A good fairy now allows you 3 wishes : What should the new Pentax look like?

[Beverly Hills]

@trendland, you posts are so picture heavy it takes a while to open them. Nice camera, though.

....it is no dream (trend) sure there will certainly be some things comming from PENTAX

 

[Beverly Hills]

?

 

[4season]

Eye-catching design, decent build quality
<150 USD
<250 grams

 

[koraks]

@trendland, you posts are so picture heavy it takes a while to open them.

I have removed a number of off-topic images from the opening post. I agree that non-essential imagery should be kept to a bare minimum for obvious reasons of readability and bandwidth consumption.

Coincidentally, have you realized that transferring data is not free, either? "Our major finding is that the Internet uses an average of about 5 kWh to support the utilization of every GB of data" - many publications with findings of a similar nature are available. Please limit the use of off-topic images, and limit the dimensions of embedded images to the smallest size that still works for their purpose. I find that a dimensions beyond ca. 800x600px tend to offer little added value for the vast majority of illustrations.

 

[miha]

I have removed a number of off-topic images from the opening post. I agree that non-essential imagery should be kept to a bare minimum for obvious reasons of readability and bandwidth consumption.

Thanks!

 

[Don_ih]

It should look like the fabled Fotron supercamera. But with a ZOOM lens!

 

[Beverly Hills]

I have removed a number of off-topic images from the opening post. I agree that non-essential imagery should be kept to a bare minimum for obvious reasons of readability and bandwidth consumption.

Coincidentally, have you realized that transferring data is not free, either? "Our major finding is that the Internet uses an average of about 5 kWh to support the utilization of every GB of data" - many publications with findings of a similar nature are available. Please limit the use of off-topic images, and limit the dimensions of embedded images to the smallest size that still works for their purpose. I find that a dimensions beyond ca. 800x600px tend to offer little added value for the vast majority of illustrations.

Oh yes, I completely overlocked that, thank you very much for this information koraks.

 

[BrianShaw]

… but why was the thread title neutered to the point of utter usefulness? An attempt to curse this thread to eternal damnation?

 

[koraks]

… but why was the thread title neutered to the point of utter usefulness? An attempt to curse this thread to eternal damnation?

I've restored it.

 

[Beverly Hills]

Coincidentally, have you realized that transferring data is not free, either? "Our major finding is that the Internet uses an average of about 5 kWh to support the utilization of every GB of data" - many publications with findings of a similar nature are available.

....just don't let Sean see that, a paradigm shift would be the logical consequence of that...!

 

[koraks]

Haha, you're right of course Well, when it comes these things, it's always a balancing act between doing what we want/need to do, and limiting resource use. I myself often forget that internet usage isn't as free as it sometimes feels (in many ways!)

 

[Don_ih]

Coincidentally, have you realized that transferring data is not free, either? "Our major finding is that the Internet uses an average of about 5 kWh to support the utilization of every GB of data" -

That source is 11 years old, though, so data transfer is likely more efficient, at present - at the very least, it's more continuous.

That this site doesn't resize the uploaded images for display is its own failing.

 

[Beverly Hills]

That this site doesn't resize the uploaded images for display is its own failing.

....oh, that's right, even I was wondering at the beginning why the page opens more slowly. Then forget what it could be.
But please Heisz let's save energy again now ....

 

[koraks]

likely more efficient, at present

Still not 0.

That this site doesn't resize the uploaded images for display is its own failing.

It's something we're looking into. There's always a balancing act between functionality and efficiency, though. You could thumbnail everything, as happens on LFPF for instance, but that doesn't make things necessarily more pleasant to navigate.

 

[Don_ih]

Still not 0.

Zero is an impossibility. Or, rather, it's attainable, but involves not being alive.

You could thumbnail everything

Or all images that are uploaded to threads could be auto-resized to 72 or 96 dpi. I don't know how complicated that would be to put inline.

 

[koraks]

Or all images that are uploaded to threads could be auto-resized to 72 or 96 dpi.

Dpi's are meaningless in online context. But I understand what you mean, and my specific proposal was to automatically thumbnail images that are larger than a certain size, for instance the 800x600 limit I mentioned before. I don't know if Xenforo supports this, or that some alternative is more feasible. In any case, we're looking into it (that is, @Sean is). Let's allow the thread to meander back to Pentax now.

 

[Arthurwg]

Don't beat around the bush. How about an updated 67II with a quiet and low vibration shutter like the Mamiya 7?

 

[Don_ih]

Dpi's are meaningless in online context.

Not exactly. Basically, it means resize for VGA native resolution, at whatever aspect ratio the image is in - not some arbitrary resizing to 800x600, for instance.

Anyway - the new Pentax will probably be much like this classic:

 

[koraks]

Basically, it means resize for VGA native resolution

No. DPI resolution of a digital file says nothing at all about total image size in bytes. For instance, a 2000x3000px image might have a 72dpi or a 600dpi or a 1200dpi tag embedded in it - all this does is tell a printer what the physical size of the dots (and hence, overall image) will be. On a digital screen, the physical size of the image will depend on the resolution of the screen. In terms of data transfer, it'll remain the same 2000x3000 pixels being thrown about, regardless of how big they end up being displayed or printed. It also doesn't matter one whit if a file is tagged as 72dpi or 1200dpi, as this information is simply ignored by web browsers in displaying images.

Also, VGA is a standard back from the 1980s and never defined anything in terms of dpi's. VGA defined standards like 320x200 pixels at 256 colors etc. - the so-called VGA modes. These modes are a deprecated dinosaur in display technology and have no relevance to the rendering of online content whatsoever.

The 800 pixel size I proposed is indeed arbitrary, but in practice works fairly well as a compromise between common display resolutions on mobile and desktop devices.

 

[Don_ih]

DPI resolution of a digital file says nothing at all about total image size in bytes.

You are missing the point. The resolution resize I suggest is for a normal size viewed on a monitor. Your monitor will not show more dots in an inch than it actually has and there's not much reason to have zoomable images posted on these threads.

 

[koraks]

You are missing the point.

I don't think so.

The resolution resize I suggest is for a normal size viewed on a monitor.

What would the 'normal size' be?
Keep in mind that contemporary display resolutions range from around 72dpi (larger and somewhat older/low end desktop displays) to roughly 550dpi or so (modern high end smartphones).

 

[Don_ih]

What would the 'normal size' be?

You know, nevermind.

I'm sure @Sirius Glass can supply a banging-head-against-the-wall GIF...

 

[koraks]

Really Don, what do you expect resizing anything to 72dpi will accomplish? It doesn't change the image.

The 72 PPI Web Resolution Myth

Still believe you need to set the image resolution of your photos to 72 ppi before uploading them to the web? In this tutorial, we put it to the test!

www.photoshopessentials.com

Oh yeah, here you go:

72dpi

1200dpi

Good day.

PS: if you mean that the original image aspect ratio should be preserved - obviously.

 

[Beverly Hills]

Don't beat around the bush. How about an updated 67II with a quiet and low vibration shutter like the Mamiya 7?

Arthurwg, the thought of a more vibration - free shutter is quite understandable !
But the new Pentax 67 will still have the proven
curtain focal - plane shutter.
There is technically no way to switch to a metal blade FP shutter due to the medium format size.
An advanced duralumin and carbon fiber bladed FP shutter
would be lab tested by Pentax to break the x- sync barrier of 1/30s without LS lens. But the mechanical controllability was insufficient and could not be guaranteed for every day
practice.
To prevent inertial shock vibration problems you will also still have to use the MLU.


TOO BIG TO FAIL :



PENTAX 67 III

 

[Beverly Hills]

Really Don, what do you expect resizing anything to 72dpi will accomplish? It doesn't change the image.

The 72 PPI Web Resolution Myth

Still believe you need to set the image resolution of your photos to 72 ppi before uploading them to the web? In this tutorial, we put it to the test!

www.photoshopessentials.com

Oh yeah, here you go:

View attachment 333629
72dpi

View attachment 333630
1200dpi

Good day.

PS: if you mean that the original image aspect ratio should be preserved - obviously.

...... hey guys, I would have understood that we now have
to reduce data, in order to safe server energy for
ENVIRONMENTAL reasons........?