Sorry I was speaking to Bob, but also with reference to the LCD panel itself not the light source but by all means more resolution is better when it comes to these kind of things.
Yeah, I recognize that. That's why even for the first version of my LED enlarger light source I went for 12 bit (and currently 16 bit) PWM resolution. Also because this enables regular exposure (i.e. all 3 colors at the same time), which makes burning & dodging work the same as with an incandescent light source.
I recall some Nortisu minilabs used halogen with and LCD mask, perhaps you may be getting confused with that?
but also with reference to the LCD panel itself
If you allow me, I'll chime in here about a few topics having experience with a range of AM and Photolab tech. @Carnie Bob , I posted earlier in the UV enlarger thread but let me draw your attention to it again:
This is a UV DLP Engine and probably the closest thing today to a UV enlarger in reach to an average person (bar step and repeat machines etc). The optics, light source and DLP chip are already handled just give it an input. I imagine a lot could be done with these outside of 3D and UV printing contexts and I will have a play myself when time and funds allow. Point being, there are lots of these kind of modules actively being developed, this is just one of the more consumer friendly options - just keep an eye on this space.
As for the Devere machines, I have used one and yes they use two separate blue and green exposures, its just the most logical and controlled way to achieve the full range of contrast available. Traditional dodging and burning is possible within limits, though you will quickly hit the ceiling with only 8 bits of data to play with. Also apologies, I believe you have reached out to me before about some of these plans, I have so many projects on my plate for work I have been unable to add more!
@koraks Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Chromira moved away from lasers a long while ago. The logic for this being is that all lasers (solid state or not) have a gaussian dot profile and associated scatter which affects the final sharpness but also collimation complexity (the most uniform and tightest dot is that of deep blue used in Bluray). At the time, the easiest way to get around this was to simply use LEDs instead once they became powerful enough, fortunately there have been leaps and bounds in laser technology since then. There are now an array of different types of lasers and micro-optic beam shaping diffusers to give an example, however all of these come at a cost of course and right now limited to scientific and research fields.
C
@koraks Which particular modern machines that still use lasers are you referring to? AFAIK I don't think even Noritsu ever switched to solid state yet and still use gas (improved gamut) I'm not privy to the optical setup of their newer green machines (if they aren't led already). Chromira had a later minilab that may have used lasers, too.
Yes colour is a completely different beast, my time with the devere was not extensive but I believe it consisted of RGB LED and similar monochrome 8-bit LCD (which is limited to 256 tones). Minor dodging and burning was OK but different to traditional negative of course, keep in mind you had to do this with split-grade exposure too (not sure if there was an option to change this).
@Carnie Bob thanks for clarifying, my memory is a bit sketchy. I'm guessing this is why you opted for lambda? Though sounds like you wanted to do contact prints too otherwise there are various film recorders that could do well for enlargement. Imagesetter negs are probably best for alt, but like the lambda there is far too much upkeep - inkjet diginegs are certainly the way to go here.
C
PS. Annoyingly, there doesn't seem to be a way to insert quotes in editing previous messages (I used to go into the advanced editor to do so)
I had a very interesting set of conversations with the owner of the group selling the Devere Digital Enlarger, in fact with his comments I decided on Lambda, he was very miffed with me about image quality concerns and at the time I was in a position where a Lambda made sense, Even now a Lambda is probably one of the most quality control units I have ever owned or worked on in my career. I just decided on inkjet negs for contacts rather than Lambda negs for contact and I am ok with my decision to get rid of the machine 12 months ago.
So I understand, you are even doing silver contact prints with digital negatives? What medium are you using - there were always problems with dithering patterns but I had few ways to get around it with caveats.
Sorry for veering a bit off-topic but feel free to message me!
I am thinking the other way round - use a film camera and macro lens to take a photo of the digital image being displayed and create a negative/transparency archive of your best digital photos which will survive into the 21st and 22nd century.
I am thinking the other way round - use a film camera and macro lens to take a photo of the digital image being displayed and create a negative/transparency archive of your best digital photos which will survive into the 21st and 22nd century.
I've been thinking about an approach for large prints where a flashed/developed film is epoxied to the LCD (probably bottom). You would focus on the grain in the film instead of the grid lines. This would allow large prints to 'break up' naturally.
Hello, please forgive me for my not very good English.
I want to find an adequate way to print photos in a dark room from a digital source.
I tried different things - printing on transparent film on a printer, I put a smartphone in a photo enlarger instead of a film, then I bought an LCD screen with the backlight removed and experimented with contact printing.
This gave the most interesting results. Despite the modest 322 dpi, I managed to keep the detail (as much as possible) and at the same time completely remove the pixel grid.
But my results cannot compare with yours - an 8k screen is a completely different level.
As far as I understand, there are no subpixels in the monochrome screen and because of this, the horizontal resolution of 7680 pixels is recognized by Windows as 2560 pixels in the RGB format.
That is, one horizontal R/G/B pixel is equal to three monochrome pixels.
And in order for Windows to show the correct image in 8K, it needs to be converted in a special way.
Unfortunately, I am not very good at programming and I understand that I cannot do such a transformation myself.
Maybe you have some utility for Windows so that such a conversion can be done?
Hi Alex, I've put the converter in a google drive so anyone can download it.
Thank you very much! I did it, it's amazing! It remains to buy a suitable screen and start experimenting.
And which screens may be suitable, and which will not work correctly when displaying images in Windows?
As far as I understand, there will be no problems with resolutions up to 8K, but there is a 9K screen, now you can buy a 12K and 14K screen and even 16K on pre-order.
A 10-inch 8K resolution screen would suit me, but I found two types of them, please tell me are they the same, or will one of them be better?
The 10.1 8k screen is by far the best. The higher resolution screens have rectangular pixels which complicate processing and have little advantage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?