rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* people who have used CHDK - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/451b60dcef8ca366?hl=en
* CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking..... - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a7e4242c5cb98016?hl=en
* sigma buys foveon - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
* Setting moon - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24febd32370922f9?hl=en
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* Catching The Fall Colors With The D3!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/523627fd51caad60?hl=en
* President Elect Barck Obama Shows His True Colors At The White House Today!!
- 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/edf87625e88ae4c4?hl=en
* Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: people who have used CHDK
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/451b60dcef8ca366?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 11:44 pm
From: "Pete D"
"Steve" <steve@example.com> wrote in message
news:1mjvh4t75fnvqf3b24frv7kqtqk750kfir@4ax.com...
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:41:58 -0600, Replying-To-A-Sea-Of-Morons
> <correctingmisinformation@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:52:14 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many instances of CHDK letting you set something, telling you that
>>>> it's set that way, but it really isn't. That's why I don't bother
>>>> with those esoteric settings.
>>>
>>>Yeah, in some cases they went overboard with settings, letting you set
>>>something to a value that the camera can't really do. You won't see that
>>>in a D-SLR which comes with most of the CHDK functionality, but that
>>>doesn't let you set parameters that the camera can't actually do.
>>
>>Clearly outlined and fully explained in the CHDK Wiki, catch up:
>>
>>"Since the discovery of many new override features, some far surpassing
>>what the
>>cameras were originally sold to do, it has been found that each make and
>>model
>>of camera may have variations in the absolute limits of Shutter-Speeds,
>>F-Stops,
>>ISO-Values, Motion-Detection Speed, among others."
>>
>>"Important! -- Just because you can set an override shutter-speed or
>>f/stop on
>>your camera with CHDK, it doesn't mean your camera can actually do that
>>shutter-speed or f/stop. Be sure you have tested to make sure that extreme
>>setting is actually making a difference in your resulting images."
>
> Thank you for confirming exactly what I said.
Seems that the truth has no place here, I am truly flabbergastertated.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 12:24 am
From: Steve
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:05:59 -0600, ReplyingToUninterestingTrolls
<insertnamehere@somedomain.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:50:07 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:31:55 -0600, DanielShort
>><dshort@mailunwanted.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:20 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>White balance: anywhere from 2 to 9 shots with anywhere from 1 to 3
>>>>increments per shot.
>>>
>>>What a shame. With CHDK you can use the in-camera "RAW Develop" feature to apply
>>
>>I'm not sure why that's a shame. My DSLR lets me save RAW images by
>>default while I need CHDK to do that. Of course the white balance
>>bracketing is only useful for JPEGs. No need to bracket white balance
>>with raw but the feature is there if you want to use it. Just like
>>many of the features of CHDK.
>>
>>>any and all in-camera processing effects to the RAW file and save as many new
>>>versions as you want. White-balance, B&W, film effects, Custom Color modes,
>>[...]
>>>even years later if you find that you want a different version from that RAW
>>>file. Using CHDK's "RAW Develop" feature is like pointing the camera at the
>>>exact same scene again, and reapplying any new settings that you want to it. The
>>>RAW file now taking place of the original sensor data.
>>
>>I've used CHDK's raw develop. It's nowhere near as capable as any
>>off-camera software that works with raw. I'd much rather take the raw
>>image onto a PC and work with it there.
>
>First you rave about all your white-balance bracketing, then you belittle the
>idea of being able to do the very same thing and much more than that in a P&S
>camera, even years later right in the camera from the original RAW files if one
>so wants. No matter how I prove to you that a CHDK camera is far superior to any
>DSLR that you can buy on the planet, you'll just twist and squirm around to
You can rave about CHDK all you want. It doesn't prove anything and
doesn't make the camera better than a DSLR. As I've said all along,
CHDK does have some nifty features. But it's also very kludgy and
doesn't always work right (i.e., do what it says it's doing.) If a
camera manufacturer released a firmware like CHDK, people would be
screaming bloody murder and running to return the piece of junk. And
yet, for technogeeks, it's fun to play with.
However, for all the extra goodies your P&S can do with CHDK, it still
can't rival the image quality of a DSLR in difficult situations.
So you can spout your spew as much as you want. All you're doing is
showing your ignorance.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:44 am
From: SMS
Steve wrote:
>> "Important! -- Just because you can set an override shutter-speed or f/stop on
>> your camera with CHDK, it doesn't mean your camera can actually do that
>> shutter-speed or f/stop. Be sure you have tested to make sure that extreme
>> setting is actually making a difference in your resulting images."
>
> Thank you for confirming exactly what I said.
I'm not sure that our friend has ever actually used CHDK, even though he
talks about it endlessly. I've used it almost since it came out, I've
contributed to the wiki on CHDK, and I've showed many colleagues,
friends, and relatives how to use it. I always tell them the same three
facts:
1. I warn them not to get too excited at the values it lets you program
in, because in many cases the camera can't do them, so they need to be
sensible about the values they choose.
2. I explain to them that some of the default values in the build for
their camera may not be optimal, so they'll need to understand the
program and how to set the values to their optimal level.
3. I explain to them that while CHDK adds a lot of D-SLR like features
to a P&S, don't expect it to suddenly turn your P&S into a D-SLR! AF
speed, DOF, dynamic range, and noise aren't fixable in software! If you
want the best quality photos, get a D-SLR.
Once they're expectations are set to the proper level, they enjoy using
it, on occasion.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:09 am
From: AaronAdams
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:44:54 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>>> "Important! -- Just because you can set an override shutter-speed or f/stop on
>>> your camera with CHDK, it doesn't mean your camera can actually do that
>>> shutter-speed or f/stop. Be sure you have tested to make sure that extreme
>>> setting is actually making a difference in your resulting images."
>>
>> Thank you for confirming exactly what I said.
>
>I'm not sure that our friend has ever actually used CHDK, even though he
>talks about it endlessly. I've used it almost since it came out, I've
>contributed to the wiki on CHDK,
So YOU'RE that royal jackoff who was always putting in all that misinformation
that had to be corrected every time. Thanks. Now I know who to blame for all
that extra work it took to correct your stupidity. Just like here on usenet.
Same thing. Now one more reason to despise you and make your troll-existence
into a living hell. You relentlessly spew misinformed crap, then someone who
actually knows what they are talking about has to come along to shovel away the
piles of manure that you left on the ground.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, eh? Trouble
is, eventually everyone finally figures out that you can't produce anything but
crap in your life.
Let me guess. You're the moron who was taking posts out of context for the
motion-detection parameters and wrongly thinking that those were MD facts, then
posting parts out of context to confuse everyone. You'll note that that page now
has a large warning on it. Hoping someone else will come along and fix it. I
gave up trying to correct all your amazingly uninformed crap. You clearly didn't
know one damn thing that you were talking about and always making things worse
and worse.
You useless piece of shit. Your great-grandparents should have been aborted.
> and I've showed many colleagues,
>friends, and relatives how to use it.
How can you show something to others that you've clearly never used? You've made
that more than obvious by what you've typed in this thread.
Is this like that computer-controlled geyser you wrote about?
You dumbfuck virtual-photographer troll. You're just as informed as that Steve
asswipe.
> I always tell them the same three
>facts:
>
>1. I warn them not to get too excited at the values it lets you program
>in, because in many cases the camera can't do them, so they need to be
>sensible about the values they choose.
>
>2. I explain to them that some of the default values in the build for
>their camera may not be optimal, so they'll need to understand the
>program and how to set the values to their optimal level.
>
>3. I explain to them that while CHDK adds a lot of D-SLR like features
>to a P&S, don't expect it to suddenly turn your P&S into a D-SLR! AF
>speed, DOF, dynamic range, and noise aren't fixable in software! If you
>want the best quality photos, get a D-SLR.
>
>Once they're expectations are set to the proper level, they enjoy using
>it, on occasion.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:53 am
From: Justin C
In article <4fsuh412j4o2jhb7drunfsfufhqpjsl0t0@4ax.com>, ReplyingToUninterestingTrolls wrote:
[snip]
> No matter how I prove to you that a CHDK camera is far superior to any
> DSLR that you can buy on the planet...
[snip]
> Many people are now aware of how much more advanced a CHDK P&S camera
> is than any DSLR
[snip]
> advanced capabilities of P&S cameras.
[snip]
> [get] very much more out of an inexpensive P&S camera than any DSLR
> will ever have.
Well, it's obviously pointless for Canon and Nikon to go on making DSLR cameras. What savings in R&D, the reduction in productions costs, all great news for share-holders.
It's also quite funny to see the faces of the owners of camera store who are having to heavily discount all that obsolete DSLR stock just to get it out the door. Have you seen how cheap you can pick up a DSLR these days... I'd expect change if I traded in a Canon AE1.
Still, these P&S cameras are making the press/paparazzi much less conspicuous; it's also doing wonders for their bad-backs now that they don't have to carry a 20lb of gear to get good shots.
> Hurts, don't it. LOL
Oh yes, it's excruciating.
*plonk*
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking.....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a7e4242c5cb98016?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 12:19 am
From: "Pete D"
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:491fcf9c$0$33593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>
> What makes you think that the exposure was just 1 microsecond?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer@sonic.net
>
Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do not
I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
was.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 3:33 am
From: Nervous Nick
On Nov 16, 1:27 am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
> > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
> >news:gfocu0$fd4$1@reader.motzarella.org...
> >> Pete D wrote:
> >>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>
> >> A cat with a *very* blown nose.
>
> >> I don't understand why chdk didn't replace the sensor with something more
> >> capable, and why it didn't flash up an 'oversharpen' warning on the
> >> display....
>
> > Can you blow your cats nose? ;-)
>
> I blew my cat when I was about 4 and I still have the scar
> to show for it. No picture but I learned something useful.
IFYPFY.
--
YOP...
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:33 am
From: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
Pete D wrote:
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>
>
Pete,
What was the lighting? Sunlight or flash, or?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:34 am
From: calvin-torgen
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:19:27 +1100, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:491fcf9c$0$33593$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>>
>> What makes you think that the exposure was just 1 microsecond?
>>
>> --
>> Ray Fischer
>> rfischer@sonic.net
>>
>
>Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do not
>I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
>nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
>was.
>
You're a pretty bad troll. There is no metadata on that photo. Trolls better
than you would have attached some fake EXIF info. Not that it would have
mattered.
I have some burst bracket sequence of shots with CHDK, done when testing for
highest possible shutter speeds using that scanning laser method. Some shots
have up to 1/3,000,000 of a second in the EXIF. But unlike you, and like all
others that know how to use CHDK, knowing what it can do and cannot do, I know
that the fastest speed from my camera is 1/40,000. Getting 1/3,000,000 recorded
in any MakerNotes data doesn't concern me in the least. That automatically means
1/40,000. The physical limit of the camera.
Anyone that has enough intellect to run CHDK has enough intellect to know why
1/1,000,000 of a second is just a MakerNotes artifact and does not reflect what
their camera can truly do.
This is why I know that so many of you DSLR-trolls have never even ran CHDK.
Judging by your posts here you're lucky if you can even find your keyboards let
alone know how to run, use, and take advantage of the hundreds of new features
and immeasurable new creative possibilities that CHDK gives back to the world of
photography.
I think I just figured out something. One simple little program takes the whole
world of photography to a new level, making things available that were once
thought impossible, giving back that much to the world of photography and all
photographers. You're jealous and envious because you've never been able to
contribute a thing but being a relentless pretend-photographer troll in a
newsgroup. I get it now. It's all starting to make sense, why you despise CHDK
so much. 300k of programming does more than your whole existence on this planet
ever has. Makes perfect sense now.
Troll away. It reveals so much about your virtual-life.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: sigma buys foveon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 1:02 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Paul Furman wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
>> luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution
>> than another may not actually appear that much better.
>
> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
> the foveon has a lot less of that.
Thanks for testing, Paul. All this was eastablished 50 years ago when
colour TV was first introduced!
David
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 1:32 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <ZfPTk.6279$as4.1415@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
says...
> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and the
> foveon has a lot less of that.
At least the luminance information in a full colour sensor is correct,
while the luminance information in a Bayer sensor contains lots of
errors, caused by the missing colour information and the interpolazion
process. If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 1:54 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <ZfPTk.6279$as4.1415@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
> says...
>
>> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
>> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
>> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
>> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
>> the foveon has a lot less of that.
>
> At least the luminance information in a full colour sensor is correct,
> while the luminance information in a Bayer sensor contains lots of
> errors, caused by the missing colour information and the interpolazion
> process. If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't
> be able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in
> image areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
The Foveon may have less accurate large-area luminance values because the
silicon colour filters are not as well defined as in a Bayer matrix.
So you have a choice - capturing RGB pixels poorly, or capturing three
times as many pixels in Bayer matrix. Neither is perfect. Which is
better for your needs? You decide, and buy your kit accordingly!
David
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:24 am
From: Paul Furman
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
>> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
>> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
>> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
>> the foveon has a lot less of that.
>>
>
> Was this using RGB, Paul?
Yep, this was probably a year ago or more so I don't recall other
specifics. There were certainly places where the color detail was messed
up but not noticeable unless I looked for it. This made me curious if
there was a way to use this for web compression, where the luminance was
say 400 pixels wide & RGB 100 pixels, then reassemble when viewing.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:20 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Paul Furman wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> I've tested this by shrinking the colors only by a huge amount then
>>> sizing up & applying that to an original B&W layer and it is indeed
>>> amazing how little impact it has. They have a point but probably
>>> exaggerated... ultimately the luminance detail is real important and
>>> the foveon has a lot less of that.
>>>
>>
>> Was this using RGB, Paul?
>
> Yep, this was probably a year ago or more so I don't recall other
> specifics. There were certainly places where the color detail was
> messed up but not noticeable unless I looked for it. This made me
> curious if there was a way to use this for web compression, where the
> luminance was say 400 pixels wide & RGB 100 pixels, then reassemble
> when viewing.
As you may know, in a JPEG, the colour difference channels are typically
sampled half as frequently as the luminance channel. You can set the
ratios in some software. So your typical 400-pixel wide JPEG has but 200
pixels of colour - a quarter of the area and half the linear resolution.
Cheers,
David
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:25 am
From: nospam
In article <gfohr0$qjd$1@reader.motzarella.org>, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
> It's interesting (but I'm not sure how valid..) to do this in LAB mode.
it's very valid. if you convert the image to lab, then blur the a/b
channels, you won't be able to see a difference unless the blur is huge
(like a 5-10 pixel radius). however, if you blur the luminance
channel, you'll see a difference with the slightest amount of blur.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:26 am
From: nospam
In article <MPG.238a0731685a2f3198bf35@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At least the luminance information in a full colour sensor is correct,
> while the luminance information in a Bayer sensor contains lots of
> errors, caused by the missing colour information and the interpolazion
> process.
'lots' ? ever measure it? it's not that much except in extreme edge
cases that don't occur in the real world. also, bayer sensors have a
*lot* more pixels, so even with a small error they're still ahead of
the game.
> If you only capture one colour component per pixel you won't be
> able to accurately reconstruct the luminance data, especially in image
> areas where you have pixel level colour changes.
you can't reproduce pixel level changes no matter what you do because
of aliasing.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Setting moon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24febd32370922f9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 1:31 am
From: "mianileng"
"Steve" <steve@example.com> wrote in message
news:v1ouh49uq0bb3krc5eesqg4psded6vu2ju@4ax.com...
>
> On 15 Nov 2008 22:33:21 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>mianileng <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>A few days ago, when I was getting ready for bed around 4:00 am, I
>>>happened
>>>to glance out the window and noticed the color of the setting moon. I
>>>grabbed my camera but was too tired and sleepy to set up a tripod or try
>>>out
>>>various manual exposure settings. So I shot handheld with spot-metering
>>>at -1 EV.
>>
>>Not that it's a bad photo, but the same result could be achieved
>>anytime by simply adjusting the color of any photo of the moon in your
>>favorite editor.
>
> To me, that's not the same thing. There's a different type of
> satisfaction in faithfully capturing a difficult image vs.
> artistically creating something that didn't exist. They're both valid
> things to do and be proud of when the results are nice. But one is
> not the same as the other.
>
Exactly. That's why I felt that this shot, despite its technical
imperfections, was worth sharing.
I've made dozens of moon shots, some of them technically better than this
one, but the circumstances made this shot a difficult one. I've also seen
shots made by others with skills and equipment far superior to mine. But
many of those come out making the moon look like a dull dead rock which, of
course it is, but it doesn't *look* like a dead rock from our world. I
usually try to capture it as it appears to us - a beautiful shining globe in
the sky.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 1:33 am
From: "mianileng"
"rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:g83vh4d69hf4b9u51udb037tio5s11hq5o@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:01:45 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>A few days ago, when I was getting ready for bed around 4:00 am, I
>>happened
>>to glance out the window and noticed the color of the setting moon. I
>>grabbed my camera but was too tired and sleepy to set up a tripod or try
>>out
>>various manual exposure settings. So I shot handheld with spot-metering
>>at -1 EV.
>>
>>I lost the EXIF data while cropping and making slight adjustments to
>>contrast and brightness in bitmap with Irfanview (no noise reduction).
>>Here
>>they are:
>>
>>Pana FZ30
>>Spot focus, Spot metering (-1EV)
>>ISO80
>>f/4.0, 1/80sec
>>420mm equiv.
>>
>>Shooting handheld half-asleep at 1/80 sec at 420mm, in low light with a
>>noisy P&S through thick hazy atmosphere close to the horizon is a recipe
>>for
>>disaster, and the result is no better than could be expected. But at least
>>the hue was captured quite faithfully. Just wanted to share:
>>http://tinyurl.com/59e2jq
>>
>
> All things considered, that's a pretty nice shot.
Thanks.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 2:35 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-9ECF48.22300015112008@news.giganews.com...
> In article <gfme75$osc$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> How is being harassed equivalent to standing behind one's words?
>>>> That isn't what you said -- you said the opportunity to be personally
>>>> harassed. And that's what it's about, the willingness to express one's
>>>> opinions without hiding behind a mask.
>>> Well, first, your characterization of it as "hiding" is nothing but your
>>> own opinion. It's not an objective fact.
>> Anyone who doesn't use their real name is hiding.
> No, not really. No more than I'm hiding by putting my unit number on my
> physical mailbox instead of my full name.
Not the same thing. No one walks up to your mailbox and has conversations
with it.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 5:51 am
From: Thanatos
In article <gfot1l$ht5$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-9ECF48.22300015112008@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <gfme75$osc$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> How is being harassed equivalent to standing behind one's words?
>
> >>>> That isn't what you said -- you said the opportunity to be personally
> >>>> harassed. And that's what it's about, the willingness to express one's
> >>>> opinions without hiding behind a mask.
>
> >>> Well, first, your characterization of it as "hiding" is nothing but your
> >>> own opinion. It's not an objective fact.
>
> >> Anyone who doesn't use their real name is hiding.
>
> > No, not really. No more than I'm hiding by putting my unit number on my
> > physical mailbox instead of my full name.
>
> Not the same thing. No one walks up to your mailbox and has conversations
> with it.
But according to you, people in real life can't take anything I say
seriously unless I give them the opportunity to contact me. If I don't
put my name on my mailbox, how will they be able to tell which door to
bang on when they want to confront me?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Catching The Fall Colors With The D3!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/523627fd51caad60?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 2:44 am
From: Bryan Hussein Olson
George Kerby wrote:
> A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same
> stuff - grass - Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a
> flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass.
> Why do you suppose that is?'
I'd bet Obama knows that the cow can subsist on grass but the horse
cannot. Knowing how well various kinds of deer digest grass is probably
too obscure even for one as generally smart as Obama to know offhand.
--
--Bryan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: President Elect Barck Obama Shows His True Colors At The White House
Today!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/edf87625e88ae4c4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 5:05 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Atheist Chaplain added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ...
> <Snip>
>
>>> And while were throwing names around, how about convicted
>>> Watergate burglar and domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, or
>>> Keating who was convicted on over 70 felonies, and lets not
>>> mention that McCain is the only presidential candidate to
>>> ever be censured by his party over ethical issues.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, enough politics in a photo group, Obama won, get
>>> used to it
>>> :-)
>>
>> I'm done talking to an idiot. Here's what I want you to do,
>> NOW: back up every one of these idiotic sound bites with a
>> single sentence articulating HOW this will be done and WHO
>> will pay for it. I will then be only too happy to kiss your
>> ass.
>>
>> Until then, please take a big gulp of a coffee cup known as
>> Shut The Fuck Up.
>>
> Aww petal is all bitter and twisted, better get a great big
> cup of "Get the fuck over it" :-)
>
> I notice you made no mention of McCain's association with
> convicted domestic terrorists and convicted felons, let alone
> his own dirty past, you have to be pretty crooked to be
> censured by the Republican party for being un-ethical LOL
>
And, who would that be, pray tell.
I see that you, like all Far Left Loons, don't even attempt to
refute my comments because you know you'd LOSE. And, wherever you
got that silly-ass list from, which you obviously did not
personally investigate, I see that your disingenuis poltroon
nature apparently prevented you from even attempting to prove you
hundred assinine points of light.
WRT McCain, his ONE indescretion was being part of the Keating
Five. He was never indicted, fully explained himself to the
Congressional hears and the Senate Ethics Committee, and
apologized. Your guy, OTOH, won't even admit he knew Bill Ayers,
for example, yet stragely, Ayers not says that Obama and his wife
were very good friends, socialized often, and did a number of
business and local issue deals together.
Methinketh you the fool and thou dost protesteth too much, so
blow!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 6:33 am
From: SMS
.. wrote:
> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700 has
> not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and replacing
> it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X introduced it and
> then 4 months later discontinued it.
> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be discontinued in
> 6 months maybe I should wait?
Nikon is struggling to keep up with Canon, and the D700X is part of that
strategy. Look for a D300 upgrade very soon as well, so they can
compete with the 50D. Canon is still the leading system, but Nikon has
finally got its act together in sensors, an is giving Canon a run for
its money, in least in bodies. Nikon still lags Canon badly in terms of
lenses.
Probably not worth waiting on the D90. The upgrade to the Canon XSi will
add HD video with stero audio to leapfrog the D90, then the D90x (or
whatever they call it) will go from mono to stereo.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:16 am
From: That80sGuy
In message news:GLMTk.1784$V71.947@newsfe10.iad, ".."
<Ginnaam1@hotmail.com> done wrote:
> Nikon brings out a new DSLR only to update it 6 months later. The D700
> has not be available that long and now they are discontinuing it and
> replacing it with an upgrade, D700X. They did the same with the D40X
> introduced it and then 4 months later discontinued it.
> I was looking at a D90 but if there is a chance it could be
> discontinued in 6 months maybe I should wait?
DSLRs need to be made modular. If you can have interchangeable film backs
you can have interchangeable sensors.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 16 2008 7:34 am
From: nospam
In article <5bWTk.11745$Ws1.7090@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Nikon is struggling to keep up with Canon, and the D700X is part of that
> strategy.
struggling? nikon sold more cameras than canon did last year. a
bigger issue is the economy.
> Look for a D300 upgrade very soon as well, so they can
> compete with the 50D. Canon is still the leading system, but Nikon has
> finally got its act together in sensors, an is giving Canon a run for
> its money, in least in bodies. Nikon still lags Canon badly in terms of
> lenses.
nonsense. the d300 is doing well and both canon and nikon have
excellent lenses.
> Probably not worth waiting on the D90. The upgrade to the Canon XSi will
> add HD video with stero audio to leapfrog the D90, then the D90x (or
> whatever they call it) will go from mono to stereo.
so canon has disclosed to you what the xsi will have? or are you
making shit up again?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment