Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: camera shake - quantifying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3513b4241587a4b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:22 am
From: Paul Furman

bugbear wrote:
> I can find lots of discussions on "circle of confusion"
> and "depth of field", and quite a bit on "diffraction limits".
>
> (e.g.
> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html
> )
>
> Can anyone point me at a reasonable technical
> discussion on camera shake in relation
> to pixel errors?
>
> In particular resolution versus shutter speed?
>
> Clearly (!?) a very low res camera (.e.g 640x480)
> is much more tolerant of camera shake than a Megavision
> (
> http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
> )
>
> Since camera shake can be reasonably expressed
> as angular movement of the camera, the relationship
> between pixel count and lens length appears key,
> but the maths is beyond me.
>
> I know the old rule says 1/focal length as shutter speed
> for hand held, but that rule (it appears to me) ASSUMES
> some constant sensor resolution.
>
> Can anyone point me at an analysis?

Print size is part of the calculations so the DOF calculators including
that are the place to start. Low-res sensors mean smaller print sizes. I
don't know what number to assign to camera shake, it's different for
each person.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:40 am
From: ArlanHansen

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:59:28 +0000, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:

>I can find lots of discussions on "circle of confusion"
>and "depth of field", and quite a bit on "diffraction limits".
>
>(e.g.
>http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html
>)
>
>Can anyone point me at a reasonable technical
>discussion on camera shake in relation
>to pixel errors?
>
>In particular resolution versus shutter speed?
>
>Clearly (!?) a very low res camera (.e.g 640x480)
>is much more tolerant of camera shake than a Megavision
>(
>http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
>)
>
>Since camera shake can be reasonably expressed
>as angular movement of the camera, the relationship
>between pixel count and lens length appears key,
>but the maths is beyond me.
>
>I know the old rule says 1/focal length as shutter speed
>for hand held, but that rule (it appears to me) ASSUMES
>some constant sensor resolution.
>
>Can anyone point me at an analysis?
>
> BugBear

I can't (because it's never been a concern of mine, so I never researched it).
But I can tell you that sub-pixel-width shake can be used to great advantage to
create ultra-high resolution photos, far surpassing the camera's available
resolution. When using programs like PhotoAcute Studio you are able to use
stacked images that vary in sub-pixel differences to greatly increase all detail
in any scene. For a quick sample see:
http://www.photoacute.com/studio/examples/screenshot/index.html

I thought it was worth mentioning in your quest for camera-shake info. You'd be
surprised what kind of lemonade you can make out of previously-thought-of lemons
with a little knowledge. :)

This is why I never throw away any of my photographic "accidents" anymore. I
stopped hitting the occasional "delete" when reviewing my photos for the last 5
years. Between utilities like this and Fourier-transform utilities to refocus
blurry images or undo camera-shake on single frames, who knows how those "fatal
photographs" can be put to great use 10 years from now. The bokeh from stacked
images taken from only one vantage point can even be used to create 3D scenes
when using simple utilities like Picolay freeware. Ain't digital wonderful?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: |TROLL| Re: P&S V DSLR debate here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d9743709abcda6dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:28 am
From: Paul Furman

John McWilliams wrote:
> savvo wrote:
>> On 2008-11-13, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Ps. Did you catch the moon just after sunset? Twas the biggest over
>>> the hills of the East Bay I've ever seen.
>>
>> You foolish amateur. Were you to use the 2km f/1 lens available on the
>> typical compact came(*&^($R CARRIER LOST
>
> Ooooops! By catch in this case I meant, "Got a glimpse of", not
> captured. Had I wished to capture, I would have hauled out my Big Red
> system for mega video, sorted through the 4800 frames for the best still
> capture. Well, maybe not.

Yeah, I should chill... I did see the moon rise this morning... headed
to Muir woods today...

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: image stabilization: how good wrt f-spot?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ec65f76559b51b8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:29 am
From: "H.S."

Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
P&S cameras?

IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
this worth the extra cost?

Thanks.
--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:39 am
From: me@mine.net

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:29:50 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "H.S."
<hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com> wrote:

>
>Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
>P&S cameras?
>
>IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>this worth the extra cost?

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:40 am
From: Marvin

H.S. wrote:
> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
> P&S cameras?
>
> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
> this worth the extra cost?
>
> Thanks.

It is worth it for me, and it one of the reasons I got a
Panasonic camera. I often visit museums, and most of them
only allow photos without a flash and without a tripod. At
the age of 87, my hands aren't as steady as they were. I
find that the image stabilizer lets me take photos that I
couldn't take in the past. It isn't as good as using a
tripod, though.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:51 am
From: "H.S."

Marvin wrote:
> H.S. wrote:
>> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
>> P&S cameras?
>>
>> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>> this worth the extra cost?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> It is worth it for me, and it one of the reasons I got a Panasonic
> camera. I often visit museums, and most of them only allow photos
> without a flash and without a tripod. At the age of 87, my hands aren't
> as steady as they were. I find that the image stabilizer lets me take
> photos that I couldn't take in the past. It isn't as good as using a
> tripod, though.

Interesting.

I was thinking that perhaps this feature is only useful for those border
line situations where the shutter speed falls below say 1/40 sec. With
image stabilization, this beings it up to the more or less slowest speed
to take a pic without noticeable shake. However, if the speed required
were more than two spots slower than the min required for no-shake, then
it might not that useful.

--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:54 am
From: "H.S."

me@mine.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:29:50 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "H.S."
> <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement in
>> P&S cameras?
>>
>> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>> this worth the extra cost?
>
> http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm
>

hmmm .. 3 to 4 stops in SLR lenses. That is nice. And it is similar for
all lens manufacturers I suppose (Canon, Pentax, etc.).

--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:02 am
From: BillyGrisham

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:29:50 -0500, "H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com> wrote:

Much depends on your own skill. And knowing how IS works. If you set your IS to
"shoot-only mode" (it only engages during the actual taking of the
shutter-press, as opposed to "continuous mode" where you will see the IS working
in your viewfinder), then you can vastly improve on any of the online reports
that estimate any f/stop advantages. Those reports are done by many "pros" that
don't even know how to use a camera or hold it steady. (I know this for a fact,
just by their reports, tests, and testing-methods alone.)

When IS is in "shoot-only mode" you use your own talents to hold the camera as
steady as possible. Since you are not getting an image-stabilized preview, you
will see all the camera-shake in your viewfinder. Giving you instant feedback on
how to control your own muscles to steady the scene/camera. If you can stabilize
the image on your own, using your own skills, then any minor camera-shake that
is left over is easily removed by the IS in the camera. Using good hand-held
techniques with a good IS system allows people (like myself) to take tack-sharp
hand-held images with a 432mm (35mm eq.) length lens with a full 1 second
exposure. Vastly improving on any of f/stop advantages that the "pro reviews"
report online. If basing this on the old guideline of using a shutter-speed of
1/focal-length for a hand-held shot, then this comes out to an 8.7 to 9.0-stop
advantage when using IS in the proper manner.

(I'm more than aware that I was born into and living in a world of wholly
untalented idiots and morons. Annoying, to say the least.)

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:02 am
From: "David J Taylor"

H.S. wrote:
> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement
> in P&S cameras?
>
> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
> this worth the extra cost?
>
> Thanks.

H.S., the answer depends. Perhaps only 1-2 stops for the poorest systems.
3-4 stops for the best systems such as IS/VR lenses from Canon and Nikon.
(VR - vibration reduction - is Nikon's name for IS - image stabilisation).
Panasonic P&S has also been good in my experience - perhaps in the 3-stop
improvement range, with the IS in the lens itself. There are suggestions
that sensor-shift IS does not achieve quite such good results as in-lens
IS, and that it is slightly more limited.

It's good enough that I would not buy a camera or lens without IS/VR
today.

Cheers,
David

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:16 am
From: Brad Wentworth

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:02:56 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>H.S. wrote:
>> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement
>> in P&S cameras?
>>
>> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>> this worth the extra cost?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>H.S., the answer depends. Perhaps only 1-2 stops for the poorest systems.
>3-4 stops for the best systems such as IS/VR lenses from Canon and Nikon.
>(VR - vibration reduction - is Nikon's name for IS - image stabilisation).
>Panasonic P&S has also been good in my experience - perhaps in the 3-stop
>improvement range, with the IS in the lens itself. There are suggestions
>that sensor-shift IS does not achieve quite such good results as in-lens
>IS, and that it is slightly more limited.
>

You fail to address an important issue. Optical IS systems impart their own CA
defects into all images, when the IS optical element/s is/are aligned to
compensate for shake at the widest extremes. Sensor-shift technology will not
impart more CA defects. This is one of those things that resident-trolls nor
"pro reviewers" online will ever mention, because they are just that amazingly
and fuckingly stupid and ignorant.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:18 am
From: "H.S."

David J Taylor wrote:
> H.S. wrote:
>> Just wanted to know what is the improvement in f-stop one gets with
>> those image stabilization lenses? Similarly, what is the improvement
>> in P&S cameras?
>>
>> IIRC, I read some place that the improvement is perhaps 1 f-spot. Is
>> this worth the extra cost?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> H.S., the answer depends. Perhaps only 1-2 stops for the poorest
> systems. 3-4 stops for the best systems such as IS/VR lenses from Canon
> and Nikon. (VR - vibration reduction - is Nikon's name for IS - image
> stabilisation). Panasonic P&S has also been good in my experience -
> perhaps in the 3-stop improvement range, with the IS in the lens
> itself. There are suggestions that sensor-shift IS does not achieve
> quite such good results as in-lens IS, and that it is slightly more
> limited.
>
> It's good enough that I would not buy a camera or lens without IS/VR today.

Yes, I understand. Thanks for the explanation.

Warm regards.

--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d7789e423256930a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:45 am
From: Strom Beckridge

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:07:14 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>> "gregory blaine" <greggoryb@keepyourspam.net> wrote in message
>> news:av5oh4llgc0n8na1lt2th73433j5angmd9@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:37:02 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> <tiresomely repeated cut and past removed>
>>
>> so that's the extent of your knowledge, a cut and past argument, and a
>> name change every other post, seems the one here who is the troll would
>> be you. but your probably to stupid to even realise it.
>> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>>
>
>Please, you're giving trolls a bad name by referring to Vern and his
>thousand socks as such.
>
>He is successfully trolling Steve, SMS and a few others, but they have
>said they'll stop. For everyone else, he's but a minor pest.
>
>Please! No replies!
>
>Do paste in the drivel as a reply, pest.

Can't you resident-trolls ever stay on topic?

Here's a little something to help you:

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."

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:20 am
From: nospam

In article <gchoh45edja3c0vi8gfj2jghf3o5trlnpu@4ax.com>, Thatch Hudson
<thatchhudson@mailnotwanted.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:33:43 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.
>
> Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
> 100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.

nonsense. there's been quite a few slr cameras with 100% coverage,
including the nikon d3 and d300 as well as some back in the film days.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Eight Reasons that a Camera Phone is better than a D-SLR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7ebfa21b75b07493?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:44 am
From: SMS

1. You Always Shoot in Bright Light.

Cell phone cameras produce unbelievable results when used in bright
sunlight. You have no need for a large sensor that can produce excellent
results in poor lighting conditions.

2. You Want Don't Want a Battery Draining Xenon Flash Tube.

Flash photography is for wimps. You have no need for complicated,
battery-draining flashes.

3. You don't want to lug around complicated lenses.

Camera phones have lenses made out of the finest Chinese plastic. Why
lug around a huge lens with all those complicated motors and controls.

4. You long for your Instamatic with its "Focus-Free" lens.

Camera phones don't have complicated auto-focusing motors, or even the
ability to manually focus. What you see is what you get. If you can't
get the picture then you didn't need it anyway.

5. You Need Fast Start-Up.

Your phone is always on, so your camera is always ready. No complicated
power buttons.

6. Color quality is unimportant.

You've had it with cameras that show proper skin tone and are capable of
wide dynamic range. You like the inaccuracies of a tiny sensor.

7. Prints are so 20th Century.

Not only do you not care about 8x10's, you don't even want a 4x6.
E-mailing photos to your friends is sufficient.

8. Cost.

You get a new camera in your phone every two years for free.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:01 am
From: PlayingWithResidentTrolls

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:44:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>1. You Always Shoot in Bright Light.
>
>Cell phone cameras produce unbelievable results when used in bright
>sunlight. You have no need for a large sensor that can produce excellent
>results in poor lighting conditions.
>

Only true for someone without talent. (You reveal much by your comments.)

>2. You Want Don't Want a Battery Draining Xenon Flash Tube.
>
>Flash photography is for wimps. You have no need for complicated,
>battery-draining flashes.

Available-light purists will find no problem with that. They cherish photography
done without the reality-robbing effects of flash. So do those that understand
true art and the unmistakable poignant moods that can be frozen into images done
without flash.

>
>3. You don't want to lug around complicated lenses.
>
>Camera phones have lenses made out of the finest Chinese plastic. Why
>lug around a huge lens with all those complicated motors and controls.

You reveal your ignorance and stupidity yet again. Acrylic lenses have better
performance when it comes to chromatic aberrations, ease of manufacture, and
costs. It's a shame that their properties aren't being incorporated into
expensive lenses today. Doing so could solve many of the current problems with
all-glass lenses. Unfortunately, trolls like you would belittle anyone that has
"plastic elements" in their high-performance lenses. Because you are an idiot
and relentless resident-troll online.

>
>4. You long for your Instamatic with its "Focus-Free" lens.
>
>Camera phones don't have complicated auto-focusing motors, or even the
>ability to manually focus. What you see is what you get. If you can't
>get the picture then you didn't need it anyway.

See previous comment. Some of those "Instamatics" incorporated acrylic lenses
that surpassed anything that Fluorite-element lenses can do today.

>
>5. You Need Fast Start-Up.
>
>Your phone is always on, so your camera is always ready. No complicated
>power buttons.

And this is a problem, why? DSLR trolls always proclaim they bought their camera
for start-up speed alone. Not that that will ever help them get a better image
in their lives, but for some reason they choose a camera based on this.

>
>6. Color quality is unimportant.
>
>You've had it with cameras that show proper skin tone and are capable of
>wide dynamic range. You like the inaccuracies of a tiny sensor.
>

Since when has color quality ever been important to the DSLR buyer? They rave
about how they NEED RAW just so they can fix what their camera did wrong with
the colors. They live and breathe to find out how their latest editor can repair
everything that their DSLR did wrong to their images.

>7. Prints are so 20th Century.
>
>Not only do you not care about 8x10's, you don't even want a 4x6.
>E-mailing photos to your friends is sufficient.
>

In many ways this is true. We are moving into a paperless society. Wall-sized
LCD displays will take the place of prints and projected slides. Where is the
problem with this?

>8. Cost.
>
>You get a new camera in your phone every two years for free.

As opposed to the idiot DSLR owner that insists he needs a new one every year?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:14 am
From: Alfred Molon

9. It's always with you. Better a photo with some noise than no photo at
all.
--

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Red Drool
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/485e826a7c4e7569?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:48 am
From: RichA

On Nov 13, 10:56 am, "Me Here" <no-...@here.ca> wrote:
> "Evad Remlu" <mrmsatell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gfh6s0$bvh$1@news.eternal-september.org...> Red cameras?
>
> > See:
> >http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/more-red-scarlet-and-epic-pics-sur...
>
> > I love to see an American company trash the camera status quo.
>
> > Enjoy!
>
> > ER
>
> Hmmmm, a year until delivery, USD $12,000 for a 24 mp non-dSLR body in
> either Nikon or Canon mount. Note that does NOT include the EVF, it's just
> the sensor module. But add the EVF ($3K) the battery ($450), the CF Module
> ($500) to the recorder and the I/O module (no price found)
>
> So for about USD $20K you have a big bulky 24x36mm 24 megapixel with no
> lens. The unti is around the size of a Mamiya RZ67, and looks cumbersome to
> use.
>
> AND IT IS NOT A dSLR!

Oh dear! Not a DSLR! How will they ever manage to use it? I love
the way new designs scare the F--- out of the shambling old SLR
brigade.
"I remember, I think it was 1962, I got my first Nikon, cough, cough,
we used 200 ASA Tri-X and were GLAD to have it!" Hack, cough.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic G1 - some AF numbers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/380eee98b6f748d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:53 am
From: Rich

On Nov 13, 1:14 am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
wrote:
> For those watching this rather interesting camera, Imaging Resource has
> some numbers from a production model.
>
> The G1's AF lag is around 0.35-0.39s.
>
> To put that into perspective, Canon 40D is ~0.13s, Sony A200 ~0.19s,
> Nikon D60 ~0.26s, Olympus E420 ~0.14s...
>
> Not quite up to dslr speed, but not too shabby. Compared to p&s
> cameras, the Oly SP550 is 1.1-1.5s, Pan FZ18 ~0.5s, Canon G9 ~0.6s.
>
> Be interesting to see how the rest of this camera pans out. I'm looking
> forward to having a good hard look at that EVF...

As for image quality at high ISO (lets face it, low ISO images from
all DSLRs look good) I'd rate them:
1. Nikon D90 (provided sharpening is applied to camera output)
2. Olympus E-3
2b. Panasonic G1
3. Olympus E-520.

I like the fact Panasonic hasn't gone hog-wild with in-camera (no
choice) noise removal.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: sigma buys foveon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:58 am
From: nospam

In article <MPG.238633f3629f6ed998bf1e@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > It is not split. The pixel still has the same area.
> >
> > it has the same area, but it's sliced into three layers, each of which
> > has a lower well capacity.
>
> Ah now it is sliced ;-)
>
> Regarding the well capacity that is another discussion.

it's the same discussion. lower well capacity means more noise, and
it's a drawback to having a full colour sensor.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 9:59 am
From: nospam

In article <MPG.2386335f2d5004fd98bf1d@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <121120082359366929%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>
> > the colour information is interpolated but the spatial detail is not.
> > the human eye is not as sensitive to colour detail, so the system works
> > well.
>
> And that is 100% irrelevant. We are discussing what resolution you are
> able to capture with a Bayer sensor, not whether the human eye can see
> that resolution or not.

it's completely relevant. if you can't see the difference, who cares?
why are you taking photos, if not to look at them?

> It is the same principle for which JPEG compression works quite well -
> because the entropy in real world is limited. But if you compressed with
> JPEG a random image the compression performance would be extremely poor.

bayer is designed to work on real world images for human viewing. if
you substitute a computer generated test pattern and then analyze it,
you will find problems. nothing is perfect. however, those problems
don't matter in actual real world photography of real world images.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:10 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <IMXSk.87137$E41.40706@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...

> 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.

That all depends on how close you are to the image, if you make
enlargements etc. Also, colour aliasing hurts and that is an issue with
Bayer sensors because you can't choose a proper AA filter.
--

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:19 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <IMXSk.87137$E41.40706@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> 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.
>
> That all depends on how close you are to the image, if you make
> enlargements etc. Also, colour aliasing hurts and that is an issue
> with Bayer sensors because you can't choose a proper AA filter.

Yes, that's why I said "may" - it depends on viewing circumstances, image
size, room brightness etc. etc.

The general feeling seems to be that the compromises in the Foveon are
worse than the compromises in Bayer at the moment. Perhaps when those
problems are ironed out Bayer will become a distant memory....

Cheers,
David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Catching The Fall Colors With The D3!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/523627fd51caad60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:06 am
From: George Kerby

On 11/12/08 10:00 AM, in article C54059A9.1739A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com,
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 11/11/08 8:17 PM, in article vuekh4ds7u46jicnvuvv9ac2b12dtrpjqp@4ax.com,
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:07:12 -0600, George Kerby
>> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/08 12:15 PM, in article
>>> -a2dnSGdnb6YUITUnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@supernews.com, "Rita Berkowitz"
>>> <ritaberk2008@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm hurt! I guess I can never do as well as 'Rita' in that
>>>>> department...
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Republican_Dance.htm>
>>>>>
>>>>> "She" has such a 'remarkable talent', does "she" not?
>>>>
>>>> That's a kick-ass sweet shot, isn't it George? Remy made that just for you
>>>> since you are so special.
>>>>
>>>>> What do you think 'she' feeds her canine to produce that unusual scat?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you're just jealous that your turd cutter isn't as tight as Remy's.
>>>> After all, you did wear yours out with those unnatural sex acts.
>>>>
>>> No, you are the one that is unnatural, 'Rita'. Believe me. You are it!
>>>
>>> Again, I'm reporting you to the ASPCA for what you force down that dog. That
>>> shit is unlike anything I have ever seen.
>>
>> The above proves that everyone - even you - has a talent. Yours seems
>> to be to be able to spot authentic dog shit.
>>
Reminds me of a story:

Barack Obama was seated next to a little girl on an airplane He
turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go
quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow
passenger.'

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to
Obama, 'What would you like to talk about?'

'Oh, I don't know,' said the Obama. 'How about What Changes I Should Make To
America ?' and he smiles.

'OK, ' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a
question first. 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?'

Obama, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks
about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'

To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel
qualified to change America when you don't know shit ?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: mozilla seamonkey: SSL protocol has been disabled
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db509a86e97acd4f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:25 am
From: "H.S."

Hello,

Just now I tried to browse to yahoo mail web page and Mozilla Seamonkey
on Debian Testing reported something to the effect of "This page cannot
be loaded because SSL protocol has been disabled."

Never saw this before. I searched google and followed the steps on
Mozilla's web page that I got in the results. No luck.

Restarting Seamonkey got it working again.

However, I am a bit concerned about this hiccup in secure web page
browsing. Is my concern justified?

--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 10:26 am
From: "H.S."

Apologies, wrong list.

Sorry.

H.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just now I tried to browse to yahoo mail web page and Mozilla Seamonkey
> on Debian Testing reported something to the effect of "This page cannot
> be loaded because SSL protocol has been disabled."
>
> Never saw this before. I searched google and followed the steps on
> Mozilla's web page that I got in the results. No luck.
>
> Restarting Seamonkey got it working again.
>
> However, I am a bit concerned about this hiccup in secure web page
> browsing. Is my concern justified?
>

--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

==============================================================================

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, November 13, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, November 13, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic