Thank you. Makes a lot more sense now. ;-)
I'm still not sure how you'd calculate the exposure duration. I'm sure
there's some kind of formula that explains it. Still, if it takes that
long for the sensor to traverse the image it's probably still a fairly
long exposure unless the sensor is seeing a *very* small slice of the
image at a time. Interesting technology. Seems to yield amazing images.
If that's what Gursky is using I was amazed at some of the images he
was showing at MOMA. Some of them were 15-20 feet wide and had so much
detail that I'd find myself with my face a couple of inches from the
image looking at what it said on someone's T-shirt in a crowd or what
kind of cigarettes someone was smoking. He had one that covered an
entire soccer field and you could examine each player in the kind of
detail that you usually only see in a closeup. That kind of work is
fascinating to me. It's the ability to really reach out and document a
moment in time with such fine detail that it transports the viewer in a
way.
On Aug 1, 2004, at 4:08 PM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> It is the exposure time if you count the scan time from one side of the
> image to the other. Not the exposure time for each pixel. Sort of like
> 1/2000 second on a focal plane shutter when the curtains can only
> uncover and cover at 1/60 second. Steve Johnson uses it for his
> landscape photography. His site: http://www.sjphoto.com/
>
> Here is a piece of video where he explains part of the process:
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/video_journal/vj10-johnson-play.shtml
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, CA
> USA
> On Aug 1, 2004, at 2:44 PM, R.Jackson wrote:
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|