Slashdot Mirror

Apparently, Fujifilm thinks there is a market. That's why they came out with their Instax line of cameras and film. It's possible that Fujifilm is trying to move Polaroid customers to their product line with this move.

I took a Fujifilm Finepix XP series camera scuba diving in the ocean, are you saying that the plastic used in that isn't waterproof in saltwater? I was actually quite impressed, it survived much deeper than I expected it to, and still functions now.

I am not sure the exact model I have, but this is much the same:

http://www.fujifilm.com/produc...

Things don't have to be stainless, glass or brass to survive salt water, you just have to be sure to rinse it off afterwards.

Aside: I think you'll find that the Walmart printers are dye-sub, not inkjet.

An earlier post said they use Fujifilm Frontier equipment. Drilling down a bit through their website turned up this PDF for a couple of their models, in which we learn that these machines use red, green, and blue lasers to expose an image onto photo paper, which is then developed with chemicals. It's not dye sublimation or inkjet technology, and while it uses lasers, it's not a xerographic process (what laser printers use). They've replaced the enlarger with a setup that scans the image onto paper with colored lasers. Once the latent image is on paper, though, it's not significantly different from the color photo-printing processes that have been used for decades.

Aside: I think you'll find that the Walmart printers are dye-sub, not inkjet.

An earlier post said they use Fujifilm Frontier equipment. Drilling down a bit through their website turned up this PDF for a couple of their models, in which we learn that these machines use red, green, and blue lasers to expose an image onto photo paper, which is then developed with chemicals. It's not dye sublimation or inkjet technology, and while it uses lasers, it's not a xerographic process (what laser printers use). They've replaced the enlarger with a setup that scans the image onto paper with colored lasers. Once the latent image is on paper, though, it's not significantly different from the color photo-printing processes that have been used for decades.

Like this?

Here is a rumor that the 3DS will use the 3M film 3D LCD screen.

The screen is a frame-sequential two-view autostereoscopic system based on directional backlight. The left eye frame is displayed with the backlight applied on one side of the 3M film that directs the light into your left eye, the right eye frame is then displayed with the backlight applied to the other side of the 3M file to direct the light into your right eye.

I have one on the viewfinder of my Fuji FinePix Real 3D stereoscopic digital camera, and it works pretty well. You do have to position yourself fairly precisely in front of the screen to get the stereoscopic effect, but that is not too hard with a portable device.

Here's the official page for it: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/topics/2008/0922_02.html

No idea what you're talking about. The bayer pattern isn't anything close to the Super CCD arrangement...
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/tips_for_better_ph otos/film-digital/digital.html

Mod++
Exactly why I switched to laser at home years ago and never looked back. And I'd rather have my photos come out of a Frontier or some such than an inkjet. Ends up being cheaper too.

I like shooting in film, a lot more than using digital cameras. Because _TO ME_, theres a lot more to photography that clicking good pictures. The thrill and the hope that you carry back home, when you click on film simply isn't there with digital.

There are other reasons too:
1. Vibrance and Depth (I have always found good color slides to offer better vibrance/depth)
2. Resolution (Yes, digital is almost there these days at the higher end. But there is a difference.)
n. Romantic!

On the downside for films, the biggest problem is that quality film are very expensive, compared to digital. But, the fact that the Fuji sells a lot of film to high-end professionals is testament that there is something about film.

I hope Canon has no plans to stop film SLRs. I am a exclusive Canon user. But, the scariest thing to come out of this could be that slides and film might get more expensive as demand decreases.

It might be dust particles. Fuji has a page about this: http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/shooting /flash.html/

Actually, Fuji S2 Pro cameras have been exhibiting CCD failure, something I only found out when a friend of mine had this happen to her main camera. There's a database of affected serial numbers at the dpreview.com forum (IIRC), and Fuji appear to be repairing cameras with this problem for free (my friend received an invoice reading 0.00UKP).
Fuji have also published some info at their web site.

Fuji Xerox is a joint venture between Fuji Film and Xerox. Whereas Fujitsu is a computer company, analogous in a number of ways to IBM.

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

At work, we've just decided on a completely Flash website

I won't be able to use it then. I'll also steer people away from it, if I find out what site it is.

I've often wondered what retardation causes people to design sites like Fuji's and Cartoon Network's awful sites. Now I know that it's idiot managers.

For all the information you could ever want to know about how the new 300D/Digital Rebel compares to the other DSLRs that are out there just go check out photo.net. There is a full review of the body, plus lots of discussion about it in the forums.

Your second question, about whether or not to switch to digital, is not a question that we can answer for you, especially with the amount of information that you gave us. Both film and digital have their respective advantages. Both will continue to exist for quite some time. For a well thought out examination of film and digital photography, see Ken Rockwell's article on the subject.

What most people don't realize is that digital and film have been working together quite well for some time now and that the digital revolution has already made a huge impact in the printing phase. Lightjet and Chromira machines enable the highest quality prints and Fuji Frontier machines create good quality prints quickly. The quality of these prints is not just the resolution, but the color reproduction and tonality as well.

What it all comes down to, though, is not the equipment. You have to be in the right place when the light happens. Mastering light is far more important than having a certain kind of camera.

The minilab system that is widely regarded as the best is the Fuji Frontier system. How does it work? By scanning film. Of course, it accepts files from digital cameras as well.

What is the best way to get large, "professional" prints? The Lightjet. How do these operate? Using very high quality scans! (See West Coast Imaging, for example). My point? You can already get digital images produced in the exact same manner as the best film prints.

There are already a lot of people who think digital photography has surpassed even medium format photography. See the Luminous Landscape, for example.

As for widespread adoption, photojournalists have all but abandoned film. The P&S crowd is already beginning to abandon film.

My Netscape 7 did not worked either. According the source code, the page was made with Jedit 4.1.0 for Macintosh. But this may work:

http://home.fujifilm.com/efa/pi/indexNN.html

Anyway, the only real need for fancy and non-standard browser features is the "thumbnail browser". All the photos are in ordinary HTML files in format XXX_l.html (XXX is a zero-padded number):

Storm over Amazonian rain forest - Brazil
http://home.fujifilm.com/efa/photo/137_l.html

My Netscape 7 did not worked either. According the source code, the page was made with Jedit 4.1.0 for Macintosh. But this may work:

http://home.fujifilm.com/efa/pi/indexNN.html

Anyway, the only real need for fancy and non-standard browser features is the "thumbnail browser". All the photos are in ordinary HTML files in format XXX_l.html (XXX is a zero-padded number):

Storm over Amazonian rain forest - Brazil
http://home.fujifilm.com/efa/photo/137_l.html

There is an aesthetically very pleasing series of photographs done by photographer Arthus-Bertrand on behalf of UNESCO.

However, the purpose of this series is also to show man-nature interaction. Both the book and the exhibitions in various cities all over the world were a great success.
There are pictures on the web, but on the web they are not as nice as the printouts.
picture index

Don't forget the exhibition Earth from above by Yann Arthus-Bertrand! Yes, I admit it's in another league - the photos in EFA are taken from planes, but there are some really nice gems in there.

yann arthus-bertrand's absolutely tremendous photography was on display in chicago late this summer. yann took his images from a helicopter so i can imagine they are a bit more costly than its little brother kite. these images are nothing short of amazing.

chicago department of cultural affairs: earth from above
elexon presents: earth from above
fujifilm presents: earth from above
yann arthus-bertrand

Your comment about CCD noise alludes to one thing in particular that bothers me about digital cameras -- the poor low-light capabilities most of them suffer from. The sensors are typically 50 or 100 ASA native, with modes to "push" them as high as 400 ASA (even 800 in some cases), but the images start to get extremely noisy at those higher speeds. On the other hand, I can load Fuji 1600 ASA film into a 35mm camera and take picutres in practically any conditions with no flash, and the pictures usually come out great, with surprisingly little grain for such a fast film.

Cymbolic Science is no longer the only maker of digital laser plotters. Polielettronica, Fuji, Agfa, Noritsu, and Durst all manufacture digital RGB laser or LED plotters that expose onto conventional color RA-4 paper with quality equal to the LightJet. Most photo labs today either have one of these printers or can send work to a lab that does. Since the materials used are the same as conventional printing, the price is, or should be, the same as getting conventional reprints. Less if you consider that there is no film to process. For those who are not DIY'ers, these same labs will also have high quality scanners to digitize your prints and film to CD at a variety of resolutions.
Also, reasearch at Wilhelm Imaging shows that Fuji's Crystal Archive photo paper has a life expectancy of 68 years, making it the longest lasting color paper on the market, much better than the papers of the 1970s.

Although I could not find any information pertaining to the Fuji Finepix 6900 on their website I have been doing research in this area ever since Slashdot ran an article talking about Foveon's new CCD chip that is suppost to revolutionize the industry. Although Sigma's SD9 hasn't hit the market yet, other manufacturers have been lowering the prices on their cameras, binging 5 and 6+ Megapixel cameras closer to reach.

For example, Nikon's Coolpix 5000 is a 5Megapixel camera that retails for $1K US, but can be found on the Internet for closer to $700. It has the ability to add and remove lenses, but it is nothing like the bayonet mounts that you may be used to with a standard 35MM SLR. Canon recently came out with the EOS D60 digital camera with a 6.3Megapixel CCD chip , that retails for approximately twice as much as the Nikon. It is suppost to handle almost exactly like a 35MM SLR, including the ability to switch lenses, which is what a professional photographer would want to work with.

But if you are like me, then you will be waiting with baited breath for the Sigma SD9 and its revolutionary CCD chip. Even though the chip itself is only a 3Megapixel chip, the quality of the photographs taken are said to be comparible with 9+Megapixel cameras. Or you could stick with the tried and true 21+Megapixel analog film and emulsion camera.

• My First Digital was a Kodak DC20. Smallest, lightest, cheapest. Least number of features. Takes 8 sub-640x480 photos, or 16 really crap postage stamps. A wonderful camera at the time - Kodak made it and it's software so damn easy to use. A wonderful way to learn what you want in a digital camera.
• More recently I purchased a FujiFilm MX-2700. At the time it was the smallest 2.3MegaPixel camera available. It's great, the quality is superb, but I needed to buy a monopod to keep it stable enough to make it worth while, especially in low light. I've taken some wonderful fireworks photos, some of which you might still be able to find at fireworks.krisjohn.net. The only drawback is that there's no optical zoom, but later versions have fixed that. As a general digital, this family is by far the best - it's so small that you don't mind carrying it around on the off-chance that they'll be something to shoot. Highly recommended. Oh, I'm currently using it as a webcam - on and off.
• Most recently I bought a GameBoy camera, for artsy stuff, and I must say that it's the most fun I've had with digital photography in ages. I've got an extra memory cart (from datel), plus a GB Xchanger and Mad Catz cable to transfer images to my PC. I can take about 120 shots before having to return to base. Not for serious stuff, but no equal in the fun stakes.
• At work we got an old Ricoh digital free with a big colour printer/copier. It's about the same vintage as my DC20, with shots of approximately the same quality. Ricoh have made some good cameras since then, but this one shows it's age much more than my DC20.
• The latest purchase at work was a Kodak DC265. It was bought for quality, ease of use and robustness - and it's performed admirably on all counts. If you don't mind something chunky, this is my recommendation for an all-round camera, but make no mistake, it is large and heavy. Ours appears to have a few problems transferring images - it's potentially a dud in that respect - but I've got round that by using a PCMCIA adapter to transfer images, which is a recommended procedure anyway (so damn fast).
• Lasty, two of the staff have digital camera's of their own. One is an Olympus something (sorry) and the other is a Canon Pro something (sorry again). They're HUGE and they're rarely seen. Not being able to pack them inside a bag or briefcase really limits their use. That's why I recommend the small end, and why I bought an MX-2700.

• My First Digital was a Kodak DC20. Smallest, lightest, cheapest. Least number of features. Takes 8 sub-640x480 photos, or 16 really crap postage stamps. A wonderful camera at the time - Kodak made it and it's software so damn easy to use. A wonderful way to learn what you want in a digital camera.
• More recently I purchased a FujiFilm MX-2700. At the time it was the smallest 2.3MegaPixel camera available. It's great, the quality is superb, but I needed to buy a monopod to keep it stable enough to make it worth while, especially in low light. I've taken some wonderful fireworks photos, some of which you might still be able to find at fireworks.krisjohn.net. The only drawback is that there's no optical zoom, but later versions have fixed that. As a general digital, this family is by far the best - it's so small that you don't mind carrying it around on the off-chance that they'll be something to shoot. Highly recommended. Oh, I'm currently using it as a webcam - on and off.
• Most recently I bought a GameBoy camera, for artsy stuff, and I must say that it's the most fun I've had with digital photography in ages. I've got an extra memory cart (from datel), plus a GB Xchanger and Mad Catz cable to transfer images to my PC. I can take about 120 shots before having to return to base. Not for serious stuff, but no equal in the fun stakes.
• At work we got an old Ricoh digital free with a big colour printer/copier. It's about the same vintage as my DC20, with shots of approximately the same quality. Ricoh have made some good cameras since then, but this one shows it's age much more than my DC20.
• The latest purchase at work was a Kodak DC265. It was bought for quality, ease of use and robustness - and it's performed admirably on all counts. If you don't mind something chunky, this is my recommendation for an all-round camera, but make no mistake, it is large and heavy. Ours appears to have a few problems transferring images - it's potentially a dud in that respect - but I've got round that by using a PCMCIA adapter to transfer images, which is a recommended procedure anyway (so damn fast).
• Lasty, two of the staff have digital camera's of their own. One is an Olympus something (sorry) and the other is a Canon Pro something (sorry again). They're HUGE and they're rarely seen. Not being able to pack them inside a bag or briefcase really limits their use. That's why I recommend the small end, and why I bought an MX-2700.