Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: olympus Digest V5 #123

Subject: [OM] Re: olympus Digest V5 #123
From: Scott Peden <scotpeden@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 23:08:01 -0700
still trying to figure out how to get back to daily posts, the links 
comes back as command not recognized.

Just to techie to be able to manage my e-mail delivery, when it states
http://www.zuikoholic.com/
http://www.zuikoholic.com/Control/index.shtml
Stop receiving /digests/ and start receiving /individual emails/ 
<mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unset+DIGEST> from the 
Olympus Users Mailing List.

sends an e-mail to
olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line
unset+DIGEST
 
*And I get back: (note the last one copied tellls me I did everything 
right, just that the program says I didn't) - Scott
*

Request received for list 'olympus' via request address.

No commands detected in message.

** Listar HELP FILE **
By Jeremy Blackman, JT Traub and Ryan T. Dean

TO GET A LIST OF LISTS:
        Send a message to the listar account on the server with a subject
        of "lists".  A list of lists hosted by the server will be returned
        to you.

TO SUBSCRIBE TO A LIST:

        Send a message to the listar account on the server (you can just
        reply to this message).  In the subject field, enter "subscribe
        [listname]".  Or, you can send a message to "[listname]-request"
        with a subject of "subscribe".

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM A LIST:
        Send a message to the listar account on the server (you can just
        reply to this message).  Enter "unsubscribe [listname]" in the
        subject field.  You can also send a message to 
        "[listname]-request" with a subject of "unsubscribe".
        While you should NOT send your unsubscribe command to the list
        itself, Listar will attempt to trap such erroneous postings and
        forward them to the list administrators for proper handling.

TO GET A DIGEST EVERY DAY:
        Send a message to the listar account on the server with a subject
        of "set [listname] digest".  This will turn on digests, and you
        will receive a digest however often the server is configured to
        send them.

TO STOP GETTING A DIGEST:
        Send a message to the listar account on the server with a subject
        of "unset [listname] digest".  This will turn off digest mode, and
        instead you will receive an eMail every time something is posted
        to the list.





Listar wrote:
> ------------------------------------
> olympus Digest        Fri, 02 May 2008        Volume: 05  Issue: 123
>
> In This Issue:
>               [OM] Re: OT- Pinhead's pinhole entry 2008
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking calculations
>               [OM] Re: eBay and the taxman
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking
>               [OM] Re: Seattle trip and questions about the FL-50 vs. FL-5
>               [OM] Re: S_T_R_E_S_S
>               [OM] Re: eBay and the taxman
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking
>               [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
>               [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
>               [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
>               [OM] Re: Website
>               [OM] Re: OT- Pinhead's pinhole entry 2008
>               [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
>               [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
>               [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking calculations
>               [OM] Re: eBay and the taxman
>               [OM] Printing at A2 ?
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking
>               [OM] Result
>               [OM] Re: OT- Pinhead's pinhole entry 2008
>               [OM] Focus stacking - I have met the enemy...
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking - I have met the enemy...
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking - I have met the enemy...
>               [OM] Re: Focus stacking calculations
>               [OM] Re: Website
>               [OM] Re: Website
>               [OM] Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Anybody used Chinese Internet mass retailer: www.eu
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>               [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: NSURIT@xxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 22:00:09 EDT
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT- Pinhead's pinhole entry 2008
>
>
> Thank you, Chuck.  This a fun little event that unites people with an  
> interest in pinhole photography each year.  Pinhole is just a tool used in  
> creating 
> some images.  The cyanotype really requires either a very large  negative 
> produced by your camera or a large negative produced from your negative  if 
> you 
> want to go very large.  These are contact prints.  This  particular one is a 
> 6" 
> X 9" negative digitally produced from a 6X9  negative.  It does not include 
> the entire image.  I "cropped" when I  coated my paper.  Bill Barber
>  
>  
> In a message dated 5/1/2008 7:15:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Now I am  not much of a fan of this glassless photography stuff but this 
> one I  really like!
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>   
>> Sorry  folks but this was not done with Zuiko glass.  Hmm, no glass at   
>>     
> all.  
>   
>>  
>>  _http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2008/index.php?id=1349&Province=Texas_  
>>  (http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2008/index.php?id=1349&Province=Texas)  
>>  
>> <[B^)  Bill  Barber
>>
>>     
>
> ==============================================
> List  usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List  nannies:         olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
> favorites at AOL Food.      
> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 20:16:48 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking calculations
>
> Wayne Harridge wrote:
>   
>> Yeah, probably the best approach is to use a longer lens on a bellows and 
>> refocus on different parts of the subject adjusting the rear bellows 
>> standard while maintaining the distance from the lens to subject fixed (e.g. 
>> The Zuiko 135/4.5 macro on the OM Auto Bellows).
>>   
>>     
> I've added the rear bellows standard adjustment alternative to the table:
>
> Calculated for a 50mm lens, here are the changes in magnification 
> resulting from adding about one inch, 25mm, to the focal distance:
>
>                               Move Camera     Refocus               Adj. 
> Bellows
> Repro    Magni-      Image    -----------   ------------   Change   
> ------------   Change
> Ratio    fication    Size     Size   %chg.  Size    %chg.   Ratio   
> Size    %chg.   Ratio
> 1:10      0.10         2.5     2.4    -4%    2.2    -13%     3.0     
> 2.4    -05%     1.1
> 1:5       0.20         5.0     4.6    -8%    3.8    -24%     3.1     4.5 
>    -09%     1.2
> 1:2       0.50        12.5    10.7   -14%    6.7    -46%     3.2    10.0 
>    -20%     1.4
> 1:1       1.00        25.0    20.0   -20%    7.8    -69%     3.4    16.7 
>    -33%     1.7
>
> Moving the entire camera without changing the focus is still the best 
> alternative. Fortunately, it's also far the easiest, as it doesn't 
> involve the refocusing required by the other two.
> -------------------------------------------------
> And I've done the calculations for a 135mm lens.
>
> Calculated for a 135mm lens, here are the changes in magnification 
> resulting from adding about one inch, 25mm, to the focal distance:
>
>                               Move Camera     Refocus               Adj. 
> Bellows
> Repro    Magni-      Image    -----------   ------------   Change   
> ------------   Change
> Ratio    fication    Size     Size   %chg.  Size    %chg.   Ratio   
> Size    %chg.   Ratio
> 1:10      0.10         2.5     2.5    -2%    2.2    -11%     6.5     
> 2.5    -02%     1.1
> 1:5       0.20         5.0     4.9    -3%    4.0    -20%     6.6     
> 4.8    -04%     1.2
> 1:2       0.50        12.5    11.8    -6%    7.4    -41%     7.1     
> 11.4   -08%     1.5
> 1:1       1.00        25.0    22.9    -8%    8.8    -65%     7.6     
> 21.1   -16%     1.8
>
> The longer lens does indeed make for less magnification change.
> -------------------------------------------------
> This is all in a spreadsheet, so alternative focal lengths and focal 
> plane changes may be calculated quickly. Not instantly, as there are 
> four values that have to be calculated by goal seeking iteration.
>
> A. Calculating Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 20:20:02 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: eBay and the taxman
>
> Andrew Fildes wrote:
>   
>> Not really. Remember, these are religious people so for them, putting  
>> all your financial affairs in order is an important part of the process.
>> One of the worst mistakes we make is to confuse them with criminals.  
>> That's not how they see themselves of course.
>>   
>>     
> Homeland Security will undoubtedly be disappointed to find you are out 
> of their reach.
>
> Or are you............
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 21:18:56 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>   
>> Thanks for the links.  I did speak to Dr. Focus and all he had to say was 
>> that this stuff is beginning to look like a lot of work. He suggested that 
>> perhaps starting with a target consisting of hundreds of 
>> tiny blossoms was a bit to much to tackle.
>>     
> It does look like CZM takes some work to learn.
>
> I suspect the bigger problem was simply that the distance intervals were 
> too great. Your definition of adequate DOF may have been simply 
> insufficient to assure that, at the pixel level, every feature of the 
> subject was sharp in one image layer.
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Seattle trip and questions about the FL-50 vs. FL-50R 
> flashes
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:36:07 -0700
>
>
>   
>>> * On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:04:12AM -0700, Moose said:
>>>       
>>>> Jan Steinman wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> ...
>>>>> :::: If a cluttered desk signs a cluttered mind,
>>>>> ::::    of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Enlightenment.
>>>>         
>>> Unemployment?
>>>
>>>       
>> Insanity
>>     
>
> Foreclosure.
>
> :::: Magic: using envisioned intent and directed action to select your  
> desired future path from among the infinite ones available. ::::
> :::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality: 
> http://www.EcoReality.org 
>   ::::
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: S_T_R_E_S_S
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:51:47 -0700
>
>
>   
>> From: Paul Braun <cygnus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Andrew Fildes wrote:
>>     
>>>> * We could learn a lot from crayons... Some are sharp, some are
>>>> pretty and some are dull. Some have weird names, and all are
>>>> different colors, but they all have to live in the same box.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> And some are more popular and get used up faster and some get lent
>>> and never returned and some get lost or broken and shit can we
>>> stretch this dumb analogy any further? And whose name are you calling
>>> weird hey?
>>>       
>> Raw Sienna.  That one deserves mocking.
>>     
>
> I always thought Burnt Umbra was particularly distressful name for a  
> child's toy. I imagined poor Umbra, her hair in flames and her skin  
> melting down...
>
>
> :::: Trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the  
> exceeding brightness of military glory -- that attractive rainbow,  
> that rises in showers of blood -- that serpent's eye, that charms to  
> destroy -- he plunged into war -- Abraham Lincoln on President Polk ::::
> :::: Jan Steinman http://www.EcoReality.org ::::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: eBay and the taxman
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:54:13 -0700
>
>
>   
>> From: John Hermanson <omtech1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>  HS is worming
>> it's way into all our lives, like we are the criminals.
>>     
>
> One of the reasons I left. I figger I got 20 years of peace before  
> inevitable Anschluss.
>
> :::: Bush thanked the Canadians for their "Five-finger welcome." What  
> he forgot to mention was that was the total from five separate  
> Canadians. -- Randi Rhodes ::::
> :::: Jan Steinman <http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com> ::::
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 22:19:54 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>   
>> ... by Jim Brokaw on the Kiron user's list on Yahoo.
>>   
>>     
> There's a blast from the past! I was recently idly wondering about Jim. 
> He's one of only a few list members I've met in person. And posessor of 
> the only OM-3Ti I've ever seen and touched.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:34:56 +0100
>
>
> What a hero!  They were pretty horrid voyages from what I understand.
>
> And it was rather good that the USSR remembered, in the Cold War and  
> all that.
>
> Chris
>
> On 1 May 2008, at 12:46, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>   
>> Apropos of retrospective medals.
>> My father was presented with one in the late eighties by the Soviet
>> Government - he participated in the PQ convoys to Murmansk and is a
>> member of the RN Northern Light group.
>> As I heard, he was a bit awkward at having to present himself at the
>> Embassy of the USSR as he was a staunch Thatcherite conservative.
>> Shame I didn't mention it while I was in the USSR - there might have
>> been a few few drinks in it.
>> Andrew Fildes
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:37:10 +0100
>
>
> :-)
>
> Clear? No.  But that's the most original origin that I've heard!
>
> Chris
>
> On 1 May 2008, at 14:57, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>   
>> I hope all of this clears everything up for you. If you have an
>> further questions, you might address them to our brethren from the
>> Commonwealth. This little note pretty well exhausts my knowledge of
>> cricket.
>>
>> Helpfully yours,
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:38:27 +0100
>
>
> And bats.  There used to be quite large bats (not 4ft span though!) in  
> our garden in Calcutta.
>
> Chris
>
> On 1 May 2008, at 22:47, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>   
>> Now this is an excellent understanding of the early game and may
>> explain why the game is so popular in India and the rest of the sub-
>> continent. They used to be awash with blasted crickets, grasshoppers,
>> locusts and the like.
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Website
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:42:35 +0100
>
>
> There are some excellent shots there, Donald.  It looks like decent  
> weather, albeit a little chilly perhaps.
>
> I like the gallery navigation system: it's very speedy.
>
> Chris
>
> On 1 May 2008, at 11:54, Donald wrote:
>
>   
>> I've been fiddling with various ideas and tools for building my  
>> website,
>> but have settled pretty much on a simple layout of galleries with an
>> intro page, maybe a splash page too.
>>
>> At the moment I'm doing this as far as possible off web, except  
>> where I
>> need scripts to run; I should be able to spend more time on this later
>> in the summer.
>> All of this by way of preamble, introducing a few shots from the  
>> recent
>> Netherlands trip, and to explain why it looks that way. I am using a
>> couple of things from TheTurningGate, and the gallery format is the
>> Panic Gallery from there. Hence the info page at the start, which I  
>> will
>> probably improve. But twenty or so shots are there, bear in mind that
>> this was a family trip, hence Fiona and snapshots feature prominently!
>>
>> Good weather but cold, at least it was dry and we did a fair amount of
>> cycling, saw a little of the countryside and visited the area I saw  
>> as a
>> teenager on a school holiday, to Noordwijk, in 1972.
>>
>> www.skelpitheid.com
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT- Pinhead's pinhole entry 2008
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:49:58 +0100
>
>
> That looks like a very polished product, Bill.
>
> Chris
>
> On 1 May 2008, at 22:46, NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>   
>> Sorry folks but this was not done with Zuiko glass.  Hmm, no glass  
>> at  all.
>>
>> _http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2008/index.php?id=1349&Province=Texas_
>> (http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2008/index.php?id=1349&Province=Texas 
>> )
>>     
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:22:50 +1000
>
>
> Yeah - to control them you'd have to call in a Kolcata Batter.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 02/05/2008, at 3:38 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>   
>> And bats.  There used to be quite large bats (not 4ft span though!) in
>> our garden in Calcutta.
>>     
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:19:11 -0400
>
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 1:37 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>   
>> Clear? No.  But that's the most original origin that I've heard!
>>     
>
>
> Not clear? Blimey! <wink>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: (OT) stopping
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 20:42:43 +1000
>
>
>   
>> Unfortunately the powers that be decided 
>> that the  
>> colony of up to 20,000 of them were doing too much damage by 
>> roosting  
>> in the botanic gardens so they brought the 'batters' in to move them  
>> on. I miss them.
>> Andrew Fildes
>>     
>
>
> ...and re-settled them about 1km from my place !  Dunno if they're still
> around in large numbers as I don't have megawatts of floodlights in the
> backyard !  I do see a few from time to time though.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking calculations
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 20:58:54 +1000
>
>
> Thanks for that Moose, not really intuitive so doing the maths was a
> sensible step.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>   
>> Wayne Harridge wrote:
>>     
>>> Yeah, probably the best approach is to use a longer lens on 
>>>       
>> a bellows 
>>     
>>> and refocus on different parts of the subject adjusting the 
>>>       
>> rear bellows standard while maintaining the distance from the 
>> lens to subject fixed (e.g. The Zuiko 135/4.5 macro on the OM 
>> Auto Bellows).
>>     
>>>   
>>>       
>> I've added the rear bellows standard adjustment alternative 
>> to the table:
>>
>> Calculated for a 50mm lens, here are the changes in magnification 
>> resulting from adding about one inch, 25mm, to the focal distance:
>>
>>                               Move Camera     Refocus         
>>       Adj. 
>> Bellows
>> Repro    Magni-      Image    -----------   ------------   Change   
>> ------------   Change
>> Ratio    fication    Size     Size   %chg.  Size    %chg.   Ratio   
>> Size    %chg.   Ratio
>> 1:10      0.10         2.5     2.4    -4%    2.2    -13%     3.0     
>> 2.4    -05%     1.1
>> 1:5       0.20         5.0     4.6    -8%    3.8    -24%     
>> 3.1     4.5 
>>    -09%     1.2
>> 1:2       0.50        12.5    10.7   -14%    6.7    -46%     
>> 3.2    10.0 
>>    -20%     1.4
>> 1:1       1.00        25.0    20.0   -20%    7.8    -69%     
>> 3.4    16.7 
>>    -33%     1.7
>>
>> Moving the entire camera without changing the focus is still the best 
>> alternative. Fortunately, it's also far the easiest, as it doesn't 
>> involve the refocusing required by the other two.
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> And I've done the calculations for a 135mm lens.
>>
>> Calculated for a 135mm lens, here are the changes in magnification 
>> resulting from adding about one inch, 25mm, to the focal distance:
>>
>>                               Move Camera     Refocus         
>>       Adj. 
>> Bellows
>> Repro    Magni-      Image    -----------   ------------   Change   
>> ------------   Change
>> Ratio    fication    Size     Size   %chg.  Size    %chg.   Ratio   
>> Size    %chg.   Ratio
>> 1:10      0.10         2.5     2.5    -2%    2.2    -11%     6.5     
>> 2.5    -02%     1.1
>> 1:5       0.20         5.0     4.9    -3%    4.0    -20%     6.6     
>> 4.8    -04%     1.2
>> 1:2       0.50        12.5    11.8    -6%    7.4    -41%     7.1     
>> 11.4   -08%     1.5
>> 1:1       1.00        25.0    22.9    -8%    8.8    -65%     7.6     
>> 21.1   -16%     1.8
>>
>> The longer lens does indeed make for less magnification change.
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> This is all in a spreadsheet, so alternative focal lengths and focal 
>> plane changes may be calculated quickly. Not instantly, as there are 
>> four values that have to be calculated by goal seeking iteration.
>>
>> A. Calculating Moose
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: eBay and the taxman
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 21:00:39 +1000
>
>
>    
>   
>> Homeland Security will undoubtedly be disappointed to find 
>> you are out 
>> of their reach.
>>
>> Or are you............
>>
>>     
>
> I'd like to see them try to negotiate the path to his front door on a dark
> wet night !
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 14:15:10 +0200
> From: swisspace <swisspace@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Printing at A2 ?
>
> Hmm, the internet is a very dangerous place, as said in a previous 
> email, after having success with A4 prints form my old photo 890 I 
> thought maybe I should try A3 printing, then narrowing down the A3 
> printers to R1900 R2400 or epson B9180 or waiting for r2400 replacement. 
> I read that the epson 3800 A2 printer isn't that much more expensive 
> when you factor in the inks - and at that size I don't have to worry 
> about choosing between printers as the 3800 is the only viable option.
>
> I know you have told me that the E1 can produce good A3 results, but 
> would it cut the mustard at A2 size, if not would the E3 be okay at this 
> resolution, or should I just choose an A3 printer, my reasoning is that 
> if I buy A2 I can always print smaller, I would prefer to pay a bit more 
> now than end up paying again later, I did that with a computer once and 
> it cost me about twice as much and I ended up paying for the right spec 
> machine in the end.
>
> any thoughts?
>
> IanW
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 08:32:48 -0400
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking
>
> DOF should have been about 2-1/2".  The total depth of the branch was 
> about 7" which I covered in 7 steps.  But I have yet to go back and 
> critically analyze the individual images or do something simple like 
> taking one pair of adjacent images and see how CZM fares with the 
> simpler case.
>
> One possible big problem area is that there were several blossoms that 
> were sagging on their wilting stems.  I couldn't see it while shooting 
> but stepping back through the images quickly shows something of a 
> "movie" where 3 or 4 blossoms (out of a couple hundred) are seen to 
> drift downward by almost their full width.  I suppose it's possible that 
> that greatly confuses the software.  If I were to critically analyze the 
> images I suspect I might also find that the blossoms themselves were 
> starting to wilt and maybe are slightly different from frame to frame.
>
> The branch seems to have recovered nicely after being placed in a vase 
> with water so maybe I'll need to do a reshoot while keeping it hydrated 
> in the vase rather than hanging in mid air from a clamp on a lightstand. 
> And I do have a focus slide from my bellows so I'll probably use that to 
> minimize magnification changes if I reshoot.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Moose wrote:
>   
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>     
>>> Thanks for the links.  I did speak to Dr. Focus and all he had to say was 
>>> that this stuff is beginning to look like a lot of work. He suggested that 
>>> perhaps starting with a target consisting of hundreds of 
>>> tiny blossoms was a bit to much to tackle.
>>>       
>> It does look like CZM takes some work to learn.
>>
>> I suspect the bigger problem was simply that the distance intervals were 
>> too great. Your definition of adequate DOF may have been simply 
>> insufficient to assure that, at the pixel level, every feature of the 
>> subject was sharp in one image layer.
>>
>> Moose
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "geebee" <geebee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Result
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:47:11 +0100
>
>
> A big 'Thank You' to those who went through the Blurb price pain barrier and 
> bought a copy 'Rose of the Shires'. You raised $250 
> for Project H.O.M.E.
>
> A special 'Thank You' to Jim Shulman for the motivation.
>
> --Graham
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 08:48:12 -0400
> From: John Hermanson <omtech1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT- Pinhead's pinhole entry 2008
>
>
> Very good Bill, worthy of a space on someone's wall.
>
> ___________________________________
> John Hermanson  |   CPS, Inc.
> 21 South Ln., Huntington NY 11743
> www.zuiko.com  |  omtech1 AT verizon.net
> Gallery: www.zuiko.com/album/index.html
>
>
> NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>   
>> Sorry folks but this was not done with Zuiko glass.  Hmm, no glass at  all.  
>>  
>> _http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2008/index.php?id=1349&Province=Texas_ 
>> (http://www.pinholeday.org/gallery/2008/index.php?id=1349&Province=Texas) 
>>  
>> <[B^)  Bill Barber
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 11:17:56 -0400
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Focus stacking - I have met the enemy...
>
> I have met the enemy and he is me.  After going back to analyze the 
> individual frames and reviewing them by rapidly stepping through like a 
> movie, I suddenly realized that the last frame didn't fit the sequence. 
>   Only then did I recall that (for reasons I can't recall) I re-shot the 
> last frame as a near duplicate of the first.
>
> CZM is critically dependent on frames being ordered in the proper 
> sequence of focus distance and makes that assumption.  I apparently 
> passed it a real "gotcha" by giving it six frames in proper order but a 
> seventh that suddenly jumps back to a near replica of frame 1.  When I 
> remove the seventh frame and rerun the app using the very simple and 
> fully automated "do stack" macro all is well.  Well, all except the few 
> wilting blossoms which cause a few artifacts.  But I think these can be 
> easily cloned out and the resulting image is eminently usable.  The CZM 
> manual also speaks of artifacts near the edges of the frame and I 
> noticed that there is a strange mirroring of the branch where it nears 
> the right hand edge of the frame.  But this is also easily cropped.
>
> Here's what it looks like.  The first frame is the full image with 
> comments on the motion artifacts and mirroring.  The second frame is a 
> 50% pixel crop showing the area with the motion artifacts.  Even though 
> it's only a 50% pixel crop, on screen, it's probably about twice life size.
> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/focus_stack/index.htm>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 10:43:44 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking - I have met the enemy...
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>   
>> I have met the enemy and he is me.  
>>     
> Walt would be proud, both of them.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 14:45:24 -0400
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking - I have met the enemy...
>
> I didn't think of it but I guess he did use that expression before. 
> Maybe even on more than one occasion.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Moose wrote:
>   
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>     
>>> I have met the enemy and he is me.  
>>>       
>> Walt would be proud, both of them.
>>
>> Moose
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Focus stacking calculations
>
>
>   
>> Thanks for that Moose, not really intuitive so doing the
>> maths was a sensible step.
>>     
>
> My head hurts.
>
> I think I'll just stick with the reduced-frame 4/3 sensor...
>
> AG
>
>
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Wiliam Wagenaar" <wiliam@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Website
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 21:21:30 +0200
>
>
> Donald wrote:
>
> -----
>
>   
>> I've been fiddling with various ideas and tools for building my
>>     
> website, 
>
>   
>> but have settled pretty much on a simple layout of galleries with an 
>>     
>
>   
>> intro page, maybe a splash page too.
>>     
>
>   
>> [Snip]
>>     
>
>   
>> Good weather but cold, at least it was dry and we did a fair amount of 
>>     
>
>   
>> cycling, saw a little of the countryside and visited the area I saw as
>>     
> a 
>
>   
>> teenager on a school holiday, to Noordwijk, in 1972.
>>     
>
>  <http://www.skelpitheid.com> > www.skelpitheid.com
>
>   
>> D;
>>     
>
> -----
>
> Hi Donald, 
>
> Nice and easy on the eyes. But it took quite a while to load while only
> the frames were visible.
>
> I feel very at home during the first half of the album ;-)) I hope you
> ejoyed your stay on Walcheren.
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>
> Wiliam
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 21:36:44 +0100
> From: Donald <d1956m198d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Website
>
> Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
>   
>> Hi Donald, 
>>
>> Nice and easy on the eyes. But it took quite a while to load while only
>> the frames were visible.
>>
>> I feel very at home during the first half of the album ;-)) I hope you
>> ejoyed your stay on Walcheren.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Wiliam
>>
>>     
>
> Wiliam,
>
> we had a great time. It was a bit cold, but Walcheren is a lovely place, 
> so great for cycling and with plenty to see. Our friends from Luxembourg 
> love it, and we will certainly be back for a bit longer.
>
> The images are about the size I normally aim for, around the 100K mark, 
> but I will probably reduce the size because there's certainly room for that.
>
> Did a slight update this afternoon, but still can't get the description 
> to show up. Next plan is edit the pages to insert 'alt' text by hand.
>
> We had a late meal in a place in the Markt in Middelburg on the first 
> evening, I guess on the north side of there. Nice town you have there...
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
> D.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:10:40 -0400
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Some interesting photography here...
>
> <http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/apr_08_pad>
>
> Done with a Nykon D300.  All of it is nice but what caught my attention 
> is the painterly looking images which are constructed in-camera using 10 
> multiple exposures per frame.  This is something the D300 can apparently 
> do.  Never hear of digital multiple exposures.  A few look kind of funny 
> but others look very nice.  I did locate the feature in dpreview's 
> coverage but had to do some looking.  Is this just a common thing on 
> Nykon DSLR's?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 14:51:38 -0700
> From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
>
> No. It is something new. D300 and D3.
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On / May 2, 2008 CE, at 2:10 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>   
>> <http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/apr_08_pad>
>>
>> Done with a Nykon D300.  All of it is nice but what caught my  
>> attention
>> is the painterly looking images which are constructed in-camera  
>> using 10
>> multiple exposures per frame.  This is something the D300 can  
>> apparently
>> do.  Never hear of digital multiple exposures.  A few look kind of  
>> funny
>> but others look very nice.  I did locate the feature in dpreview's
>> coverage but had to do some looking.  Is this just a common thing on
>> Nykon DSLR's?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:18:57 +1000
>
>
>   
>> <http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/apr_08_pad>
>>
>> Done with a Nykon D300.  All of it is nice but what caught my 
>> attention 
>> is the painterly looking images which are constructed 
>> in-camera using 10 
>> multiple exposures per frame.  This is something the D300 can 
>> apparently 
>> do.  Never hear of digital multiple exposures.  A few look 
>> kind of funny 
>> but others look very nice.  I did locate the feature in dpreview's 
>> coverage but had to do some looking.  Is this just a common thing on 
>> Nykon DSLR's?
>>
>>     
>
> Very interesting set of images Chuck, the first time of heard anything about
> this feature of the D300.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Daniel Sepke" <daniel.sepke@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 20:27:35 -0400
>
>
> It's also on the D200 as well. Interesting option.
>
> Dan S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Winsor Crosby
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
> No. It is something new. D300 and D3.
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
> On / May 2, 2008 CE, at 2:10 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>   
>> <http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/apr_08_pad>
>>
>> Done with a Nykon D300.  All of it is nice but what caught my 
>> attention is the painterly looking images which are constructed 
>> in-camera using 10 multiple exposures per frame.  This is something 
>> the D300 can apparently do.  Never hear of digital multiple exposures.  
>> A few look kind of funny but others look very nice.  I did locate the 
>> feature in dpreview's coverage but had to do some looking.  Is this 
>> just a common thing on Nykon DSLR's?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 20:34:04 -0400
> From: Larry <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
>
> Old hat with the Pentax K10D, and now K20D. Was only considered cute 
> until now.
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>   
>> Never hear of digital multiple exposures. 
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:45:34 -0700
> From: Jim Couch <zuikoholic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
> Chuck,
>
> The D200 can also do this. I have to admit I have never tried it, seems 
> to me to make more sense to do it in post processing. (of course I also 
> felt the same way about double exposures on film so what do I know?)
>
> Jim Couch
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>   
>> <http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/apr_08_pad>
>>
>> Done with a Nykon D300.  All of it is nice but what caught my attention 
>> is the painterly looking images which are constructed in-camera using 10 
>> multiple exposures per frame.  This is something the D300 can apparently 
>> do.  Never hear of digital multiple exposures.  A few look kind of funny 
>> but others look very nice.  I did locate the feature in dpreview's 
>> coverage but had to do some looking.  Is this just a common thing on 
>> Nykon DSLR's?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 17:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ali Shah <alizookoman@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
>
>
> The D300 does it better. That is called bracketing and
> those look like HDR - tonemapped photos. The D200
> takes up to 9 bracketed exposures. I typically do 3
> but there are ppl who do 5 or 9. You simply turn the
> bracketing on and set the camera to high speed
> continous mode. Fire away your exposures and post
> process. 
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/4love/2435752866/
>
> Canyon also does and does it well!
>
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/deeva/2452688443/
>
>
>
> --- Daniel 
>   
>>> Done with a Nykon D300.  All of it is nice but
>>>       
>> what caught my 
>>     
>>> attention is the painterly looking images which
>>>       
>> are constructed 
>>     
>>> in-camera using 10 multiple exposures per frame. 
>>>       
>> This is something 
>>     
>>> the D300 can apparently do.  Never hear of digital
>>>       
>> multiple exposures.  
>>     
>>> A few look kind of funny but others look very
>>>       
>> nice.  I did locate the 
>>     
>>> feature in dpreview's coverage but had to do some
>>>       
>> looking.  Is this 
>>     
>>> just a common thing on Nykon DSLR's?
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>       
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 20:50:20 -0400
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Some interesting photography here...
>
> I guess I should have figured that by now but I didn't even know it had 
> it.  I don't recall reading about it in dpreview's coverage.  For the 
> D300 I had to download the manual from Nykon, locate it in the manual to 
> find that it was activated in a menu entry, then backtrack to dpreview's 
> review of same and see that it's at least noted in the menu coverage. 
> It there's any other mention there I didn't find it.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Larry wrote:
>   
>> Old hat with the Pentax K10D, and now K20D. Was only considered cute 
>> until now.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>     
>>> Never hear of digital multiple exposures. 
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>       
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:52:01 +0800
> From: "Sandy Harris" <sandyinchina@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Anybody used Chinese Internet mass retailer: www.eurcns.com 
> ?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Dan Mitchell <danmitchell@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
>>   The fact they list Western Union as the first way to pay them also
>>  sounds pretty wonky to me.
>>
>>
>>  > Interested if anybody has any experience, or if they are a total scam?
>>
>>   I have no experience, but all the signs point to "scam", if you ask me.
>>     
>
> Certainly could be that.
>
> As a foreigner living in China, though, my guess is just wonky (typical
> Chinese, if I'm feeling cynical :-) rather than outright scam. This may
> still mean worth avoiding. I'd be extremely surprised if their customer
> service is up to Western standards.
>
> In my experience, brands like Olympus, Samsung, Asus, Pentax, ...
> are sometimes marginally less in China than prices I get checking
> standard sources like NewEgg or B&H, or sometimes a bit more.
> Chinese I know go to Hong Kong to save on such stuff.
>
> It is complicated to get money in or out of China; there are government
> controls on currency exchange. Western Union is widely used. Credit
> cards are not.
>
> The phone number they give on the web site is a mobile number. This
> is quite common here, but still strikes me as odd.
>
> Web site says they are in Zhengzhou, Henan province. That's an
> inland city, not one of the coastal hubs of foreign trade. Map is
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/china_pol01.jpg
> South of Beijing, rather central.
>
>   


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz