Apple sued for shrinking storage space on 16GB devices thanks toiOS 8

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Whitney Ryan, Jan 1, 2015.

  1. Whitney Ryan

    Aldo Raine Guest

    Actually I think "dipshit" is one word-- like bullshit ;-)
     
    Aldo Raine, Jan 11, 2015
    1. Advertisements

  2. Whitney Ryan

    Your Name Guest

    Yep, that's something else that happens around here ... going around
    and around the same circle trying to get the braindead fools to
    understand a simple fact. :-\
     
    Your Name, Jan 13, 2015
    1. Advertisements

  3. Whitney Ryan

    Lee Waun Guest

    I used to develop and print 35mm B&W in my own darkroom back in the 1970's
    when phones where something people only had in their homes.
     
    Lee Waun, Jan 15, 2015
  4. Whitney Ryan

    cee Guest


    Sometimes there are other issues than visual ones too. My Mom (86) has
    never used a computer and doesn't want to. My Dad has used Macs, but his
    memory has been declining lately and he doesn't use his desktop any longer.
    My brother and I got them iPads, but found the simplest ones were best for
    their needs. It was a few years ago, and they still have early iPads, but
    those suit their needs. They are stubborn about not wanting to learn "new
    stuff". We put on apps they might use, but not that many. Games, they
    only want to play Solitaire so that's the only game we put on the iPad. As
    far as backing up and updating, we have to do that for them.
    They enjoy the iPads and have learned to do e-mail (but not texting) They
    can browse in Safari, but nothing complicated. Mom and Dad have no desire
    at their ages to learn much more than the very basics, but they get
    enjoyment out of what they use the iPads for.
     
    cee, Jan 15, 2015
  5. Whitney Ryan

    Erilar Guest

    I was doing that even further back :cool:. I sent the film off to be
    developed, but did my own printing for the 18 years I was yearbook advisor
    and had a darkroom at school. I also had student help there; my yearbook
    photographers learned how to do things from scratch and used manual
    cameras.
     
    Erilar, Jan 19, 2015
  6. Whitney Ryan

    JF Mezei Guest

    Since this thread is still talking about photos.

    Recently went through a trove of negatives/slides from the family.

    Black and white: extremely well preserved (except for scratches of
    course) back to the early 1960s. (did not scan any before my birth).

    Colour negatives: pictures in the 1970s had some fading, but very easily
    corrected back to acceptable colours. Fading occured towards being
    transparent.

    Colour slides: even Kodachrome in 1970s did OK. The fading occured
    mostly towards being translarent (less dense).

    I have a picture of myself taken on negative by my dad when I left for a
    trip in 1987. Picture is perfectly preserved. But my Kodachrome 64
    slides have darkened signgificantly and saw colour shifts (blue cast).

    These slides were preserved in their original plastic box. Perhaps there
    were residual chemicals that filled the box and damaged the film. Or
    perhaps it is just how the 1980s Kodachrome aged.

    I still have a few hundred Kodachrome 64 slides to scan and restore
    (very time consuming) after that I think I switched to Kodacrhome 200
    and am curious to see how well those will scan. Eventually switched to
    Extachrome film which I assume will be much easier to scan.

    I have to say that the older Kodachrome scans just as easily as the
    negatives and other reversal my dad used. My the recent (1980s and
    1990s) Kodacrhome are totally different.
     
    JF Mezei, Jan 19, 2015
  7. Whitney Ryan

    JF Mezei Guest

    BTW, I know purists say that analogue film is superior to digital cameras.

    I my Nikon, for ram images, and even (to a much lesser extent) .jpeg,
    the level of detail recorded in an image is far greater.

    a 4000dpi scanner for 35mm film generates an image rougly 5300*3700
    (theoretically closer to 5680*3780), and film grain becomes obvious well
    before you have zoomed much. With digital images, the level of detail is
    far greater as you zoom in before you start to see pixelation.

    Obviously, if one goes into the 6*6 film format, the story would be
    quite different.

    And if rumours are true that the iPhone may be able to save images as
    raw, it may unless further precision, although not sure much mroe
    precision is possible with the lens size limitations on smartphones.
     
    JF Mezei, Jan 19, 2015
  8. Whitney Ryan

    Your Name Guest

    Theoretically, if it is square, 35mm x 35mm (approx 2.3in x 2.3in)
    scanned at a ridiculously high 4000dpi should give you 9333 x 9333
    pixels.

    Reduce that image to a more sensible print resolution of 150dpi, and
    you can print it at a silly size of just over 62in x 62in. Unless
    you're planning on printing posters, you're wasting time, effort, and
    storage space.
     
    Your Name, Jan 19, 2015
  9. Whitney Ryan

    Rod Speed Guest

    I still haven't got around to scanning any of mine,
    some of which were taken before even my father
    was born. Mainly because scanning gets better
    all the time and I just decide that particularly
    with the older stuff, its unlikely to get any worse
    any faster than scanning will improve on the result.
     
    Rod Speed, Jan 19, 2015
  10. Whitney Ryan

    Guest Guest

    only ignorant people say that. digital has long surpassed film.
    of course, and has been the case for a long time.
    scanning film will never be as good as shooting digital directly.
    even though that's a flawed comparison because of the different frame
    sizes, the best 35mm-sized digital slrs, such as the nikon d810 are
    much better than medium format film (and certainly 35mm film).
    raw won't offer much advantage for cellphone cameras, other than being
    able to white balance after the shot.
     
    Guest, Jan 19, 2015
  11. Whitney Ryan

    Guest Guest

    35mm film has a frame size of 24x36mm, or about 1x1.5". a 4000 ppi scan
    is high enough resolution for most films and would result in an image
    that's about 24 megapixels (4000x6000 pixels).

    there are some extremely fine grain films where a higher resolution
    scan might make a small difference but those are very special purpose
    films and the additional quality isn't necessarily visible anyway.
    nikon's top scanner was 8000 ppi, or 96 megapixels for a 35mm frame
    (most of which is resolving individual film grains, not subject
    detail).
    math fail. a 62" square print from a 4000 ppi scan of a 35mm film frame
    (which isn't square so you'd have to crop) would be be about 65 ppi
    (not dpi), and that's *extremely* low for a print.

    150 ppi is very low for prints unless the print is to be viewed at a
    distance. a 4000 ppi scan would be suitable for a 16x20 @ 300 ppi or
    20x24 @ 250 ppi but that is pushing it since there isn't that much
    detail in the film image in the first place. 35mm film starts to look
    soft at 11x14 *without* scanning.
     
    Guest, Jan 19, 2015
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.