rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Coffee - 8 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dfd281ffc7e01bdc?hl=en
* Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
* I found noise in the 5d mk2 at ISO 1200 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95fb4e4cb3ca5a5f?hl=en
* Webcam vs DSLR Target Field of View - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0a7b8fbb27d6247?hl=en
* Those were the days. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0947d81d9ba98e9f?hl=en
* It Starts from the Beginning - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4ab4d50051a44d47?hl=en
* Pandigital Video Formats - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a4bd26fb3555536b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Coffee
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dfd281ffc7e01bdc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 10:38 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
--
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 10:55 pm
From: ASAAR
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:38:47 GMT, Dudley "Weegee" Hanks wrote:
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
What's with the java jive? You're fresh out of coffee!
But there is a tiny icon on the left, below "Random Image" that's
labeled "Coffee". Too small and not enough detail to really see
what it's of, but it somewhat resembles what you might see looking
into an old kaleidoscope, with its (sort of) 4-way symmetry.
Was the "Self Portait" taken shortly after making your getaway
from the "Crime Scene"? :)
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:03 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:7qhav4dffd8upt31bfp29k05f9hskalbm9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:38:47 GMT, Dudley "Weegee" Hanks wrote:
>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
>
> What's with the java jive? You're fresh out of coffee!
>
> But there is a tiny icon on the left, below "Random Image" that's
> labeled "Coffee". Too small and not enough detail to really see
> what it's of, but it somewhat resembles what you might see looking
> into an old kaleidoscope, with its (sort of) 4-way symmetry.
>
> Was the "Self Portait" taken shortly after making your getaway
> from the "Crime Scene"? :)
>
Sorry, Asaar, I think the image was too big, again.
My gallery prog doesn't seem to be able to properly render thumbnails of
larger images, and I haven't quite found the max limit yet. I'll reduce it
and re-upload.
Sorry for the delay.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:07 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:uUbJl.24403$Db2.6196@edtnps83...
>
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:7qhav4dffd8upt31bfp29k05f9hskalbm9@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:38:47 GMT, Dudley "Weegee" Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
>>
>> What's with the java jive? You're fresh out of coffee!
>>
>> But there is a tiny icon on the left, below "Random Image" that's
>> labeled "Coffee". Too small and not enough detail to really see
>> what it's of, but it somewhat resembles what you might see looking
>> into an old kaleidoscope, with its (sort of) 4-way symmetry.
>>
>> Was the "Self Portait" taken shortly after making your getaway
>> from the "Crime Scene"? :)
>>
>
> Sorry, Asaar, I think the image was too big, again.
>
> My gallery prog doesn't seem to be able to properly render thumbnails of
> larger images, and I haven't quite found the max limit yet. I'll reduce
> it and re-upload.
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
On second thought, the pic wasn't that big to begin with. It was taken with
my 5meg Fuji.
The pic should b a darker image, not quite silhouette I took of myself while
at the foodcourt. I'll delete it and reupload at the same size. Maybe it
just got corrupted during the transfer.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:19 pm
From: ASAAR
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:55:49 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
>
> What's with the java jive? You're fresh out of coffee!
Less than 30 seconds after posting this, the host of a late night
stream-of-c. radio show started The Ink Spots hit, still playing :
> I love coffee, I love tea
> I love the Java Jive and it loves me
> Coffee and tea and the java and me
> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup (Boy!)
>
> I love java, sweet and hot
> Whoops Mr. Moto, I'm a coffee pot
> Shoot the pot and I'll pour me a shot
> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup
>
> Oh slip me a slug from the wonderful mug
> And I'll cut a rug just snug in a jug
> A sliced up onion and a raw one
> Draw one -
> Waiter, waiter, percolator
>
> I love coffee, I love tea
> I love the Java Jive and it loves me
> Coffee and tea and the java and me
> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup
>
> Boston bean (soy beans)
> Green bean (cabbage and greens)
> I'm not keen about a bean
> Unless it is a chili chili bean (boy!)
>
> I love java sweet and hot
> Whoops Mr. Moto I'm a coffee pot (yeah)
> Shoot me the pot and I'll pour me a shot
> A cup, a cup, a cup (yeah)
>
> Slip me a slug of the wonderful mug
> 'An I'll cut a rug just as snug in a jug
> Drop a nickel in the pot Joe
> Takin' it slow
> Waiter, waiter, percolator
>
> I love coffee, I love tea
> I love the Java Jive and it loves me
> Coffee and tea and the java and me
> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, boy!
Gotta go. I've got a pot and I'll soon pour a (viscous) shot of
Sumatra Mandheling or maybe Celebes Kalossi.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:24 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:1eiav49vd39k7s97rb0ikt9pblcrol66j1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:55:49 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
>>
>> What's with the java jive? You're fresh out of coffee!
>
> Less than 30 seconds after posting this, the host of a late night
> stream-of-c. radio show started The Ink Spots hit, still playing :
>
>> I love coffee, I love tea
>> I love the Java Jive and it loves me
>> Coffee and tea and the java and me
>> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup (Boy!)
>>
>> I love java, sweet and hot
>> Whoops Mr. Moto, I'm a coffee pot
>> Shoot the pot and I'll pour me a shot
>> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup
>>
>> Oh slip me a slug from the wonderful mug
>> And I'll cut a rug just snug in a jug
>> A sliced up onion and a raw one
>> Draw one -
>> Waiter, waiter, percolator
>>
>> I love coffee, I love tea
>> I love the Java Jive and it loves me
>> Coffee and tea and the java and me
>> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup
>>
>> Boston bean (soy beans)
>> Green bean (cabbage and greens)
>> I'm not keen about a bean
>> Unless it is a chili chili bean (boy!)
>>
>> I love java sweet and hot
>> Whoops Mr. Moto I'm a coffee pot (yeah)
>> Shoot me the pot and I'll pour me a shot
>> A cup, a cup, a cup (yeah)
>>
>> Slip me a slug of the wonderful mug
>> 'An I'll cut a rug just as snug in a jug
>> Drop a nickel in the pot Joe
>> Takin' it slow
>> Waiter, waiter, percolator
>>
>> I love coffee, I love tea
>> I love the Java Jive and it loves me
>> Coffee and tea and the java and me
>> A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, boy!
>
> Gotta go. I've got a pot and I'll soon pour a (viscous) shot of
> Sumatra Mandheling or maybe Celebes Kalossi.
>
> www.orensdailyroast.com
>
Yep, I have to admit to loving the dark brew, myself.
I've re-uploaded it. I think it just got corrupted during transfer.
Sometimes, my screen reader plays havoc with other apps, so it takes a
couple of trys to get it right.
Hopefully it works this time.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:55 pm
From: ASAAR
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:24:05 GMT, Dudley Hanks wrote:
> I've re-uploaded it. I think it just got corrupted during transfer.
> Sometimes, my screen reader plays havoc with other apps, so it takes a
> couple of trys to get it right.
>
> Hopefully it works this time.
Nope, it's still a no-show as is the new "Those were the days".
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:58 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:qjlav4pomva6eqmojmsfj2ndt4ceinnv25@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:24:05 GMT, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> I've re-uploaded it. I think it just got corrupted during transfer.
>> Sometimes, my screen reader plays havoc with other apps, so it takes a
>> couple of trys to get it right.
>>
>> Hopefully it works this time.
>
> Nope, it's still a no-show as is the new "Those were the days".
>
Hmmm, my system is giving me a rough time tonight, so I think I'll just give
up for the moment, and try again tomorrow.
Thanks for checking it out for me, Asaar.
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 10:38 pm
From: Bob Larter
Hughes wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:07 am, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote in news:da9020ae-37aa-4583-87e3-
>> a03ec4bdf...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.
>>> 4" aperture Telephoto 1000mm focal length f/10
>>> webcam 1/4 inch CMOS 640 X 480 Sensor
>> I think I'm going to be sick. Now that cheap large sensors are here, even
>> the astronomical community isn't stupid enough to use 1/4" sensors with 8-
>> bit conversion for ANY images.
>
> I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
> conversion!
> Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
"24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 10:59 pm
From: Hughes
On Apr 27, 1:38 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 9:07 am, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote in news:da9020ae-37aa-4583-87e3-
> >> a03ec4bdf...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.
> >>> 4" aperture Telephoto 1000mm focal length f/10
> >>> webcam 1/4 inch CMOS 640 X 480 Sensor
> >> I think I'm going to be sick. Now that cheap large sensors are here, even
> >> the astronomical community isn't stupid enough to use 1/4" sensors with 8-
> >> bit conversion for ANY images.
>
> > I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
> > conversion!
> > Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
>
> "24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
> depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
> red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
>
Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
After downloading a sample Canon 1000D picture, Irfanview
reports it as 24 bit per pixel too.
Reading further. I think the 8 bit is the tonal range of the
entire image.. meaning the brightness of all pixels
only vary by 256 or the dynamic range.
The 24 bit in each pixel is just the Bayer result
which seems to differ from the 8 bit A/D converter
which belongs to the entire sensor and not the
8 bit in each color RGB.
Or maybe the 8 bit A/D converter really belongs to
each color RGB, can any sensor expert confirm?
Hu
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:15 pm
From: nospam
In article
<129bee1c-04ff-4f9d-bb6e-9b525c242551@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I just checked at internet. Most webcam uses 24 bit colour depth
> > > conversion!
> > > Where did you get the idea it uses only 8 bit??
> >
> > "24 bit" = 8 bits each for red, green & blue. That is the maximum colour
> > depth for any webcam that outputs JPEGs. DLSRs have 12-14 bits each for
> > red, green & blue, making a total of 36-42 bits per pixel.
>
> Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
it has a 12 bit a/d converter, or 36 bit rgb. higher end nikon and
canon dslrs have a 14 bit a/d converter.
> After downloading a sample Canon 1000D picture, Irfanview
> reports it as 24 bit per pixel too.
was it jpeg?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:52 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Hughes wrote:
[]
> Canon 1000D has 36-42 bits per pixel?? Don't think so.
All cameras offering RAW data do.
> After downloading a sample Canon 1000D picture, Irfanview
> reports it as 24 bit per pixel too.
JPEG is normally 8 bits per channel, as that's about the limit of what the
eye can see or the printer can print. Encoding is normally
gamma-corrected, not linear.
> Reading further. I think the 8 bit is the tonal range of the
> entire image.. meaning the brightness of all pixels
> only vary by 256 or the dynamic range.
>
> The 24 bit in each pixel is just the Bayer result
> which seems to differ from the 8 bit A/D converter
> which belongs to the entire sensor and not the
> 8 bit in each color RGB.
>
> Or maybe the 8 bit A/D converter really belongs to
> each color RGB, can any sensor expert confirm?
>
> Hu
The 12-bit sensor image, each RGB channel, is gamma corrected before
quantisation to 8-bit data for JPEG encoding. Hence 24-bit RGBs, which
have non-linear encoding. You would have to check precisely what your
Webcam did.
David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I found noise in the 5d mk2 at ISO 1200
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95fb4e4cb3ca5a5f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 10:39 pm
From: Bob Larter
Dave Cohen wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>>>> I tort it was meant to be noise free
>>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3419636203_83ef7859a7_b.jpg
>>>>
>>> Any camera will produce noise at almost any ISO speed if the shot is
>>> underexposed, as I suspect that one is. Without the original
>>> unprocessed file to study no further comment can be made.
>>
>> Let's rephrase that. *Every* camera produces noise.
>>
>> Reading data from the sensor produces a signal even if
>> the the lense cap was on and no light at all hit the
>> sensor. That is a major component of "read noise".
>>
>> And the sensor output is an analog signal, which is then
>> digitized, which adds "quantization distortion" (again,
>> even if there was no light hitting the sensor).
>>
>> Hence there is always noise with every image made by any
>> camera. The real question of course is can it be seen,
>> and in fact proper exposure at low ISO levels will
>> almost totally mask the noise. As the ISO is increased
>> the signal level from the sensor, but not the noise
>> level, is decreased, and it becomes easier to see the
>> noise.
>>
> That's all very well and I'm sure you're correct. The thing that bothers
> me is I keep reading about noise and get pointed to comparisons on
> dpreview (usually huge enlargements of a small portion of the image) and
> most of the time I'm not bothered at all by what I see. I'm not saying
> it's not there, just that if somebody didn't point it out I wouldn't
> have noticed. I guess I'm just not that critical. I know in my film days
> I had a lot of grainy pictures and I didn't need any third party
> prodding to notice that (and the film was a lot slower than some of
> these dslr capabilities).
If you're happy with the noise levels of a particular camera, then
there's no need for you to worry about it.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Webcam vs DSLR Target Field of View
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0a7b8fbb27d6247?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 10:54 pm
From: Hughes
On Apr 27, 1:31 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 11:06 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hughes wrote:
> >>> Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.
> >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/111769165/original
> >> I don't believe you. I think that photo was taken of a half-toned colour
> >> image.
>
> > What? It was taken at a distance of 3.8 meters from the target
> > brochure with size of 7" horizontal, 5" vertical. Only the central
> > portion can be seen using the 1/2" 640x480 webcam sensor,
> > a Canon 1000D with 3888 x 2592 resolution can show
> > image 6 times larger.
>
> > I don't understand why you said you don't believe me and
> > you believe the picture was taken of a half-toned colour
> > image. You mean I print the scanned portion and take
> > picture of it 1X at 5 inches away? No. It was at 3.8 meters
> > away as indicated. The resolution is great because it was
> > a 4" aperture, telephoto used was the 4" Russian Rubinar
> > showned at:
>
> Why on earth did you take a photo of a half-toned colour image?
> For a better test, try photographing some text from the same brochure,
> or something equally sharp.
>
I was trying to picture the colors via webcam to
see how DSLR greater color fidelity can wipe it
off the floor. That's when I saw the half-toned
which I can't see with the naked eye at 5"
which the telephoto/webcam can detect at 3.8
meters.
Anyway. I'm looking for resolution charts where
I can download and print in laser (or inkjet) and
use the lines per mm telephoto tests. If you know
where I can download it, let me know. Or do I
have to buy the charts completely printed by
a more superior machine and not home inkjet
or laser.. hmm.
Hu
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Those were the days.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0947d81d9ba98e9f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:01 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
Brings back great memories...
http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery
--
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: It Starts from the Beginning
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4ab4d50051a44d47?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:06 pm
From: "Mike Cawood, HND BIT"
"Talal" <titani@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:6x_Il.2907$b11.1936@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Hello,
>
> I have two digital picture frames. When I turn power off then back on,
> the slideshow starts from the beginning. I want the slideshow to pick up
> from where it stopped. Thanks.
>
> TI
>
There's nothing you can do about it, best to get a cheap laptop to display
your photos.
Regards Mike.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pandigital Video Formats
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a4bd26fb3555536b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 11:54 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Talal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Yesterday I bought a Pandigital frame. I tried to load video files,
> but the frame always complains that the file format is not supported.
> The user's manual has that .AVI files are supported, yet there are no
> further details. The frame did not come with PC software and no PC
> documentation, but a very thin user's guide. Thanks.
>
> Talal
AVI is a "container" format - what matters is what's inside. Try
converting to a non-compressed AVI format.
David
==============================================================================
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