Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:45:18 -0400

Message no. 1 At 10:29 PM 4/17/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>ObSR (Obligatory Shadowrun)
>>What happens to camera in 205x? Do you take your digital camera down to the
>>photomat to have little holos made of it? Slide shows? Maybe even those
>>hideously expensive photo prints? And what about that Red-Eye in every shot?
>>Have it run through their system so they can black the red glow?
>>
>
>Digital all the way. I'd say they'd probably just photoshop red eye out.
>As for slide shows you'd probably download the "slides" from disk and
>display them on a digital projector. I'd say matrix technology would
>replaced the old slide portfolio and dye-emulsion technology would replace
>prints. Of course there will still be artists who use film
>

Actually I seem to recal something in the Lone Star book about old
fashioned film still being used in law enforcement, especially for crime
scenes and *anything* that would go before a court of law because it's a
lot harder to manipulate and alter film than it is digital.

Digital, you just flip some bits and you've removed red-eye, or the murder
weapon, or added in the bloody glove. Can do that still with film, but
it's harder to do and much easier to catch. Can be damn hard to catch with
digital.

Erik J.

"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."

From:	losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:57:04 -0400

Message no. 2 At 01:45 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Actually I seem to recal something in the Lone Star book about old
>fashioned film still being used in law enforcement, especially for crime
>scenes and *anything* that would go before a court of law because it's a
>lot harder to manipulate and alter film than it is digital.

Which is nonsense, it is now possible to use a type of printer to print a
silver emulsion image from a computer to a plastic film negative. And
can't be discerned from a normally exposed negative, from what I've heard...

losthalo

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:12:58 EST

Message no. 3 > Actually I seem to recal something in the Lone Star book about old
> fashioned film still being used in law enforcement, especially for
> crime scenes and *anything* that would go before a court of law
> because it's a lot harder to manipulate and alter film than it is
> digital.
>
> Digital, you just flip some bits and you've removed red-eye, or the
> murder weapon, or added in the bloody glove. Can do that still with
> film, but it's harder to do and much easier to catch. Can be damn
> hard to catch with digital.

The book _Rising Sun_ by Micheal Crichton has a wonderful discussion
of how to search for editing on digital pictures. The only thing
that I know of that it didn't cover is digital watermarks.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:13:31 -0700

Message no. 4 losthalo wrote:

> >Actually I seem to recal something in the Lone Star book about old
> >fashioned film still being used in law enforcement, especially for crime
> >scenes and *anything* that would go before a court of law because it's a
> >lot harder to manipulate and alter film than it is digital.
>
> Which is nonsense, it is now possible to use a type of printer to print a
> silver emulsion image from a computer to a plastic film negative. And
> can't be discerned from a normally exposed negative, from what I've heard...

Not at this point in time. The images that go copmuter to film are easily
discernable from a regular straight to film image. I can see the pictures
being much higher quality, in the furture, but... There would be ways to
tell a copmuter image from a real image, imo. Just get a loop and look at
the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular, and in a
copmuter image they will be quite regular.

--
-Dvixen
"I am responsible for everything except my own responsibility." Sartre
Ile drewna moglby nalupac swistak, jezeli swistak moglby lupac drewno?

From:	Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:48:07 -0400

Message no. 5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:12 PM 4/20/98 -0500, SwiftOne wrote:
>> Digital, you just flip some bits and you've removed red-eye, or the
>> murder weapon, or added in the bloody glove. Can do that still
with
>> film, but it's harder to do and much easier to catch. Can be damn
>> hard to catch with digital.
>
>The book _Rising Sun_ by Micheal Crichton has a wonderful discussion
>of how to search for editing on digital pictures. The only thing
>that I know of that it didn't cover is digital watermarks.

However, it should be noted that in Rising Sun, the picture editing
described was both done very hastily, and done with tech that was on
the 'bleeding edge' for the _early_1990s_. Advance the tech six to
seven decades, and I'm sure that the software will have become
sufficently advanced to automatically avoid the particular errors and
inconsistancies that made it obvious that the image had been altered.

Now, of course, there will always be new errors and inconsistancies
that could be spotted by a trained eye. A rush job is still a rush
job, whether in 205X, 206X, or 199X.

(BTW, if any of you runners haven't read Rising Sun, I STRONGLY
reccomend it as background reading for SR. The focus of the book is on
Japanacorp covert politics and backstabbing, and it has been written
with a decidedly hightech air.)

As for the 'Faked Film vs. Faked Digital' issue, I'd say it could
swing either way. Tucked away in my files some where, I have a 7 year
old issue of Discover magazine with an article about photo
manipulation. Even back then, the technology exisited to be able to
scan a negative down to the emulsion grain (film's equivilent to a
pixel, execpt that the emulsion grain "bits will be scattered
irregular", to quote Dvixen) and edit it at that level. The only way
to spot an alteration is if the alteration failed a 'reality check' of
some kind (shadows on the wrong side of a face for example).

Film has an advantage in that it's an actual physical object, that can
be secured in the evidence room, and to alter the image, someone has
to physically replace the new film with the old film. Digital images
may similarly be protected, if a 'timestamped digital signature' can
be generated for an image file, and stored securely (i.e. in an
offline, write-once/read-many device). This way, if there is any
question of possible alteration, the image file may be compared to the
digital signature, determining instantly. It is possible to forge a
digital signature for the faked image, but it would be _hard_.

As a side note, aren't there rules for image and video alteration and
detecting alteration in the news reporting chapters of ShadowBeat?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTu0Pc2C0fERRVM5AQGUhQQAstAR7ggLS0aaUKDMVDZdc+Qwai/bUw/5
IUAgSU1GW4Qsd2GbVctgYiikWuJoJcaeFLkQt1hy8wln7l/Fzh6jT3ujoKpQXnAO
P9oKwFhypZeMeENMZ5bZ31ecCZX+SQi5CEMxB7RlExhYiyj2U9omsgs0mLPCAujP
snVGISSPFlY=
=q3S9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA

From:	The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:56:59 PDT

Message no. 6 >At 01:45 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Actually I seem to recal something in the Lone Star book about old
>>fashioned film still being used in law enforcement, especially for
crime
>>scenes and *anything* that would go before a court of law because it's
a
>>lot harder to manipulate and alter film than it is digital.
>
>Which is nonsense, it is now possible to use a type of printer to print
a
>silver emulsion image from a computer to a plastic film negative. And
>can't be discerned from a normally exposed negative, from what I've
heard...

Since you've only heard, it must be nonsense. :)

Seriously though, I like the explaination. You have to think 60
years ahead here. Who uses "archaic" tools to doctor "old fashioned"
photographs? *Paper* photos... who uses *paper*? That whole
mentality.

-Vagabond
"Under wandering stars I've grown"
________________________________________________________
<nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

From:	"Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:00:27 +0200

Message no. 7 On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:12:58 EST, Brett Borger wrote:

>The book _Rising Sun_ by Micheal Crichton has a wonderful discussion
>of how to search for editing on digital pictures. The only thing
>that I know of that it didn't cover is digital watermarks.
>
Well, of course I don't know about digital watermarks in the 205x but
today they are virtually useless.

I never tried it myself, but some test in a good computer paper
revealed that there was no watermark that would survive simple
recompression, turning the image a very small angle or saving it in a
different compressed format or other things.
So it is very easy to get rid of a digital watermark today.

And somehow I doubt that you can put a lot of information (there must
be a lot, because you want the watermark to survive cropping,
compression, changing geometry and all this) in an image without
altering how that mage looks like.
Just think about compressed images like jpegs, where there is almost no
redundancy or, in other words, place to put something in unseen.

Arno
--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:44:29 EDT

Message no. 8 In a message dated 4/20/98 3:03:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dvixen@********.COM writes:

> Not at this point in time. The images that go copmuter to film are easily
> discernable from a regular straight to film image. I can see the pictures
> being much higher quality, in the furture, but... There would be ways to
> tell a copmuter image from a real image, imo. Just get a loop and look at
> the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular, and in a
> copmuter image they will be quite regular.
>
Really? I had heard similar to losthalo...and I know that Kodak now uses
Computer to Image stuff that is total quality. Uses special printing
"cartriges" (couldn't think of the real word) and special (Kodak) paper.

BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?

-K

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:05:42 EDT

Message no. 9 In a message dated 4/20/98 4:58:35 PM US Eastern Standard Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> Digital, you just flip some bits and you've removed red-eye, or the murder
> weapon, or added in the bloody glove. Can do that still with film, but
> it's harder to do and much easier to catch. Can be damn hard to catch with
> digital.
>
There is another reason to use "old style film" in a crime scene. The
negatives and produced product would both have "image captured" a bit of the
scene on a truly "optic" level.

Like looking into a mirror for an Astral Perception. It might not be the same
as being there, but it'll have to do.

-K

From:	Karl Low <kwil@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:23:34 -0600

Message no. 10 From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>

>BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?

Those funny little magnifying eyepieces that you see jewellers or
stamp-collectors using.

Although, by 205x, I'm willing to bet the resolution would be fine enough
you'd need one heck of a loop to tell.

Sort of along this subject though, what kind of market is there for precious
stones in SR? Especially when given that fakes (ala cubic zirconia) are
probably easier and cheaper to make than mining out the real thing.

-Karl
$0.02? You think it's worth that much?

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:26:09 -0700

Message no. 11 Karl Low wrote:

> >BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?

> Those funny little magnifying eyepieces that you see jewellers or
> stamp-collectors using.

Properly spelled 'loupe' (but pronounced the same).

- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:13:29 -0400

Message no. 12 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 06:44 PM 4/20/98 -0400, K wrote:

>BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?

It's that lens on a stand that photographers, publishers, jewelers and
many other trades use to observe fine detail. You might have seen it
spelled loupe.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTvys82C0fERRVM5AQGQKAP8CO3mVxgU4SLw0KwKY/x8pIzLMesZ1oMX
yM3PROrZ3iExeCvrGloUgolq+emh6zAbR4Z0LwVzbm84fpgYzY6/EW/tIlMBK7cA
6ZQkH5YZBZyFzAyvayPmGRws2ppdY6L8VATF/XqAQqmIi3uUFgAJXoE8UTFUMV9r
+h2/cDi3FwA=
=syN+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA

From:	Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:13:39 EDT

Message no. 13 In a message dated 4/20/98 7:18:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
kwil@*********.COM writes:

> Sort of along this subject though, what kind of market is there for precious
> stones in SR? Especially when given that fakes (ala cubic zirconia) are
> probably easier and cheaper to make than mining out the real thing.
>
Well, let's see...artificial stuff is probably used for lasers (manufactured
lensing and diamond-types/dikote' for instance). Real stones are probably in
the collector's era of stuff, and/or the realm of the magician and their
little Talismonger friends...(ewg)

-K

From:	Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:40:22 -0500

Message no. 14 At 06:44 PM 98-04-20 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 4/20/98 3:03:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dvixen@********.COM writes:
>
>> Not at this point in time. The images that go copmuter to film are easily
>> discernable from a regular straight to film image. I can see the pictures
>> being much higher quality, in the furture, but... There would be ways to
>> tell a copmuter image from a real image, imo. Just get a loop and look at
>> the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular, and
in a
>> copmuter image they will be quite regular.
>>
>Really? I had heard similar to losthalo...and I know that Kodak now uses
>Computer to Image stuff that is total quality. Uses special printing
>"cartriges" (couldn't think of the real word) and special (Kodak) paper.

Ok with regular film you take a bunch of little silver molecules and
scatter them all over creation. Needless to say it in no way looks
regular. A printer on the other hand has to print out in regular rolls of
dots as the printer heads go across.
>
>BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?
>
Basically it's a magnifying lense.

SteveD
>-K
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams

From:	Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:53:51 -0400

Message no. 15 On Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:13 AM, Ereskanti wrote:
> In a message dated 4/20/98 7:18:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> kwil@*********.COM writes:
>
> > Sort of along this subject though, what kind of market is there for precious
> > stones in SR? Especially when given that fakes (ala cubic zirconia) are
> > probably easier and cheaper to make than mining out the real thing.
> >
> Well, let's see...artificial stuff is probably used for lasers (manufactured
> lensing and diamond-types/dikote' for instance). Real stones are probably in
> the collector's era of stuff, and/or the realm of the magician and their
> little Talismonger friends...(ewg)
>
> -K

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

From:	Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:29:54 -0500

Message no. 16 At 02:57 PM 98-04-20 -0400, you wrote:
>At 01:45 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Actually I seem to recal something in the Lone Star book about old
>>fashioned film still being used in law enforcement, especially for crime
>>scenes and *anything* that would go before a court of law because it's a
>>lot harder to manipulate and alter film than it is digital.
>
>Which is nonsense, it is now possible to use a type of printer to print a
>silver emulsion image from a computer to a plastic film negative. And
>can't be discerned from a normally exposed negative, from what I've heard...

That's news to me. Besides regular negs are to small for most printers to
get decent resolution on.

SteveD
>
>losthalo
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams

From:	Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:01:26 -0700

Message no. 17 Ereskanti wrote:

[snippet]
> > the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular, and in a
> > copmuter image they will be quite regular.

> Really? I had heard similar to losthalo...and I know that Kodak now uses
> Computer to Image stuff that is total quality. Uses special printing
> "cartriges" (couldn't think of the real word) and special (Kodak) paper.

True, mostly. The Kodak copy stations do put out a very high quality image,
I believe (I migh be wrong, but it's what I tell our customers, and when I
tell them most internet images are 72 dpi, they look sufficiently impressed.
;) is 2400 dpi.

But the moment you start to manipulate the image, anything added/changed,
etc, becomes a regular pattern of pixels. Even the original scanned image
gains some regularity of pixels, because that is how the copmuter stores the
information.

I suppose a digital image in 205x could be stored with irregular pixel
size/spacing, but imo, that would inflate the image size considerably,
because compression isn't as easy to do.

> BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?

It's a photographic terms for magnifying glass. ;)

--
-Dvixen
ShadowRN GridSec: http://coastnet.com/~dvixen
"There are no stupid questions, only stupid people." - Mr Garrison
Ile drewna moglby nalupac swistak, jezeli swistak moglby lupac drewno?

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:24:00 +1000

Message no. 18 Karl Low writes:
>>BTW, what's a "Loop" that you mention?
>
>Those funny little magnifying eyepieces that you see jewellers or
>stamp-collectors using.
>
>Although, by 205x, I'm willing to bet the resolution would be fine enough
>you'd need one heck of a loop to tell.

I'll just jump in and add my $.02 worth...

The resolution of digital images may well improve incredibly, but the
resolution of physical images is finite. Optically sensitive compounds such
as used in photography are fairly large and complex, and will be visible
fairly readily with magnification, and will show the irregular pattern.

However, I could fake that if I wanted... project an image (at a sufficently
high resolution... roughly twice the average resolution of the
photosensitive material should do the job) onto the photosenitive material.
FWIW, this is the same process used to develop photos in the first place.
This is why, if you want to submit photos as criminal evidence, you need to
provide negatives (you could fake those too, in the same way, but it's a lot
harder. Printing to negatives would be more feasible, but as you provide a
_roll_, not just a couple of images, you'd have to produce a whole heap of
photos for your fake(s)).

Seriously, though, the way you spot digital imaging is, as mentioned
earlier, is look for reality checks. A natural photo will conform to
Nature's rules. A faked photo is _likely_ to leave something out (blurred
car in the background not quite right, or the angle of the shadows not
consistent with light sources other than the sun, or ... you get the
picture). This gets complex, as you can well imagine.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons robert.watkins@******.com

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:38:04 -0400

Message no. 19 Dvixen wrote:
>> > the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular, and
>>in a
>> > copmuter image they will be quite regular.
>
>> Really? I had heard similar to losthalo...and I know that Kodak now uses
>> Computer to Image stuff that is total quality. Uses special printing
>> "cartriges" (couldn't think of the real word) and special (Kodak)
paper.
>
>True, mostly. The Kodak copy stations do put out a very high quality image,
>I believe (I migh be wrong, but it's what I tell our customers, and when I
>tell them most internet images are 72 dpi, they look sufficiently impressed.
>;) is 2400 dpi.

Yeah, the 2000-3000dpi range is good for print or anything that
you might want to blow up later. 72dpi sucks, but technically
most images aren't stored in 72dpi - they may be *displayed* in
72dpi, but they're stored in pixels.
>
>But the moment you start to manipulate the image, anything added/changed,
>etc, becomes a regular pattern of pixels. Even the original scanned image
>gains some regularity of pixels, because that is how the copmuter stores the
>information.

Yup.
>
>I suppose a digital image in 205x could be stored with irregular pixel
>size/spacing, but imo, that would inflate the image size considerably,
>because compression isn't as easy to do.

Why bother storing the spacing and irregularity? Just add a
random jitter at the printer. It doesn't have to be reproducible,
you're going for the "this is random" thing anyway. In any case
the jitter would be very small - a few bits per pixel at most
(you can use the alpha channel of most graphics formats to
store this).

James Ojaste

From:	Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:03:18 -0400

Message no. 20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 11:01 PM 4/20/98 -0700, Dvixen wrote:
>But the moment you start to manipulate the image, anything
added/changed,
>etc, becomes a regular pattern of pixels. Even the original scanned
image
>gains some regularity of pixels, because that is how the copmuter
stores the
>information.

The simple way around this is to scan at a sufficently high number of
dots per inch. Say the emulsion grains are X units big. If you scan so
that the pixels stored in the computer are say, only 1/10th of X big,
then even though the computer is storing the image as a regular grid
of pixels, the DPI of the grid is much smaller than the 'effective'
DPI of the grains of silver on film. Even though the emulsion grains
are aranged in a random pattern, only so many of them can fit in any
given space. The trick is to make sure that the image the computer
produces has a enough resolution so that any regular, straight edges
produced by the computer's pixelation are too small to show up on
film.

I'll admit that this will make for obscenely large image
filesizes...but storage in SR is measured in megapulses, after all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNTym/s2C0fERRVM5AQEqfAQAyByQhKLJT4KUTGif246GhsTG5kIuTsHS
/g/r9wo65VzU5eu0jRVAFS3Vjnz5/4Tv5kwzLhVCQRhvD1Z/eLP9bqT0PCLHSUKY
MWmZCehKnId5DYr0OhXsLDEtPdsOO3FxQvaYxSOYTr1uzaLjc4ZPIAlacDDdNpXx
bhYHzYe9k0w=
=iUQE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA

From:	Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:35:56 -0500

Message no. 21 At 11:01 PM 98-04-20 -0700, you wrote:
>Ereskanti wrote:
>
>[snippet]
>> > the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular,
and in a
>> > copmuter image they will be quite regular.
>
>> Really? I had heard similar to losthalo...and I know that Kodak now uses
>> Computer to Image stuff that is total quality. Uses special printing
>> "cartriges" (couldn't think of the real word) and special (Kodak)
paper.
>
>True, mostly. The Kodak copy stations do put out a very high quality image,
>I believe (I migh be wrong, but it's what I tell our customers, and when I
>tell them most internet images are 72 dpi, they look sufficiently impressed.
>;) is 2400 dpi.
>

Beats my 1440. Still even 2400 isn't going to be as good an an actual
print.

Gotta shoot copyslides sometime this week and I really want to do digitial
prints but my instructor won't let me.

SteveD
>--
>-Dvixen
>ShadowRN GridSec: http://coastnet.com/~dvixen
>"There are no stupid questions, only stupid people." - Mr Garrison
>Ile drewna moglby nalupac swistak, jezeli swistak moglby lupac drewno?
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams

From:	"Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:15:28 +0200

Message no. 22 On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:38:04 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
>Dvixen wrote:
>>I suppose a digital image in 205x could be stored with irregular pixel
>>size/spacing, but imo, that would inflate the image size considerably,
>>because compression isn't as easy to do.
>
>Why bother storing the spacing and irregularity? Just add a
>random jitter at the printer. It doesn't have to be reproducible,
>you're going for the "this is random" thing anyway. In any case
>the jitter would be very small - a few bits per pixel at most
>(you can use the alpha channel of most graphics formats to
>store this).

It need not be totally randomly, just print the image with a raster
that avoids moiree effects under most circumstances. Like they do when
printing newspapers and the like.

Of course you would see the dots under a loop or loupe or magnifying
glass ;-) but for simply looking at the result it would be good enough.

Arno
--
Arno Lehmann
arlehma@***.net http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/5274/
arno@*******.ast.uct.ac.za http://pinguin.ast.uct.ac.za

From:	"Arno R. Lehmann" <arlehma@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:21:12 +0200

Message no. 23 On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:44:29 EDT, Ereskanti wrote:

>In a message dated 4/20/98 3:03:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dvixen@********.COM writes:
>
>> Not at this point in time. The images that go copmuter to film are easily
>> discernable from a regular straight to film image. I can see the pictures
>> being much higher quality, in the furture, but... There would be ways to
>> tell a copmuter image from a real image, imo. Just get a loop and look at
>> the neg close. A real image, the bits will be scattered irregular, and in a
>> copmuter image they will be quite regular.
>>
>Really? I had heard similar to losthalo...and I know that Kodak now uses
>Computer to Image stuff that is total quality. Uses special printing
>"cartriges" (couldn't think of the real word) and special (Kodak) paper.

The quality you get is surely enough for the size they can do (that is
starting with a print of, for example, 10 x 15 cm, scanning it, working
on it and printinmg in double size - just as an example) but it is
still far from the quality you have with the negative. Negatives you
can use to make prints with a magnification of about 20, but if you
want to scan a negative and then magnify the resulting image by the
factor 20 and print it and expect a result as good as with a
photographic print from the negative you would need a scanner with a
_very_ high resolution.
And a similar printer of course. Printers like that exist and are
affordable, but with scanners it's different...

But enought of this, I think this is only loosely related to Shadowrun,
if at all.
I Think we can simply assume that it all works digitally and offers top
quality.
Perhaps it does, and perhaps simply nobody remembers the quality you
had with "normal" film and cameras...

Arno
--
Arno
*********************************************************************
Be careful when replying to this mail - check the address !!!
(And send me a note when you notice that
the reply-to-address points to the list!)
*********************************************************************

From:	Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: 205X Photography
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:24:11 +1000

Message no. 24 >>I suppose a digital image in 205x could be stored with irregular pixel
>>size/spacing, but imo, that would inflate the image size considerably,
>>because compression isn't as easy to do.
>
>Why bother storing the spacing and irregularity? Just add a
>random jitter at the printer. It doesn't have to be reproducible,
>you're going for the "this is random" thing anyway. In any case
>the jitter would be very small - a few bits per pixel at most
>(you can use the alpha channel of most graphics formats to
>store this).

Why bother doing that? Just project the image onto the photosensitive
material, instead of printing it.
(Oh, and it's not the irregular pixel spacing that's the problem, it's the
irregular "pixel" _size_. Which a printer could not reproduce, except by
printing at a much higher DPI, where the granularity would be evident. Still
would have the dots, though (at sufficiently high enough magnification))

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer