Recent content by tjwspm

Thank you for the hint.

Thanks for the tip and the photos. I’ll look into this and write a summary. I have the information on camera type codes somewhere, but I don’t have the point codes for film types. I’ll look into that, though. If anyone here can help, please post here.

Thanks, @cirwin2010, for moderating and keeping things civil. I have nothing further to add to what I’ve said here in this context, so I’d like to leave it at that.

Thanks for the update on my 'experience,' @koraks. It’s fascinating to see that Claude is now making architectural decisions for you that exceed your own capabilities. But be careful: just because the results (output) impress you doesn't change anything about the architecture under the hood...

Despite all the criticism (which I share) and all the enthusiasm (which I also share), we should realize just how simple—not to say primitive—the algorithm behind this type of AI is. cirwin2010 described it perfectly: ChatGPT ("Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer") and all those LLMs...

Actually, you have to ask yourself another question first: Why should I repair my historical camera at all? Well, I'm not primarily a collector, I also want to use my old cameras. That's the only way I can understand the essence of a camera. So I have to at least repair them, but it would be...

Andreas asked me to post here that you should ignore the image 1.jpg at the beginning of his post. He posted it by mistake, and it seems to cause more confusion than clarification:

As you know, I admire your extremely sharp Minox images. You show a truly impressive example here! I have already mentioned the formula you refer to in my article. However, I am convinced that the ADOX CMS 20 II with its 800 LP/mm is the right choice for such test shots at ISO 12.

I couldn't agree more! Sport shooters are familiar with this problem, and we can learn a lot from them about how to avoid camera shake. Breathing technique is also important.

One should also consider what can be achieved today with digital post-processing of small formats. I took the liberty of editing your photo. Keep in mind that it is a smaller negative than Minox (6x6mm):

Thanks for your comment about the films. Yes, you're right, in principle, the shape of the grains can be used to achieve different resolutions or edge sharpness for the same grain size. However, when I look at the modulation transfer function of Ektar...

Since I recently summarized everything I know about the dimensions (including thickness) of the original Minox film, this may be of interest in this context: https://moments-of-now.com/minox-film-and-frame-counter/#Specifications_of_a_Minox_film

My tip comes probably too late now, but it might still be interesting for you. When inserting Minox 8x11 films into a Minox III or Minox B, there are surprisingly many things you can do wrong, as I myself only realized after three years. That's why I've written down my findings here...

It wouldn't leave me alone. My comparison of the Minox A, Mamiya Super 16, and Edixa 16 also focused on the lenses. Unfortunately, I had to use estimated resolution values because no published values were available (except my own for the Minox A). Now I've taken the restoration of a Mamiya as...

In the meantime, I have continued comparing the three subminiature cameras. Some of the results surprised me. Here you can find my thoughts on the Minox challengers Mamiya super 16 and Edixa 16. Now it's time to look at the lenses and exposure systems...