D80 - high ISO noise

Totally invalid, meaningless test.

> ISO 1600 sample image here:
> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
> d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
> http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Reply to this Message

>ISO 1600 sample image here:
>http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
>d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
>http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

The links claim to be jpg files, but they point to bitmap files, which
is odd.

And they are the worst examples of "test photos" I've ever seen...they
do not do any DSLR justice, nevermind the D80 or A100.

Reply to this Message

Jeff R. - 11 Aug 2006 07:59 GMT

>>ISO 1600 sample image here:
>>http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> And they are the worst examples of "test photos" I've ever seen...they
> do not do any DSLR justice, nevermind the D80 or A100.

Clear out your cache.
The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.

--
Jeff R.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 11 Aug 2006 08:33 GMT

>Clear out your cache.
>The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.

See my other posts...

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 11 Aug 2006 21:14 GMT

According to Bill <bill@c.a>:

> >Clear out your cache.
> >The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.
>
> See my other posts...

    Is it possible that the server is looking at the browser's
signatures, and if it sees IE, it serves up a converted BMP instead of
the original JPEG? A crazy thing to do, given the extra download time
needed for the BMP, and the additional resources needed at the server
end to run the conversion.

    But with Opera as a browser on Sun's Solaris OS and UltraSPARC
hardware, I get nothing but JPEGs.

    Perhaps your browser is locally converting to BMP for whatever
strange reasons may lurk at the bottom of Microsoft's hard hard heart?
That might take almost as long as downloading the full thing in BMP from
the server? After all -- BMP is the native image format of Windows
machines, so it may be necessary to convert it to display on such a
machine -- and for whatever reason, it decides to save it as BMP instead
of the original JPEG.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Reply to this Message

frederick - 11 Aug 2006 22:35 GMT

>> Clear out your cache.
>> The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.
>
> See my other posts...

See this:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810978

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 12 Aug 2006 00:43 GMT

According to frederick <lost@sea.com>:

> >> Clear out your cache.
> >> The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> See this:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810978

    Bingo! Just as I suggested in another branch of this thread --
except that there is at least a fix posted.

    Good Luck,
        DoN.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Reply to this Message

Bill - 12 Aug 2006 05:30 GMT

>> >> Clear out your cache.
>> >> The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> See this:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810978

I read that...I only have two objects (Flash and Java) which report as
being installed fine, and removing them doesn't make any difference.

> Bingo! Just as I suggested in another branch of this thread --
>except that there is at least a fix posted.

I would believe it was a damaged activex object or other file on my end
if it happened on any other site, which it does not. I've downloaded
from thousands of pages and never experienced this problem.

However, I think I narrowed the problem down to the lack of the Japanese
character set on my computer.

Because I don't install language packs, IE is defaulting to bitmap when
the image file is being displayed inside of IE. But if I bypass the
display and download directly to my drive, the file is stored correctly.

The funny thing is, if I go to numerous other Japanese sites, files are
displayed as jpg just fine. It's only this one site that does it.

Weird...but I'm not going to worry about it anymore. It's working fine
everywhere else.

:-)

Reply to this Message

> ISO 1600 sample image here:
> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
> d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
> http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Amazing! Images taken with a camera that has not even been released
yet! (And it is not scheduled for release for another month.)

Maybe you would like to see the terrible color balance, noise, and
purple fringing in my test shots with the Canon 1DS Mark III? Or the
Hasselblad 1D-82? Or any other non-existent camera.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 10 Aug 2006 12:14 GMT

>> ISO 1600 sample image here:
>> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Amazing! Images taken with a camera that has not even been released
>yet! (And it is not scheduled for release for another month.)

Pre-production samples have been in the hands of select people for a
while. Where do you think sample photos for Nikon brochures, and online
tests get their info?

Reply to this Message

cjcampbell - 11 Aug 2006 00:37 GMT

> >> ISO 1600 sample image here:
> >> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> while. Where do you think sample photos for Nikon brochures, and online
> tests get their info?

And you honestly think that these photographs were produced by some of
these "select people?"

If these photographs were taken with a D80, lets see some proof.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 11 Aug 2006 03:14 GMT

>> >Amazing! Images taken with a camera that has not even been released
>> >yet! (And it is not scheduled for release for another month.)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>And you honestly think that these photographs were produced by some of
>these "select people?"

I didn't say that. I merely stated that pre-production samples have been
in the hands of some people for a while.

Download the pdf brochure for some interesting details.

>If these photographs were taken with a D80, lets see some proof.

If there were taken with a D80, they suck. I'm confident the images are
not representative of the capabilities of either camera, real or not.

Reply to this Message

> ISO 1600 sample image here:
> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
> d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
> http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

The pixels are 1/3 smaller than the D50. No surprise if there is more
noticeable noise
at 1600 ISO.

Reply to this Message

No EXIF? No real idea where this is from

> ISO 1600 sample image here:
> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
> d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
> http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 11 Aug 2006 01:10 GMT

According to Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca>:

> > ISO 1600 sample image here:
> > http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
> > d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
> > http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

> No EXIF? No real idea where this is from

    Download the image and check it out.

    From the one whose URL was given first:

======================================================================
ExifTool Version Number : 5.05
File Name : d80_1600.JPG
File Size : 4763KB
File Type : JPEG
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model Name : NIKON D80
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
Software : Ver.1.00
Date/Time Of Last Modification : 2006:08:01 15:19:16
Shutter Speed : 1/20
Aperture : 3.5
Exposure Program : Program AE
ISO Speed : 1600
Exif Version : 0221
Shooting Date/Time : 2006:08:01 15:19:16
Date/Time Of Digitization : 2006:08:01 15:19:16
Components Configuration : YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 3.5
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 18.0mm
File System Version : 2.10
Color Mode : Color
Quality : Fine
White Balance : Auto
Focus Mode : AF-S
Flash Setting : Normal
Flash Type :
White Balance Fine Tune : 0
Color Balance 1 : 1.21484 2.24219 1 1
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
X Resolution : 300
Y Resolution : 300
Resolution Unit : inches
Preview Image Start : 3720
Preview Image Length : 25188
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Co-sited
Flash Exposure Compensation : 0.0
ISO Setting : 1600
Image Boundary : 0 0 3872 2592
Flash Exposure Bracket Value : 0.0
Exposure Bracket Value : 0
Tone Comp : Auto
Lens Type : G
Lens : 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Flash Mode : Did Not Fire
AF Point : Single Area, Center
Shooting Mode : Single-Frame
Lens F Stops : 5.33
Color Hue : Mode1a
Light Source : Natural
Hue Adjustment : 0
Noise Reduction : Off
Color Balance Unknown : 0208[...]
Shutter Count : 502
Image Optimization : Normal
Vari Program :
User Comment :
Sub Sec Time : 90
Sub Sec Time Original : 90
Sub Sec Time Digitized : 90
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Exif Image Width : 3872
Exif Image Length : 2592
Interoperability Index : R98
Interoperability Version : 0100
Sensing Method : One-chip color area
File Source : Digital Camera
Scene Type : Directly photographed
CFA Pattern : [Green,Blue][Red,Green]
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio : 1
Focal Length In 35mm Format : 27
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Gain Control : High gain up
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
Subject Distance Range : Unknown (0)
Thumbnail Offset : 29048
Thumbnail Length : 8658
Image Width : 3872
Image Height : 2592
Aperture : 3.5
Image Size : 3872x2592
Lens : 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G
Preview Image : (Binary data 25188 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent : 1.5
Shutter Speed : 1/20
Shooting Date/Time : 2006:08:01 15:19:16.90
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 8658 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Focal Length : 18.0mm (35mm equivalent: 27.0mm)
======================================================================

    And from one of the others (daylight cityscape which wanted to download as just
"nikon.jpg"):

======================================================================
ExifTool Version Number : 5.05
File Name : nikon-999.JPG
File Size : 3679KB
File Type : JPEG
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model Name : NIKON D80
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
Software : Ver.1.00
Date/Time Of Last Modification : 2006:07:30 15:23:15
Shutter Speed : 1/320
Aperture : 9.0
Exposure Program : Program AE
ISO Speed : 100
Exif Version : 0221
Shooting Date/Time : 2006:07:30 15:23:15
Date/Time Of Digitization : 2006:07:30 15:23:15
Components Configuration : YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 3.9
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 24.0mm
File System Version : 2.10
Color Mode : Color
Quality : Fine
White Balance : Auto
Focus Mode : AF-S
Flash Setting : Normal
Flash Type :
White Balance Fine Tune : 0
Color Balance 1 : 1.875 1.3125 1 1
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
X Resolution : 300
Y Resolution : 300
Resolution Unit : inches
Preview Image Start : 3720
Preview Image Length : 25042
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Co-sited
Flash Exposure Compensation : 0.0
ISO Setting : 100
Image Boundary : 0 0 3872 2592
Flash Exposure Bracket Value : 0.0
Exposure Bracket Value : 0
Tone Comp : Auto
Lens Type : G
Lens : 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Flash Mode : Did Not Fire
AF Point : Single Area, Center
Shooting Mode : Single-Frame
Lens F Stops : 5.33
Color Hue : Mode1a
Light Source : Natural
Hue Adjustment : 0
Noise Reduction : Off
Color Balance Unknown : 0208.(.<88>..P....A.@."<81><90>..P<80><80>.@<84>(<80>. .[...]
Shutter Count : 366
Image Optimization : Normal
Vari Program :
User Comment :
Sub Sec Time : 50
Sub Sec Time Original : 50
Sub Sec Time Digitized : 50
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Exif Image Width : 3872
Exif Image Length : 2592
Interoperability Index : R98
Interoperability Version : 0100
Sensing Method : One-chip color area
File Source : Digital Camera
Scene Type : Directly photographed
CFA Pattern : [Green,Blue][Red,Green]
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio : 1
Focal Length In 35mm Format : 36
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Gain Control : None
Contrast : +2
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
Subject Distance Range : Unknown (0)
Thumbnail Offset : 28900
Thumbnail Length : 8899
Image Width : 3872
Image Height : 2592
Aperture : 9.0
Image Size : 3872x2592
Lens : 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 G
Preview Image : (Binary data 25042 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent : 1.5
Shutter Speed : 1/320
Shooting Date/Time : 2006:07:30 15:23:15.50
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 8899 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Focal Length : 24.0mm (35mm equivalent: 36.0mm)
======================================================================

    How much more do you need?

    And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Reply to this Message

Bill - 11 Aug 2006 03:15 GMT

> And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.

Well yes and no.

I went back and checked - if you click on the thumbnail it takes you to
a bitmap file. The first sky scene is a 28.7meg file.

But if you right-click on the thumbnail and save the target image, it's
a jpg...very weird behaviour.

I have both here and I've compared them - they're the same image, just
two different formats.

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 11 Aug 2006 03:57 GMT

According to Bill <bill@c.a>:

> > And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I have both here and I've compared them - they're the same image, just
> two different formats.

    Including the same resolution? (Obviously not the same size,
given how poor BMP is at compressing -- that is, it doesn't. :-)

    I'm not even sure that my system could *display* a BMP image
with my browser, since BMP is native to Windows, not to unix. I do
have programs which can render the images, but as I said, I'm not sure
about the browser (Opera, FWIW.)

    The first image I just downloaded directly using "wget" (no
browser involved). The second one (the one with a tower in a gridwork
as the central part) I clicked on the thumbnail, then selected to save
the resulting image to my system to check -- and both of those were
JPEGs, and both with full exif data. I don't *think* that my browser
would download a BMP and convert it to JPEG -- and miraculously preserve
the exif data, which I don't think can even be included in a BMP image.

:-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Reply to this Message

Bill - 11 Aug 2006 07:54 GMT

>> > And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Including the same resolution? (Obviously not the same size,
>given how poor BMP is at compressing -- that is, it doesn't. :-)

Same resolution and pixels...but as I said above, it's a 28.7meg file.
It takes about 3x as long to download over the same jpg.

See my next post...

Reply to this Message

l e o - 11 Aug 2006 04:43 GMT

>> And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I have both here and I've compared them - they're the same image, just
> two different formats.

Are you using IE? If so, it's likely your temporary internet folder is
full. Just clear it and the correct .jpg suffix will return. Or use a
better browser, Firefox.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 11 Aug 2006 07:54 GMT

>> Well yes and no.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Are you using IE? If so, it's likely your temporary internet folder is
>full.

I'm using IE, but the folders are not full because it clears them when I
close IE.

> Just clear it and the correct .jpg suffix will return. Or use a
>better browser, Firefox.

It's not a browser issue.

The files were downloaded to my harddrive. The files are different size
and coding. Like I said above, I have the two files here, one is
definitely a bitmap, and one is a jpg (hex editor to check).

Not a big deal really...the source code on the webpage shows they're
doing it right from what I can see, but it's probably a proxy caching
issue on their server.

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 11 Aug 2006 03:40 GMT

> According to Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca>:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> From the one whose URL was given first:

I did. And in PS E 3 ... no EXIF data. May be an issue with PSE 3,
however.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Reply to this Message

frederick - 11 Aug 2006 01:13 GMT

> No EXIF? No real idea where this is from

I don't know why you can't read exif - seems to be intact. Of course
there is no "proof" it isn't forged.
The D80 / a100 comparisons aren't particularly interesting due to the
large difference in exposure, and unless you can read japanese on the
other link, no idea what NR settings were used in camera etc.

Filename : d80_16001.JPG
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Model : NIKON D80
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 300/1
YResolution : 300/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : Ver.1.00
DateTime : 2006:08:01 15:19:16
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited
ExifInfoOffset : 216
Sub Information
ExposureTime : 1/20Sec
FNumber : F3.5
ExposureProgram : Program Normal
ISOSpeedRatings : 1600
ExifVersion : 0221
DateTimeOriginal : 2006:08:01 15:19:16
DateTimeDigitized : 2006:08:01 15:19:16
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 4/1 (bit/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F3.5
MeteringMode : Division
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Not fired
FocalLength : 18.00(mm)
MakerNote : Nikon COOLPIX Format : 28044Bytes (Offset:860)
UserComment :
SubSecTime : 90
SubSecTimeOriginal : 90
SubSecTimeDigitized : 90
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 3872
ExifImageHeight : 2592
ExifInteroperabilityOffset : 28896
SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor
FileSource : DSC
SceneType : A directly photographed image
CFAPattern : 8 Bytes
CustomRendered : Normal process
ExposureMode : Auto
WhiteBalance : Auto
DigitalZoomRatio : 1/1
FocalLength(35mm) : 27(mm)
SceneCaptureType : Standard
GainControl : High gain up
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
SubjectDistanceRange : Unknown
ExifR98
ExifR : R98
Version : 0100
Thumbnail Information
Compression : OLDJPEG
XResolution : 300/1
YResolution : 300/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
JPEGInterchangeFormat : 29036
JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 8658
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited

Reply to this Message

cjcampbell - 11 Aug 2006 01:40 GMT

> > No EXIF? No real idea where this is from
>
> I don't know why you can't read exif - seems to be intact. Of course
> there is no "proof" it isn't forged.

Exactly. Anyone can change EXIF data.

1) There are no D80s in the hands of the general public.

2) None of the credible reviewers seem to have a D80 yet.

3) Anyone publishing pictures like that could pretty well be guaranteed
to never be allowed near a preview copy of a new Nikon again.

4) The pictures have been processed, as noted by others, so even if
they were taken with a D80 we have no idea what was done to them in the
interim or what the settings were.

Without further evidence that these photographs are genuine and
untampered with they should be simply dismissed out of hand.

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 11 Aug 2006 03:39 GMT

>>>No EXIF? No real idea where this is from
>>
>>I don't know why you can't read exif - seems to be intact. Of course
>>there is no "proof" it isn't forged.
>
> Exactly. Anyone can change EXIF data.

To be sure. However I would expect that the EXIF be intact in the
presented image. It is not (at least as far as PS E 3 can tell. Forged
or otherwise (there is a risk to "forging" as well as one might put in a
giveaway that it is a forgery).

> Without further evidence that these photographs are genuine and
> untampered with they should be simply dismissed out of hand.

Yep.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 11 Aug 2006 03:37 GMT

>> No EXIF? No real idea where this is from
>
> I don't know why you can't read exif - seems to be intact.

I DL'd the photo as shown and loaded into PS Elements. All EXIF fields
were blank. That may be a shortcoming of PS Elements, OTOH, I DL files
from elsewhere and the EXIF are intact. That was not the case with this
image at the link provided.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Reply to this Message

> ISO 1600 sample image here:
> http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
> d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
> http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

I thought the D80 shot is brighter and indeed, it's shot at 1/20sec and
the A100 shot is 1/40sec. The test is invalid and as they have the same
sensor, the result should not be that drastically different.

Reply to this Message

>ISO 1600 sample image here:
>http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
>d80 / a100 samples at various ISO here:
>http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Regardless of the validity of the image having come from a D80, I'm surprised
that no one has commented on the UFO's that appear in the sky area.

BTW most of the EXIF data shows up in the JPG image (downloaded with IE) and
opened in PS CS2.

Hunt

Reply to this Message

Bill - 12 Aug 2006 05:30 GMT

>>ISO 1600 sample image here:
>>http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Regardless of the validity of the image having come from a D80, I'm surprised
>that no one has commented on the UFO's that appear in the sky area.

I thought it was odd at first too, then I realized that it's not a real
sky at all - it looks like an artificial sky painted on the canopy or
roof over the area.

Reply to this Message

Hunt - 12 Aug 2006 16:02 GMT

>>>ISO 1600 sample image here:
>>>http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>sky at all - it looks like an artificial sky painted on the canopy or
>roof over the area.

Yes, it looked like someone painted some of the covered entree plates, you
know the ones with the hole in the center, that the waitstaff all lift in
unison, when being served at a fine-dining restaurant. Heck, I though I had a
scoop for FOX News - oh well.

Hunt

Reply to this Message

Allen Yuen - 02 Nov 2006 21:01 GMT

>>>ISO 1600 sample image here:
>>>http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archives/20060810/d80_1600.JPG
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>sky at all - it looks like an artificial sky painted on the canopy or
>roof over the area.

It is indeed a fake sky. It is the basement of the Shin Yokohama
Ramen Museum in Yokohama City in Japan. I've been there a few times
ten years ago. That area was pretty dark.

http://www.raumen.co.jp/home/index.html

--- Allen

Reply to this Message