[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["lists@lazygranch.com" <lists@lazygranch.com>]

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