Weekend Update 3/26/17

[Missaberoad]

Effective megapixel size of a Kodachrome 25ASA slide is calculated to be, depending on your method of calculation, to be between 80,000MP and 25,000MP, with a few nay-sayers saying that your old Kodachrome transparency is only around the equivalent of 8400MP...which my eyes say is hogwash.
Bob Gilmore

I would be interested to see where your figure of 25,000 to 80,000 came from.

Not sure I agree with that extraordinary claim and I have Grumpy's extensive research on slide film and duplication to back me up http://blog.grumpysworld.com/ (search his archives for slide digitization, or duplication or film quality for some interesting reading)

It seems like grain becomes a huge issue with any 35mm slide film before you get anywhere near those resolution figures.

In fact this source claims you're smallest number is out by a couple orders of magnitude

Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.

To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

Best reference I can find is that Kodachrome 25 is around the the same 87mp resolution at 150 lines per mm
But in reality Grain becomes a huge issue with any 35mm transparancy before you even get close to the 87mp figure and any modern 24+ mp camera can
far surpass 35mm film in Image quality.

Now large format cameras are a different animal together and capable of much higher resolution then 35mm film. would be interested to see the resolution of an old glass plate negative calculated

[peteski]

    David: "sorry about the poor phone pics"

    Are you old enough to remember the quality of the pictures in most model magazines into the 1970s?  Even the cheapest phones do a better job than most modelers of the past could dream of.  Yours look fine to me, in focus, colors are good, what more can one ask for?

Welllll....since you asked (1) More depth of focus, (2) less contrast so the dark areas reveal their details (3) more natural white balance (4) finer resolution...

In the 70's, my camera body of choice was the Nikon F2AS, two of which I picked up from a fellow sailor who needed money and had bought a full Nikon 7 lens, two-body outfit while in Hong Kong . . .

<snippage of a lengthy description o Robert's wonderful photographic skills and equipment>

Sooo...when I was taking photos of my model ships and military figures in the 70's, the technical quality was much better than mere cell phone photos taken today...by ANY cell phone.

However, Dave doesn't need to apologize for his cell phone photos, since they serve their purpose of showing us his excellent model work!

Just sayin'!!   

Bob Gilmore

Not every model railroader back in those days had access to decent photo equipment, and most were not professional photographers (like you). 

To me Nick's "what more would you need" statement simply stated that today's smart phone shots produce images of more than sufficient quality to be used in online forums to show someones modeling project.

Think about it: a smart phone camera with its small sensor and small focal length lens has a greater DoF than many simple film cameras of the years past.  Plus they have enough light sensitivity that no tripod is needed for those quick in-progress shots of the modeling project.  Even your closing statement (after a lenghty paragraph about great vintage photo equipment) seems to affirm that this is the case.

I'm also questioning the equivalent megapixel ratings of the color films (positive or negative).  They seem to be a bit overoptimistic.

[cbroughton67]

ooooh  more on the logging layout

It's based on the old Gum Stump & Snowshoe track plan. Shays (and now a 18-ton Climax!) and 25' log cars look like fish out of water on the Pennsy layout, so I *had* to build a logging layout to run them. Been wanting to do this for years. With the big layout mostly complete, I needed a new project to keep me out of trouble...er...occupied. 

[Lenny53]

The Ntrak Roadshow hosted the M³T this weekend at the Doubleheaders Layout Tour, in the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo-Guelph area.

Dang, wish I had known about this I was actually in the area.

[nscaleSPF2]

time. This is looking great. I love little PRR steam. But, I'm not in love the with the air tanks under the cab. They don't quite look fat enough like the prototypes.

Ed, picky, picky, picky.  Actually, Verne was hoping that no one would call him out on this.  Since we had no prototype dimensions for the air tank, the diameter was sized proportionate to the length of the cab.  It may not be exact, but it's pretty close.  I think what you may be noticing is that the height of the tank is significantly less than the prototype's, because the floor of the cab is a lot closer to the top of the rails, when you compare that dimension to the prototype's. Knowwhatimean?

BTW, how is 9253 coming?  Mine is going to get airbrushed.  So there.

Jim, looks great.  Were you able to wire an LED in the headlight through the headlight and bracket passages?

This should not be a problem, John.  The LED will be installed after paint, which should happen in the next week or so.

[Rich_S]

Interesting. Maybe everyone else know the background to all this, but I do not and would like to know more if you do not mind. What is Copenhagen Fields and how come you got involved etc?

I believe the May / June Issue of N-Scale magazine will have an article on the Copenhagen Fields layout.

[CNR5529]

Dang, wish I had known about this I was actually in the area.

Darn, sorry you missed it! I had posted a message here a few days before: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=39356.msg518469#msg518469

Feel free to get in contact next time you are up this way, there are shows quite regularly around here.

[garethashenden]

Interesting. Maybe everyone else know the background to all this, but I do not and would like to know more if you do not mind. What is Copenhagen Fields and how come you got involved etc?

The layout has been built by members of the Model Railway Club, London starting in 1983. It is a model of the lines out of Kings Cross station. The station itself is just off scene to the left. It is built to 2mm Finescale standards in 1:152. Most of the locomotives are scratch built, with the coaches and wagons being built from kits.
I moved to London in 2011 to study and promptly joined the MRC. Over time I got to know the members of the layout group and started helping out. I moved back to the USA 18 months ago but stayed in touch. This weekend was the club's show and CF was going to be there, so I took a trip over to help out.

Here are a few pictures I took while setting up. The whole thing is a giant 3D jigsaw puzzle. It usually takes 5 to 8 people 5 hours to get it up.


Sections in a storage box:

Installing the sky:

In-process building:


Tah-Dah!


There's a bit more on the club's website: http://themodelrailwayclub.org/layouts/copenhagen-fields

[Cajonpassfan]

Holy cow! I've seen many photos of Copenhagen Fields before and have always admired how the layout captures the feel, scale, and intensity of the prototype scenes. What I didn't realize is how much is going on behind the scenes and how much of the visible trackage actually doesn't go anywhere! Wow, nice...
Thanks for posting the behind the scenes stuff!
Otto K.

[robert3985]

I would be interested to see where your figure of 25,000 to 80,000 came from.

Not sure I agree with that extraordinary claim and I have Grumpy's extensive research on slide film and duplication to back me up http://blog.grumpysworld.com/ (search his archives for slide digitization, or duplication or film quality for some interesting reading)

It seems like grain becomes a huge issue with any 35mm slide film before you get anywhere near those resolution figures.

In fact this source claims you're smallest number is out by a couple orders of magnitude

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

Best reference I can find is that Kodachrome 25 is around the the same 87mp resolution at 150 lines per mm
But in reality Grain becomes a huge issue with any 35mm transparancy before you even get close to the 87mp figure and any modern 24+ mp camera can
far surpass 35mm film in Image quality.

Now large format cameras are a different animal together and capable of much higher resolution then 35mm film. would be interested to see the resolution of an old glass plate negative calculated

You are entirely correct.  Late night posting and I flubbed the numbers by "an order of magnitude".  Should have said "80MP and 25MP"...on the low end 8.5MP  OOOPS!!!  Thanks for the correction, but the gist of the post is still the same with the corrected numbers.

Kodak Kodachrome 25 has virtually no grain.  It was, and shall remain the sharpest, most grain-free positive film ever produced.  However, I shot most of my photos on Kodachrome 65, which, while not as "grainless" had a sharper "look" to them due to the thinner film carrier and emulsion surface, allowing a more critical focus than Kodachrome 25.

Later, I switched to Fujichrome Velvia daylight & tungsten for my model railroad work.  The roll on which I took my MR Photo Contest winning shot was Fujichrome Velvia, and I loved the color rendition it gave over the sharper Kodachrome.

I'll edit my my post and give you credit for a$$-hatting me into compliance!! 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Welllll....since you asked (1) More depth of focus, (2) less contrast so the dark areas reveal their details (3) more natural white balance (4) finer resolution...

In the 70's, my camera body of choice was the Nikon F2AS, two of which I picked up from a fellow sailor who needed money and had bought a full Nikon 7 lens, two-body outfit while in Hong Kong . . .

<snippage of a lengthy description o Robert's wonderful photographic skills and equipment>

Sooo...when I was taking photos of my model ships and military figures in the 70's, the technical quality was much better than mere cell phone photos taken today...by ANY cell phone.

However, Dave doesn't need to apologize for his cell phone photos, since they serve their purpose of showing us his excellent model work!

Just sayin'!!   

Bob Gilmore


Not every model railroader back in those days had access to decent photo equipment, and most were not professional photographers (like you). 

To me Nick's "what more would you need" statement simply stated that today's smart phone shots produce images of more than sufficient quality to be used in online forums to show someones modeling project.

Think about it: a smart phone camera with its small sensor and small focal length lens has a greater DoF than many simple film cameras of the years past.  Plus they have enough light sensitivity that no tripod is needed for those quick in-progress shots of the modeling project.  Even your closing statement (after a lenghty paragraph about great vintage photo equipment) seems to affirm that this is the case.

I'm also questioning the equivalent megapixel ratings of the color films (positive or negative).  They seem to be a bit overoptimistic.

Part of the point to my post was answering the question "what more would you need?"  Notice the generic "you", which opened the door to an opinion.  Since Dave apologized for the quality of the photos, evidently he thinks they need more.  I just filled in some of the blanks.

You will also note that I commented specifically about my non-pro quality Minolta SRT-101 SLR camera and lenses, which worked quite well with ultra-fine grain Kodachrome 25 and 64....the megapixel sensor equivalents having to do with the quality of film, not the technical aspects of mechanical SLR's, so access to "pro equipment" was not a factor as to resolution figures, but the availability of ultra-fine grain film, the finest of which is/was Kodachrome 25.  You didn't have to be a pro to use it in your non-pro cameras in the 70's, meaning being a "pro" is beside the point.

It's YOUR opinion that today's cellphones produce images that are sufficient for posting to online forums and, I agree...most of the time.  However, bad photos are bad photos, even if they allow the modeler's work to be seen.  My comments were about what more could possibly be wanted, and the myth that film cameras in the 70's were technically inferior to modern digital photographic instruments...particularly cellphone cameras.

Thanks for subtly suggesting my equivalent MP numbers were "...a bit overoptimistic."  Hahaha...several orders of magnitude overoptimisitc!!  I have corrected them and given credit where it is due for pointing it out to me.

However, the points to my post still stand, particularly that it's really Dave's excellent work that's interesting, not the quality (or lack thereof) of his photos!...which are sufficient.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

The layout has been built by members of the Model Railway Club, London starting in 1983. It is a model of the lines out of Kings Cross station. The station itself is just off scene to the left. It is built to 2mm Finescale standards in 1:152. Most of the locomotives are scratch built, with the coaches and wagons being built from kits.
I moved to London in 2011 to study and promptly joined the MRC. Over time I got to know the members of the layout group and started helping out. I moved back to the USA 18 months ago but stayed in touch. This weekend was the club's show and CF was going to be there, so I took a trip over to help out.

Here are a few pictures I took while setting up. The whole thing is a giant 3D jigsaw puzzle. It usually takes 5 to 8 people 5 hours to get it up.


Sections in a storage box:

Installing the sky:

In-process building:


Tah-Dah!


There's a bit more on the club's website: http://themodelrailwayclub.org/layouts/copenhagen-fields

Otto says: "Holy cow! I've seen many photos of Copenhagen Fields before and have always admired how the layout captures the feel, scale, and intensity of the prototype scenes. What I didn't realize is how much is going on behind the scenes and how much of the visible trackage actually doesn't go anywhere! Wow, nice...
Thanks for posting the behind the scenes stuff!"

+1 ...couldn't a' said it better myself!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Lenny53]

Feel free to get in contact next time you are up this way, there are shows quite regularly around here.

Will do, the gang of outlaws, er, inlaws live in and around Guelph.

[peteski]

The layout has been built by members of the Model Railway Club, London starting in 1983. It is a model of the lines out of Kings Cross station. The station itself is just off scene to the left. It is built to 2mm Finescale standards in 1:152. Most of the locomotives are scratch built, with the coaches and wagons being built from kits.
I moved to London in 2011 to study and promptly joined the MRC. Over time I got to know the members of the layout group and started helping out. I moved back to the USA 18 months ago but stayed in touch. This weekend was the club's show and CF was going to be there, so I took a trip over to help out.

Here are a few pictures I took while setting up. The whole thing is a giant 3D jigsaw puzzle. It usually takes 5 to 8 people 5 hours to get it up.

That's few hours more than a typical NTRAK layout I helped to put up for this weekend's Greenberg show.  Teardown is done usually in less than 1 hour. 

The above statement is meant to be humorous. I'm not trying to compare NTRAK to the masterpiece that CF is.

[ncbqguy]

Curious as to why the use of flat brass strips instead of conventional flex for off-scene tracks.  Is this common practice in England?
Charlie Vlk