rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Spring Pictures - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Nikon D40/80/90 MM Exposure Problems - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2cf34097ab39052c?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
* Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
* Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame... - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
* Automatic Synchronization - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spring Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:32 pm
From: Robert Coe
On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
: Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
:
: http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
:
: or
:
: http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
:
: Thanks for looking.
:
:
: Russell
When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Bob
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:20 pm
From: "Russell D."
me@mine.net wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:20:42 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John
> McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Sharon wrote:
>>> "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
>>> news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>>>>
>>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking.
>>> Very nice shots. Where were these taken?
>>>
>> Somewhere cold! I am betting Colorado or Utah....
>> And, agreed, nice stuff.
>
> Another reason not to go directly into the slideshow. From the gallery
> page:
>
> Apr 16, 2009
> Spanish Fork, UT
>
Thanks, all, for you comments. It was a mistake using the slide show
link. Here is the gallery link.
http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?feat=email#
I also should have been more specific in the critique that I was after.
I'm not very confident in what I'm doing in post processsng (I use GIMP)
and was wondering if the shots look OK. I didn't do a lot to
them--mostly white balance adjustment and sharpening. I'm trying to
learn how to use unsharp mask. Do any of them look over sharpened or
under sharpened? Any pointers on properly using unsharp mask?
Thank,
Russell
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:21 pm
From: "Russell D."
Robert Coe wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
> : Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
> :
> : http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
> :
> : or
> :
> : http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
> :
> : Thanks for looking.
> :
> :
> : Russell
>
> When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
> Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
> and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
>
> Bob
Bob,
Try using the link to gallery that I just posted above.
Russell
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:02 pm
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:32:15 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
>: Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>:
>: http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
>:
>: or
>:
>: http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>:
>: Thanks for looking.
>:
>:
>: Russell
>
>When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
>Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
>and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
>
I looked at the gallery in Firefox, and none look at all out-of-focus.
In answer to Russell's comment, none looked overly-sharpened.
Photographs are unique, and the subject matter determines which can
stand more sharpening than others. Snow-covered objects absorb a lot
of sharpening because the major content is soft.
Crisp and edgy works with the subject matter.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:46 pm
From: "Charles"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?
An "old" standard based on 35mm film, which is fading toward extinction (the
film itself is, but not the size). There are lots of lenses out there that
were designed for 35mm, so the standard and the term "full frame" will
outlive it roots.
Railroad track spacing can be traced back to Roman times. It's the way
technology progresses.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:04 pm
From: Robert Coe
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:57:43 +0200, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com>
wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:19 +0100, Chris H wrote:
:
: > Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
:
: There are a couple of advantages to the 36x24mm format, and to larger
: sensors in particular:
:
: - All lenses developed for analog cameras will still work at their full
: potential.
: - You get a shallower depth of field to play with.
: - Larger sensors capture more light, which increases resolution and/or
: decreases noise.
:
: Ofcourse, the main disadvantages are cost, size and weight of the system.
: It's not a marketing gimmick, bot it's not necessarily better either. The
: choice depends on your needs/wishes.
All this is a manufactured debate over terminology, not over actual equipment,
except in one respect: the once plausible argument that lenses designed for a
"35mm" film camera would work equally well on a "full frame" digital. But
changes in metering and autofocus technology, as well as the introduction of
image stabilization, have marginalized the utility of those old lenses.
So as a practical matter, I think the debate now is indeed about terminology
only, and "full frame" means whatever the term's users say it does. I think we
should graciously accept Chris's assertion that his original post wasn't a
troll. But the next time somebody brings the issue up in that form, it
probably will be.
Bob
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:26 pm
From: Me
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
>
It's the "potential" image quality, and relative to a user's needs.
I've just had the pleasure of using a Canon 5dII with 17-40l and 16-35l
Mk II (as well as longer f/l "l") lenses over the past week, alongside
my old "crop sensor" camera with dirt-cheap Sigma 10-20.
It's possible that there's some slight advantage centre-frame in detail
from the 12mp vs 21mp. But edge performance of both the 16-35 and 17-40
was worse (lenses set 18mm on Fx, 12mm on Dx). The 17-40 was better for
edge performance than the 16-35, even though half the price - that
surprised me. A disclaimer that I'd used the 17-40 on my 5d Mk I, and
come to the conclusion then that there was no advantage over 12mp Dx at
base ISO.
With 24-105 and 70-200, I could see some small improvement in resolution
over 12mp Dx, at printed crops equivalent to about 24x16 inch prints.
Smaller than that, and there's really no point to FX or 20+ mp /for my
needs/ - and I don't believe that my needs are unusual, even for
"serious" photography.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:36 pm
From: ray
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:19 +0100, Chris H wrote:
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
Hmmmmm. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck and
smells like a duck - it could be a duck.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:54 pm
From: "whinee"
Full frame is the fossilized paradigm of a vintage 1920s Leica permanently
embedded in pea brains of those who do not understand what they are talking
about.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:15 pm
From: Allen
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
>> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
>> same as the 35mm frame size.
>
> It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
> prints.
>
> There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
> who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
> nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.
>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
>
> And, sorry, but here _you_ are the one making a pedantic argument. The
> linguistic term "full frame" has a well defined meaning (the size of a full
> 24x36mm 35mm frame), and you are trying to break it up and insist it be used
> by your definition to mean any format. That's silly, simply because the term
> wouldn't mean anything then.
>
Actually, the 24x36 mm was originally "double frame". The standard 35 mm
movie frame was 18x24 mm. In the 1930s and probably later there were
several single-frame (18X24 mm) still cameras made, most famously (or
perhaps infamously) the Univex Mercury. One problem, in addition to the
decreased image quality, was that the camera had to be held vertically
to make a horizontal shot. This is History of Photography 101 lecture
for 4-20-09.
Allen
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D40/80/90 MM Exposure Problems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2cf34097ab39052c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:02 pm
From: Me
Focus wrote:
>
> »»Any P&S peace of shit can get an exposure like that without any
> compensation, but a camera system that costs at least 5 times as much con
> not.««
> And that's the bottom line.
>
> I wish some people learn how to read and stop trying to teach.
>
P&S cameras can meter from sensor data - not TTL sensors separate from
the imaging sensor as is the case with DSLRs (excl LV mode). So in that
case it's relatively easy to read sensor data before taking the shot,
and to adjust exposure accordingly.
Even if you're right (which I admit is possible) that the d90 matrix
system needs "tweaking" via a firmware fix, I'm still pretty sure that
the basis of your problem is that you've gone from a D300 to a D90.
Nikon put a cheaper 420 pixel sensor TTL metering system in the D50, and
AFAIK have retained that cheaper system in all consumer dslrs ever since
- IIRC the D70s was the last consumer dslr they made with the full 1005
pixel sensor. If it didn't make a difference, then they wouldn't have
retained the 1005 pixel sensor in their higher end models.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:08 pm
From: "Frank ess"
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>> sure...
>>>
>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>> would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>> womans....!
>
> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
> impossible to put into words.
>
> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
does not depend on words.
Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
Thank you.
--
Frank ess
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:41 pm
From: Alan Browne
Leon@here.com wrote:
> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
Chatte, actually. (feminine of chat) or "Minou".
With Minou being the more acceptable 'slang' and
'chatte' being the obscene.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:24 pm
From: George Kerby
On 4/20/09 6:08 PM, in article
bISdnSMPQqzGnXDUnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Frank ess"
<frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>>> sure...
>>>>
>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>> would be language-independent.
>>
>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>>> womans....!
>>
>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
>> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
>> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
>> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
>> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
>> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
>> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
>> impossible to put into words.
>>
>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>
> I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
> does not depend on words.
>
> Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
>
> Thank you.
<http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm>
You are welcome.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:26 pm
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:24:47 -0500, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 4/20/09 6:08 PM, in article
>bISdnSMPQqzGnXDUnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Frank ess"
><frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>>>> sure...
>>>>>
>>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>>> would be language-independent.
>>>
>>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>>>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>>>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>>>> womans....!
>>>
>>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
>>> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
>>> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
>>> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
>>> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
>>> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
>>> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
>>> impossible to put into words.
>>>
>>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>>
>> I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
>> does not depend on words.
>>
>> Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
><http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm>
>
>You are welcome.
All visual puns depend on words. It is the words that the visual
suggests that makes the pun.
If we didn't know the words associated with the visual on the link, it
would be neither a pun nor amusing.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:33 pm
From: Leon@here.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:41:35 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Leon@here.com wrote:
>
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
>Chatte, actually. (feminine of chat) or "Minou".
>
>With Minou being the more acceptable 'slang' and
>'chatte' being the obscene.
I'm afraid my French spelling is not too good!
In Quebec I've neard people refer to "castor" which I think is "beaver"...
similar meaning?
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:40 pm
From: Leon@here.com
On 20 Apr 2009 10:33:37 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>>
>>>A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
>I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
>it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
>I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
>one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
>to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
>eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
>detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.
They say we use 2 halves of our brain differently, one for language and one for
graphics. I confess I'm better at graphics than language! When someone asks me
to explain what I mean, I often grab a pencil and paper to draw what I mean. I
always thought it was because I didn't know the words!
>The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
I suppose... I'm a big Dali fan... but words could still be used to explain the
painting, but the image is required.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:07 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-04-20 18:40:26 -0700, Leon@here.com said:
> On 20 Apr 2009 10:33:37 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>>>
>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>> would be language-independent.
>>
>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
>>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've heard the
>>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>>
>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
>> it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
>> I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
>> one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
>> to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
>> eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
>> detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.
>
> They say we use 2 halves of our brain differently, one for language and one for
> graphics. I confess I'm better at graphics than language! When someone asks me
> to explain what I mean, I often grab a pencil and paper to draw what I mean. I
> always thought it was because I didn't know the words!
>
>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>
> I suppose... I'm a big Dali fan... but words could still be used to explain the
> painting, but the image is required.
Hence "Persistance of Time"
http://uofugeron.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/dali-persistence-of-time.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 4:14 pm
From: RichA
With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:47 pm
From: "whinee"
The EVF is the future, whether you want it or not.
It is cheaper to manufacture electronic viewing systems than traditional
mechanical/optical hybrids.
Cost and not technical issues will dictate future camera design.
The coming generations of photographers will move up to SLRs from EVF P&S
cameras and will have no idea what they are missing by not looking directly
through the lens and seeing the exact same light that the image capture
device will see.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:48 pm
From: zalek
I have a very old working Dell laptop. On ebay it is worth $30-50 -
but screen is perfect. I saw some sites which use whole laptop to
convert it to a digital frame, but I would like to use screen only,
without PC part. Also - I would like to use it from time to time as
screen monitor (using VGA cable).
Maybe someone knows about a such project - to remove screen, connect
it to some kind chip with SD,CF or USB flash drive?
Thanks,
Zalek
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:51 pm
From: "whinee"
Those digital frames you see in stores that display images off a memory card
are actually dedicated computers that do one thing and one thing only.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Automatic Synchronization
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:16 pm
From: " Clo-Clo"
Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
cameras?
Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced (DSLR).
I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
Thanks.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:36 pm
From: "Jeff R."
Clo-Clo wrote:
> Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
> cameras?
>
> Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>
> The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced
> (DSLR).
>
> I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
>
> Thanks.
Simplest solution:
http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
1) both thumbs under rail
2) right index finger on right shutter button
3) left index finger on left shutter button
4) sque-e-e-e-eze
Works for me.
http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
--
Jeff R.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:15 pm
From: " Clo-Clo"
"Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote
> Simplest solution:
> http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/stereo-rig.jpg
>
> 1) both thumbs under rail
> 2) right index finger on right shutter button
> 3) left index finger on left shutter button
> 4) sque-e-e-e-eze
>
> Works for me.
> http://www.mendosus.com/armidale/st-lookout-kia-ora-mnts.jpg
Thanks but I was thinking about something that could be remote
controlled, my arms are too short, furthermore I am not too sure
about the synchronization within a small fraction of a second.
Also what do you do with your stereo pictures?
Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
Finally why the latin about Constantin Huygens, Chris's Dad I believe?
==============================================================================
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