2 readers can be had relatively cheap, too, if you want to talk to the computer. --Andre
I don't own a new Porsche or have experience with one but I read in one of those Auto magazines that an amateur couldn't possibly change oil, etc. on one. Apparently the dealer charges something like $600 for a regularly scheduled maintenance consisting of filters, etc..

 

[LSeca]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I don't own a new Porsche or have experience with one but I read in one of those Auto magazines that an amateur couldn't possibly change oil, etc. on one. Apparently the dealer charges something like $600 for a regularly scheduled maintenance consisting of filters, etc..

There is a lot of info out there on how to do an oil change yourself, as well as other maintenance for new cars. Dealers would like owners to believe otherwise and charge $100+ per hour labor. Like Andre stated, you can even purchase on-board-diagnostic readers for cheap...they do things like reset your oil light as well as reveal important codes about the cars status.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by LSeca

There is a lot of info out there on how to do an oil change yourself, as well as other maintenance for new cars. Dealers would like owners to believe otherwise and charge $100+ per hour labor. Like Andre stated, you can even purchase on-board-diagnostic readers for cheap...they do things like reset your oil light as well as reveal important codes about the cars status.

I thought things like that were only available through authorized channels, but then I suspect eBay has everything now.

 

[LSeca]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I thought things like that were only available through authorized channels, but then I suspect eBay has everything now.

Yes, they are very easy to get. Interesting enough, my '07 335i doesn't even have a dipstick to check for oil level. Auto manufacturers, not just dealers, don't even want owners doing routine service anymore.

 

[A Y]

At least the 335i has an oil temperature gauge. BTW, when did you get the 335? Do you still have the smurf blue M3?

Recent Porsche engines don't have dipsticks either, and the oil level readout is buried in a submenu somewhere, and takes 6 to 10 seconds to complete its reading. I saw a bunch of guys trying to fill up the oil on a 996 Turbo at the track, and it was hilarious to see them pour some oil in, close the engine hatch, start the car, click down to the oil reading, wait for it to finish, and then repeat it all again 2 or 3 more times.

--Andre

 

[Nantucket Red]

Vintage cars are looking more attractive every second.

 

[LSeca]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

At least the 335i has an oil temperature gauge. BTW, when did you get the 335? Do you still have the smurf blue M3?
--Andre

Yes, I still have Papa Smurf. The 335i is a leased daily driver, it has a similiar oil checking feature as the Porsche it sounds like. I find it very gimmicky and cheesy. Btw, my dealer told me I could only get the 10-60w oil (required for the M3) at their shop too. I ended up finding it online.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by LSeca

Yes, I still have Papa Smurf. The 335i is a leased daily driver, it has a similiar oil checking feature as the Porsche it sounds like. I find it very gimmicky and cheesy. Btw, my dealer told me I could only get the 10-60w oil (required for the M3) at their shop too. I ended up finding it online.

This is an example of why I find a lot of recent "technology" distasteful.

 

[caelte]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Vintage cars are looking more attractive every second.
Analog cars are looking more attractive.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

Have you heard of 54MP digital cameras? Well that is what you need to match the resolution of analog and then photosens. still remains a problem.

Edit: here's another resource on the MKII


Ever read Popular Photography Magazine? I do. A few years ago they were not digital apologists in any sense of the word, in fact in 2001 they estimated that it would take a 20-30 Megapixel camera to surpass the total image quality of film. Not just resolution mind you, which is an incomplete comparison, but color accuracy, and noise as well.

But in 2005 retracted the statement and in a head to head test with both Fujicolor Superia ISO 100 and Kodak Gold 100 film, concluded that the 16.6 MP digital image was clearly superior.

For our February 2005 camera test, we compared the resolution, color accuracy, and noise ratings of EOS-1Ds Mark II images to those of Fujicolor Superia ISO 100 film shot two years ago for our test of the original 11MP EOS-1Ds (February 2003). But the uproar from our readers convinced us to re-evaluate film resolution, using a new roll of Kodak Gold 100 loaded in a Canon EOS 3 SLR. This time around, the Gold 100 film captured 3000 lines in all directions when shot using our test lab's daylight-balanced HMI lights (results based on analysis of a standard IT-10 test target shot with a Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF lens at f/8). Using daylight-balanced Elinchrom 1200S flash units, film delivered 2700 lines in all directions. These results compare to 2400 lines captured by the older Fuji ISO 100 film (illuminated by the studio flash units) and to the EOS-1Ds Mark II's 2760 Vertical x 2810 Horizontal x 2220 Diagonal lines (HMI or flash).

In real-world shooting, you'd barely notice a resolution difference in images captured by both systems, especially if you were handholding the camera. However, color negative film still captures a better image when overexposed due to its wider exposure range. In its favor, the EOS-1Ds Mark II gives you several stops of exposure leeway when shooting in RAW mode, and also lets you adjust ISO, white balance, sharpness, saturation, and contrast in the camera or afterward when processing RAW files.

The EOS-1Ds Mark II gets a color accuracy rating of excellent based on an Avg. Delta E of 6.85, while the film gets a normal rating based on a Delta E of 12.4 (the result was similar when custom-printed on Kodak Endura paper or when scanned). The EOS also boasts very low noise at ISO 100, with only moderately low noise at ISO 800. While grain is less obvious in ISO 100 film compared with ISO 800 film, it's large enough in giant enlargements to obscure some detail. On the other hand, there's no grain and very low noise in shots from the EOS-1Ds Mark II, making it the clear winner.

The difference in image quality is apparent when comparing enlargements from both cameras (see side-by-side photos, above).

I'd say it's settled. ISO 100 color negative film may capture a bit more detail than the 1Ds Mark II under ideal lighting conditions, with a great lens, and on a supersteady tripod. But for its better color and lower noise, the "Color Image Quality" award goes to Canon's $8,000 digital SLR. Seeing is believing...or is it vice-versa?

Granted, there are some specialty filmstocks (super low ISO and etc) out there that MIGHT objectively outperform it, but as far as any standard photography goes, you can get a digital that outperforms the majority of 35mm film TODAY. (For the low price of $5300 online price)

 

[LabelKing]

For the sakes of the topic, Kodak Gold 100 is a very average film while a 16.6 MP digital camera is a considerably advanced digital camera.

So it takes a relatively advanced digital camera to beat an average color film.