MF a dying breed?

[jd callow]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sean @ Mar 5 2003, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Verbatim has a new disk that is supposed to be as good, and I think mitsubishi makes some gold cd's too.&nbsp; Anyway, my days of buying the cheapo 50cd spools for important things are over.&nbsp; I have also heard of people pulling out their stored cd's to find a metal eating bacteria has infested it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
All cd's are not made the same, but they are burned the same. There is a difference between materials used and their durability and there is also the difference of packaging/ marketing which does not incur greater longevity. Many CD failures (if not most) have more to do with scratched plastic than lost image or deteriorated sub strata.

 

[docholliday]

Actually, CDR material does make a difference. Fuji, Sony & Imation media are the only one's I have that are still around. The other medias I used (cheaper), including Kodak, TDK, etc. Have all "faded" from existance. I use nothing but Plextor ROMs to do my work. I had a burner back when 1 & 2X were the only things you could get, and at $1000 a piece. The thinner CDR's, usually can be "seen through" when held to a light. These are the discs that have lost the burn as the foil that is adhered to the top relaxes. There are many programs you can get to check the error rate on a CDR. Try it sometime. You'll realize that these el-cheapo CDs will go away in about 4 years or so. At the least, bad sectors will show up.

Yes, this is all with NO USE of the CDs. Sitting in a case, in a 70F temp controlled environment. Plus, Music CDRs are basically rejects from the data line. They have a HIGHER error rate than data discs do. They just sell for more because the public will see the "music" label and think they need special discs for audio recording.

Try batch burning on TDK or Kypermedia media. About a dozen discs in, the heat from the ROM & sled assembly will cause foil to bubble up a bit. When you test the discs, the disc is unusable. I have about 5 dozen "prime peripheral" discs laying around here that are completely unusable, even in audio mode because the disc foil is so thin you can see through it in a dimmly lit room! Verbatim discs USED to be good, then they cheapened the production. I had 2 discs in a row where the foil popped off the cookie as I pulled it off the spindle. And, Mitsubishi Chemical, type 2 discs are the best lasting discs I've used. Fuji discs will sometimes be this medium.

I've got a pile of Kodak "barcode" gold media CD's laying around that are useless. They lost their burn and I can't read anything off of them, especially data between the center and edge of the disc. Totally useless. Luckily, these are all discs that I did drive backups to ages ago. And, since I run Ghost batches on my boxes every 3 months, they don't have to last more than that.

After 17 years in the computer industry, media is cheap. Floppies are so cheap, even Sony's, that you'll get at least one bad disk out of the package! Tape's are so sensitive now that dropping them can cause data errors. And, IDE hard drives are so cheap, they are expected to fail 14-18 months from the day of activation. I use all SCSI drives and I avoid getting any drive whose density is so high that they try to cram 36GB of data onto 1 or 2 platters. Cheap consumer drives will try to smash 100GB onto 2 platters. Higher end drives will usually have 4 platters to do 72GB or so. Beware of the "consumerizing" of the computer industry!

Another reason I've been transferring all my music to MiniDisc. My old MD's from 1989 are still working. Hmm. BUT, my FILM from ages ago are still perfectly usable. AND, my fiber prints are looking just as good as the day I printed them.

 

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 6 2003, 02:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, CDR material does make a difference. Fuji, Sony & Imation media are the only one's I have that are still around. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Thanks, Doc.

I was the one who posted the tear-stained message about losing three CDs.

This information is valuable. Is it possible to get it in a text file so that I may use it to beat over the heads of a couple of digital freaks who claim that CDs - like diamonds - are "forever" - and that I must be some kind of dolt with inferior equipment to think otherwise?

Hmmm ... and Copyright submissions are prioritized as CDs first. I wonder how much trouble that will mean down the road.

 

[jd callow]

I agree that not all media is the same. My point was simply don't buy it cuz of the packaging and or color of the foil. The CD's I have that have indured the test of time the best are the old blue tinted TDK's. But then the newer ones haven't been around as long so I have ho idea if they'll be better -- yet.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[jd callow]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Mar 6 2003, 05:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wait a minute! CD's are forever.&nbsp; You just have to use them in a different medium.&nbsp; They make wonderful drink coasters.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
and indoor frisbee golf

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Regarding Kodak and MF....

Remember though that Kodak still makes MOVIE film. If you are making film that wide already, there is no point in not splitting the production line a bit and making some profit. And movie film will not go away for at least 50 years. Now that means we may loose some of our favorite emulsions, but I can't imagine that we will loose ALL MF anytime soon.

 

[Donald Miller]

Robert,
I was under the impression that conventional movie film is 35 mm and that the more specialized and limited Imax format is 70 mm which is the equivalent of medium format. Is my memory correct or am I wrong?

 

[SteveGangi]

CDs are good drink coasters, like Agiie said. They are great targets for shooting practice, and for any amateur astronomers, they probably make good bearing surfaces for "do it yourself" mounts.

 

[docholliday]

A friend of mine took 300 AOL cd's and made a mobile from it. Then, he hung it from the ceiling fan stud (he dropped the fan years ago) in a house with 20 foot cathedral ceilings and it almost touched the ground. It was the most hilarious christmas tree we'd seen.

Then, when it got warm, we took the mobile, hung it from a tree, and target practiced at each individual cd until we cut them all down. With an SKS of all things. That was hilarious.

For testing CDR's, Nero (the newer versions) come with a program called InfoTool, which will tell you the type of media. If you have a Plextor rom or burner, the Plextor program will do the same.

The worst burning program lately is Roxio's Cheezy CD-Creamator/Easy Coaster-Creator. More weak burns than any other program. The BLER (BLock Error Rate) is usually very high with cheap burners on any media. And, the higher speed the media is rated, usually, the worse it is. I tested this myself after reading the following website: http://www.afterdawn.com/articles/archive/...aerrorrates.cfm
The program I'm using is an old program called CDRTest. It's too bad it's no longer around.

If you use Blindwrite/BlindRead, they have a utility included called BWA Builder. It displays the physical linear density of a cd, read multiple times from the center to the edge. It can take a while to complete, but it is a nice graphic display to show the quality of a burn. I use it against my CDRTest and the results usually concur. Get BlindWrite Suite and try it for yourself! A lot of CD pirates use the BWA to make exact copies of CD's, because some protection schemes actually look for the "proper" density of pressed medium to determine if it is a real disc or fake disc. But, the BWA can be used to determine the "quality" of a disc also.

 

[docholliday]

By the way, Arrowkey has this software that is close to the CDRTest I'm using called CD-R Diagnostics. It can determine the readability of CDR's by testing in a fashion close to what this old proggie I'm using does.

Interestingly enough, they have a new program called CDRx Data Retriever. It's used to get data off of BAD CD-R's. Hmm.

Download their demo and give it a try. I'm gonna try the CDRx Data Retriever and a couple of CDs (after the CDs visit my steel wool bin).

http://www.cdrom-prod.com/

'===============

OH, and BTW, the current consenus on permenantly deleteing CD's is not to shatter them. They can be glued back together forensically! Put the disc in a microwave (obviously one you don't wanna cook food in) and set for 10-15 seconds. It'll blow the foil off. Then, melt the disc into a pile and then, crush or powderize the acrylic pile with a hammer. Seriously. That's how you do the equivalent of a DOD-Wipe on a hard drive!

 

[bcphoto]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Mar 2 2003, 07:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What I really found sad is that Hasselblad knuckled under and went to 645 and a &quot;digital&quot; ready camera. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
... 'blad has been 645 capable with the A16/A36 645 film magazines for years, and the first dit capture magazines for MF were for guess what brand?

What's new on the 645AF 'blad is the AUTOFOCUS ... not the 645 format or the dit capability, both of those were already there.

BC

 

[Jorge]

Camera ready is not the same as designing a new system enterily around 645.
With the A36 backs I had the choice of doing 6x6 or 645, not anymore.
Although the first digital backs were for the hassy, they were an add on type of deal, not the current full interface that Hasselblad has created.
Autofocus was expected once Rollei got it. I think the susprise was the departure from 6x6 and cameras made in Sweeden with German made glass, to a Japanese made, smaller format autoeverything camera with Japanese glass.
I have nothing against Japanese cameras, my first cameras were Nikons, but lets face it, as good as the Fuji lenses are, they are not Carl Zeiss. I can tell you my Sonnar T* 180 lens is one of the most beautiful portrait lenses I have ever used, somehow I doubt Fuji can come up with the same great lenses Zeiss did.

 

[docholliday]

You're right Jorge, friends of mine at a camera shop and I were comparing some shots off of Nikon glass and Zeiss glass. (85/1.4 on an F5 and 85/1.4 MT Japanese on RX body) and the Nikon glass has less contrast, less punch, and less edge sharpness than the Zeiss glass. The T* coating does a lot to prevent color fringing and keep the darker colors from turning dark.

Shooting in studio lighting, controlled, with 400UC on a Noritsu processor on Supra paper. Lens hoods (compendum shades) adjusted to maximum shading without vignetting.

So what if the Nikon will focus faster and quieter...who cares if the body shoots faster...the glass is what makes the difference!

 

[Jorge]

Right Doc, I think it is an issue of quality vs conenience. Perhaps as a LF user I am more used to work a little bit slowly to obtain better quality, but IMO hasselbald went the convenience route with the H system.
BTW I had the same results with my nikon 210 for my 4x5 against the Schnieders. The German lenses have more punch and a greater contrast definition, at least in my prints.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[David Hall]

Jorge,

I would like to hear more about your tests (scientific or otherwise) between Nikkor and Schneider lenses. I noticed the same thing myself in my prints, but have been assured resoundingly that all current LF lenses are of such quality that one cannot see such things with a naked eye.

That print you showed me that was a 4x5 enlargement but looked EXACTLY like an 8x10 contact print...what did you use to make that?

dgh

 

[Jorge]

Mine are very unscientific, it is something I have noticed over time, seems the negs made with german lenses had better contrast and were easier to print. I think the print you are talking about was made with the Hasselbald and the 80 mm lens, this was the flower on a tequila bottle....yep, them bottles do serve another purpose..

 

[David Hall]

Jorge,

No, the one I am thinking of is a doorway. Remember how we both commented that it had that sharp local contrast thing going that made it glow like a 8x10 contact? Maybe that's the german lens contrast you are talking about?

dgh

 

[Jorge]

Ah yes, no that one was done with the Nikon lens but it was not as easy to print as others taken with the german lenses.

 

[docholliday]

Aggie,

I owned an RB for a while and I loved the Mamiya glass. The only MF glass that sucks is bronica's tamron glass. Junk. Pure junk. Even though I love Mamiya glass, once I got the Hassy, I quickly changed my likings to the Zeiss more. I'm gonna get some Zeiss sunglasses this summer. The coating (it's T*, but named differently) is on the inside of the lenses...weird. A friend of mine that has a pair was telling me that he could see distortion on the windshield of his car with them when the sun was at the right angle. So, I tried them on and sure enough, I could see a wave like appearance from the polarization of the glasses. Much better than any other sunglasses I've ever had. But, for the price of the sunglasses, I could get another body...

Printing the RB negs meant that contrast filtration varied between 1.5 and 3. Even on studio shots. With the Zeiss glass, I can print at 2 or use no filter all the time and I get shots which show a full tonal scale with no headaches.

The thing I never understood was why a Nikon LC37 (or whatever the UV filter is called) is more expensive than a Heliopan KR1.5...oh, wait...it's called marketing. I know a couple of Nikon users who frown on Schott glass, calling it "as cheap as the tiffen filters". Hmmm...can we say, brainwashed by advertising?

 

[tommorris]

Dying breed?

Not with me it's not.

You can replace my Bronica with a digi when you pry it from my cold, lifeless, blood-soaked hands. Until then, I will do what it takes to get my medium format on!

And I'm only a recent convertee... I bought a 645 Bronny recently, after trying out (and instantly falling in love with) the SQ. It is the most perfect camera ever, because it never gets on my nerves. People lend me these cameras with a million buttons on, and various knobs, sliders, menus etc. and I haven't got a clue. My questions are: "Where do I set the speed? Where do I set the apeture? How do I focus this darn thing?". These things get simpler for the gibbering morons (the "snaps" brigade), but for anybody who wants more control, they get more technical.

The future is simple: manual focus, manual exposure, medium format.

 

[Nige]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 11 2003, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm gonna get some Zeiss sunglasses this summer. The coating (it's T*, but named differently) is on the inside of the lenses...weird. A friend of mine that has a pair was telling me that he could see distortion on the windshield of his car with them when the sun was at the right angle. So, I tried them on and sure enough, I could see a wave like appearance from the polarization of the glasses. Much better than any other sunglasses I've ever had. But, for the price of the sunglasses, I could get another body...
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
my sunglasses do this... I'm almost used to it! Sometimes it's annoying in that you can't see thru the cars rear window for the kailidascope of colours reflecting of the window! Regularly it shows up like a uniform series of dots. No idea how much the Hassy ones are!, these were under $50 US..

 

[docholliday]

Nige,

It's not Hassy sunglasses, it's actually Zeiss sunglasses with something like "T-coating" (note the missing * from T). I have a pair of the regular sunglasses and have had a few pairs of RayBans, etc.

There is something about the quality of the Zeiss glasses that is different (and better). Almost like looking through Cokin filters vs. Heliopan's.

They're somewhere between 200-500 US dollars. But, worth every dime.

 

[Sean]

Today in downtown Auckland before work I went into one of the larger camera shops. I've been interested in the Mamiya7 and wanted to have a look. The salesman approached and asked if I needed any help. I asked, "where is your medium format gear?", he replied, "We don't stock medium format anymore, there's no intrest in medium format now since everyone is going to digital instead". I didn't say much to him and just left. I guess all the shops will take on this attitude soon? Gheez...