Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Mega image comparison

Using the same subject (some flowers...I'd call them daffodils, but they're purple), we have 3 sets of comparisons to make. In the first bout, our contenders are:
  1. Snapfish scan
  2. ScanCafe scan
In the second bout:
  1. DIY scan (Epson Perfection V300, I think)
  2. Swan photo labs scan
  3. ScanCafe scan
Finally, the headliner matchup:
  1. iPhone 4
  2. Nikon D90
  3. Print film (Fujicolor 100)
  4. Slide film (Fujichrome Velvia 50)
Onto the comparisons!

Snapfish vs. ScanCafe


Here we have a print film scanned by two different vendors:

  • Snapfish is primarily a digital photo products company, but they also run a mail-in photo processing and scanning service. They are very cheap (around $0.20 per image developed and scanned).
  • ScanCafe is a photo scanning company in Bangalore that prides itself on high resolution scans "by hand". Their standard price is $0.35 per image, but often have sales. The biggest downside is their turnaround time - about two months.

Fujicolor 100, scanned by Snapfish
Fujicolor 100, scanned by ScanCafe
ScanCafe messed up on this one. I like the color and exposure on the Snapfish scan a lot better. This is generally not the case.
Fujicolor 100, scanned by Snapfish
Fujicolor 100, scanned by ScanCafe
In the details, it's not much of a fight. ScanCafe has better scanners and higher-res files.

DIY vs. Swan Labs vs. ScanCafe


Here we have a slide film scanned three ways:
  1. By me, on an Epson Perfection V300 scanner using the provided software. Free, but fairly time-consuming (90 sec per image, or 50 min for a 36-exposure roll). 
  2. Swan Labs, where my local camera store outsources their E-6 process. $0.18 to $0.39 per scanned image, depending on resolution (the examples below are the expensive kind).
  3. ScanCafe (see first section) 

Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned at home
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by Swan Labs
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe
These are remarkably similar. I think Swan Labs vs. ScanCafe is mainly an issue of taste regarding exposure settings. Even the DIY scan has similar color. A little hazy, but I think that can be fixed by the levels slider.
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned at home
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by Swan Labs
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe
The DIY scan is actually at a higher resolution (4000 dpi) than either of the outsourced scans, so the fuzziness is entirely due to the optics. The Swan Labs scan is supposed to be about the same resolution as the one by ScanCafe, but it has some very apparent blockiness. Fraudulent resizing? Bad Bayer algorithm?

Anyways, it's clear that ScanCafe sets the bar for scan detail. I like its colors, too.

iPhone vs. DSLR vs. negatives vs. slides


Four contenders in the final matchup:
  1. iPhone 4 camera. Ubiquitous (for me, anyways) and quite good. $600 MSRP, but the camera is only a small portion of that.
  2. Nikon D90 digital SLR. $780 MSRP.
  3. Fujicolor 100 negative (print) film. $0.23 for film, processing, and low-res scanning. Add $0.30 for high-res scans.
  4. Fujichrome Velvia 50 slide film. $0.65 for film, processing, and low-res scanning. Add $0.17 for high-res scans.
iPhone 4
Nikon D90
Fujicolor 100, scanned by Snapfish
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe
Perhaps purple is not a good color for the iPhone sensor. I've gotten some great colors from the iPhone camera; this isn't. Comparing the darker corners of the image with the center, there's a clear color shift as one of the color channel saturates.

Here, the DSLR has too much dynamic range. Instead of losing the background clutter in the shadows, we retain contrast. And the greens and purples are not as saturated as in film. In that regard, the Velvia is just ridiculous. For this image, though, that's a good thing. Come to think of it, it's probably a good thing for anything worth taking a picture of.
iPhone 4
Nikon D90
Fujicolor 100, scanned by ScanCafe
Fujichrome Velvia 50, scanned by ScanCafe
The iPhone's tiny sensor loses big time on the image detail front. It's at a disadvantage on resolution (approx 2000 dpi vs. 3000 for the other images), but it's already struggling to fill those pixels with meaningful information. I think there's some clear evidence of edge sharpening and noise reduction going on here.

The DSLR, despite the DX format, is incredibly sharp. Simply astounding. This close-up image is an 8.6X crop of the original image, and it still looks fine. That's like getting a 300mm lens out of a 35mm lens. What.

The slide film beats out the print film in this contest. I don't know if that's supposed to happen, but the edges are a lot cleaner on the slide film. Hard to rule out focus issues or camera motion, however. The slide film is also a bit grainier, but it's not unpleasant.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Fish Tube

After talking about it for a long time, we finally implemented the fish tube: a fish-sized tube connecting our two 10-gallon aquaria.

February: We add gravel and plants to set up our second tank.

March-April: Many water tests on the new tank to ensure it's stabilized. One treatment of erythromycin in response to a blue-green algae bloom.

April-May: More water tests.

DateTankNH4NO3PO4pHGHKHNotes
4/30Old050.57.65
New050.57.6420% water change, started erythromycin
Tap water7.63
5/1NewNitrogen fertilizer, erythromycin
5/2New20% water change, erythromycin
5/3Newerythromycin
5/4New01027.25420% water change, added nitrogen
5/7New0517.620% water change, added nitrogen
5/11Old050.257.64
New0.2550.57.65
5/19Fish tube, 25% water change
5/22New050.257.654Two tanks hopefully equilibrated

The Fish Tube


The fish tube is a clear rectangular tube, 1.75" x 2.25" in cross section (inside dimensions), constructed of acrylic held together with Loctite 3321 UV adhesive. It is shaped like an inverted U with a total length of 15" (measured along the center line).

It bridges the two tanks and provides a path through which our fish can swim from one to the other. Unfortunately, this is the furthest into the tube that the fish have ventured so far:

I also hoped the tube would allow stuff to diffuse between the two tanks. I tried to verify this using some quick calculations:

Using a published diffusion rate of 1.8×10-9 m2/s for ammonium at 25°C and approximating the fish tube as 0.38 m long, Fick's law gives us J = -(4.7×10-9 m/s)Δφ, where J is the diffusion flux (mol/m2s, say) and Δφ is the concentration difference (mol/m3). The tube has a 2.5 × 10-3 m2 cross-sectional area and each tank holds 40 L, which gives us dφ/dt = (0.063 m-1)J for each tank, ultimately yielding:

φ/dt = -(5.9×10-10 s-1φ

which has a time constant of 54 years. Looks like molecular diffusion is not a significant factor. So we have to rely on macroscopic mixing due to flow within the tube, which I'm not able to characterize so easily. But I think it's probably happening!

Update (May 24): One rasbora in the new tank! He must have...gotten lost or something. But perhaps they'll start getting used to inter-aquarium travel!

Update (May 26): We decided the rasbora in the new tank looked pretty miserable being by himself, and probably wasn't there of his own volition. We chased him into the mouth of the tube using a net, but he was very reluctant to go further up the tube (i.e., above the water line). We started pushing the net into the tube, which finally encouraged him to get over his fears and enter the tube. He looked very confused, then swam quickly across the tube and back down into the old tank.

Update (June 5): Getting ready for our China trip. Stuffed some stem plants into the tube to prevent the fish from getting lost again. To keep the water chemistry more stable, I added a drain tube to siphon water from the new tank's filter into the old tank, creating circulation. A little worried because blue-green algae continues to be a problem in the new tank, but I am hoping that joining the two will provide the proper balance of nutrients to encourage plant rather than algae growth. Of course, it could go the other way, and we could come home to find both tanks overrun with cyanobacteria...

Update (July 23): Cyanobacteria still abounds in the new tank, though the old tank seems unaffected. I put snail into the new tank to eat the brown algae. He cleans it off very effectively, but he random-walks around the tank, so there are many areas left uncleaned.

The night before last, we found a rasbora sleeping in the fish tube! He was the slightly off-kilter one. We didn't know if figured out how the fish tube works or if he was just lost. In the morning, he was back in the old tank.

Last night, he was back in the tube! And later that night, he was sleeping in the new tank. This morning, though, he was pretty freaked out and trying to swim back to the old tank by running into the glass. I fed him, but he was too freaked out to eat. I chased him into the tube and had to push the net into the tube to get him to go above the water line. He's back in the old tank now.

Update (July 26): Yesterday the Oto made his way through the fish tube! He spent most of the day swimming frantically in the new tank. That night, he found his way back. At the same time, a rasbora (probably the same rasbora as before) spent the night in the tube and was in the new tank in the morning. He's still there.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Flat tire

Must have picked this up on the way back from Yosemite. Didn't feel anything while driving, though... maybe it happened relatively close to home? Noticed the flat on Sunday, swapped in the spare, and took it to America's Tire today morning. Apparently you can repair tires if the damage is in the tread area (as opposed to the side wall), and they did it for free! Fast, too - in and out in less than half an hour. Awesome.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Yosemite


Edit (2011/11/29): Added photos (finally)! Old entry (mostly trip logistics) at the end of the post.

2011 Yosemite