NikonWeb.com

Hi all,

I just picked up a Kodak nc2000e camera (Built for AP). This is the model I have been wanting to get all along. I've posted photos from it onto a new set on my Flickr page. Check out the pics here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonman24 ... 957197542/

Also, if anyone cares to look, I've started a new blog featuring photos from these old cameras. Most are the same shot on Flickr, but I will try to keep things interesting and have different material to show. Enjoy!

Blog link: http://snapolson.blogspot.com/

Nice stuff - thanks for sharing. Judging from the colors, I assume you're using a hot mirror (IR) filter, or did you correct the colors in post processing?

You've probably seen it already, but if not - this is a must read: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_ ... -6463-7191

Enjoy!

Jarle

I briefly had a DCS 420, and I have to say that the NC2000e - based on these samples - seems much better. The colours look relatively normal, and they're more consistent across the frame, although in a few of the images there looks to be a purple cast leaking in from the left side. The shot of the football coach has a bit of the "sunburned lobster" look but it's not unusable. And it has a much more practical cropping factor (my Sigma 15-30mm was a very awkward not-quite-normal to slightly-telephoto on the DCS 420).

I didn't realise it had a 4x3 aspect ratio though - the DCS 420 was standard 3:2.

Thanks Jarle. I appreciate the feedback. No, I didn't have a hot mirror filter on the lens. I'd say there's a lot less IR with the nc2000e, but I'm not sure why. I do get a bit of it on the edges depending on the light, but for the most part shots are free of it. Maybe an internal filter based on specs wanted by AP for its members? Not sure.

As for the other post, my observation of the 4X3 format is not a definite fact. I just based it on the more squarish shape that was the standard in TV. That's how the nc2000e as well as the Canon DCS 3 format is shaped. I'd much rather the 35mm format of the DCS 420. Thanks.

Also, the "sunburned lobster" effect is what I've been seeing in shots with red it it, like the shirt. There is supposed to be a Kodak plug-in to fix that, but I don't know where to find it. I didn't see it on Kodak's site, unless it's part of their Photo Desk software? If anyone knows a good fix for that, please let me know.

Now that you mention it, I think I've seen the same (I have both cameras). Would be interesting to do a side-by-side comparison some day. Here are a couple of NC2000e test shots posted in another thread recently:





Jarle

I'm really digging the nc2000e I picked up. (BTW Ashley, I meant to thank you too for your feedback in your earlier reply. I thought it was Jarle's post as well. Also, how does one attach a photo to this forum. I tried, so I could show the IR bleed in a photo I have, but I couldn't see how to attach one. Suggestions?

I snapped a few more downtown Bridgeport pics on the Flickr set as well as the blog listed in the first post.

I have to say, I think that "out of the box" the nc2000e is better that the Nikon D1 I used to own.
I paid over $5,000 for the D1 in 2000. I had the hardest time getting a good picture. I mean, Matrix metering was all over the place, whereas the nc2000e gives a pretty good rendering in Program mode with Matrix metering. (I know, I know, I'm a "pro." I'm supposed to shoot in manual according to many of my colleagues!) But for just quick grab shots where you don't want to have to think about the shot, the nc2000e is surprisingly good.

However, I will say that I would not be comfortable having to rely on it for my assignments, due to it's age for one thing. But it's nice to tote it along on assignments to see what I can get out of it. Actually, a photo from it did run in the paper I work for today. Link to photo here:

http://www.ctpost.com/default/photo/The ... 177235.php

So, it was nice to actually see a photo from this obsolete camera get into print again. It just goes to show you that the camera is just a tool. It doesn't matter how many pixels or fps it has, it's still the photographer who makes the picture.

That's incredibly cool. It has to be some kind of record - and it's not even a novelty "here's something we shot with a vintage digital SLR" feature, it's a legitimate news image.

I picture a t-shirt with "NC2000E : EARNING $$$ SINCE 1994" or something along those lines. How did the newspaper deal with the file, or did you convert it into a standard .TIF for them?

Hi Ashley,

Thanks. I feel pretty good about the photo getting in too. But I sure don't want to make a habit out of it. It definitely can't be a substitute for my daily use D2h and Canon 40D. God forbid if it the only thing I happened to have on me and something went wrong! So, it's my fun toy to play with.

As for the file, it opens with Camera Raw in Abode CS3 on the work PC. Then it just opens in Photoshop.

It's very weird, but I also play with a Canon DCS 3 camera (Virtually the same as the nc2000e) The files look terrible in CS3, with crazy colors and yellow bands going across the frame. But when I open them with the older AP Viewer software (Early version of Photo Mechanic) they look absolutely fine. Not sure what's going on there. Anything like that happen to you on your end?

Thanks again.

Christian

It's odd you should mention that - the oft-cited article by Eamon Hickey mentions something about Kodak developing a plugin that could render fire properly, but tantalisingly makes no more mention of it, and I can't remember Photodesk having a "fire" option. I could open the DCS 420 files in Photoshop, and DCS Acquire -> Photoshop 5.0 LE on my old Macintosh, and they were roughly the same but with slightly different colour. I think I posted something along those lines in a thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=431

The detail was the same. Photoshop's colours were more vivid but a bit cartoony, DCS Acquire was a bit more purple but probably closer to reality.

Hi Ashley,

The problem with opening the Canon DCS-3 photos isn't the same as the weird rendering of red in the nc2000e photos. The Adobe software reads the Canon tiffs pretty badly for some reason. The colors are all over the place and I have the worst time trying to get them to look normal again. The same exact tiffs that open with the original viewer software from like 10-15 years ago reads the tiffs with completely normal colors and no banding whatsoever.

(On a side note, a very helpful fellow at Photo Mechanic tech support upgraded me to version QM Pro 2.0 which reads the tiffs as well as jpegs. It also has more ability to adjust the parameters of the Kodak tiffs before opening in Photoshop. The version I have, (v. 1.2) doesn't read jpegs or allow too much tweaking of the photo except for white balance and exposure compensation)

As for the nc2000e's problem with correctly showing red isn't too bad to deal with. I've found that a +5 - +10 bump up in the hue usually brings the proper red color back.

Another weird thing I've noticed are more jaggies at the curved edges in most of the photos I shoot. They are only noticeable when zoomed in to 100% or more. I've found that a .2 or .4 radius adjustment in gaussian blur smooths out the jagged edges without affecting the sharpness of the image too much.

See example here: http://snapolson.blogspot.com/2010/05/g ... ilter.html

I haven't shot a fire yet, so I don't know if my hue tweak would be effective. If anyone has better ways to deal with jagged edges in photos from this camera, let me know. Gaussian blur kind of defeats the purpose of the sharpness of this camera in the fist place.

Feel free to download the full size image for your own comparisons.

The ghostly faces in the window threw me for a moment. I notice that the full-sized shot still has the kind of graduated purple cast that I was getting with the DCS 420 - it's along the left edge of the image, particularly visible in the bottom-left - but it's not nearly as bad, and you could probably do something in Photoshop to get rid of it.

I honestly can't see the jaggies you mention, although I'm sure they're there. I surmise it's a consequence of the missing anti-aliasing filter. My DCS 560 had the same problem with strands of hair, and also moire, e.g. the eyebrow:


Noise reduction can get rid of it. One solution is to ensure that the people you photograph are totally clean-shaved, and that includes eyelashes. It wouldn't be a problem on a planet where people are encased in eggs for most of their lives, because eggs are smooth and don't have very much fine detail. Perhaps in a hundred years we will spend our lives in personal egg-shaped travel pod / apartment / internet booths, just like in The Matrix but nice.

Hi Ashley,

That's funny, LOL! Love the Matrix movies too!

(How the heck do you attach a photo in the post? All I see in a word: [img], with no way to browse for a photo) If you could assist that would be great!

As for the moire in the fine details, I have a plug in that comes with the old AP Viewer software. It's called AP Camera Filter QM (Presumably for Quantum Mechanic) It works very well in removing the rainbow patterns in fine detail. I also use a noise removal plug in called Band Aide. That's pretty good, but in CS3 the noise removal also works pretty well.

I'll attach some examples when I figure out attaching photos!

Abe

You've got to host it off-site - this isn't one of those forums where you can upload pictures. I use imageshack because that's where I put all my eBay stuff, but there are lots of image hosting sites out there. Once you upload the picture you need to find the "direct link" and then just surround with with .

Quantum Mechanic seems to be mentioned all over the place in historical forums, during the days of the DCS and D1 and so forth, but now it seems to have faded away. There's a product called Photo Mechanic which I assume is its successor; I guess the expanded functionality of ACR and Lightroom and so forth has made it obsolete, but then again Neat Image still seems to be popular as a plugin, so perhaps they just ran out of steam.

[size=150]Hi Ashley,

Here's a post I just made going into more detail about the previous topic about "jaggies" and other artifacts in detail areas in photos.

http://snapolson.blogspot.com/2010/06/t ... tails.html[/size]

PS I still haven't been able to post a photo. Oh well.