rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
* Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots - 11 messages,
6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/60f3dd9082d09c83?hl=en
* Twilight Zone - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/970b24e1bd4b4008?hl=en
* HELP - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ebed45f78e8d52bf?hl=en
* suggestions for large group shot - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/49b3da273bd74bd7?hl=en
* Photo Frame, Slide-Show Without Video Files? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b6495ca52c41f858?hl=en
* ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c74cad4ac255f35?hl=en
* Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 11:15 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Hughes wrote:
[]
> Pixel scale = 205265 x 0.0074 / 1000 = 1.53 arcsec/pixel
>
> Line pair per millimeter = [206265 / (pixel scale)x focal length]
> = 135 lines pair / millimeter or
> 135/2 = 67.5 lines per
> millimeter
>
> Is the calculations correct??
>
> Hughes
[cross-posting trimmed]
Using a single number for "resolution" may not tell the whole story for
imaging systems, depending on the application. You need to consider the
MTF of the entire system, and also the noise spectrum. An image may look
better if the lower-frequency MTF is high, and different observers may
prefer an image with a different noise ("grain") spectrum, but the same
total noise. Remember that a sensor with finite sensing sites will most
likely have an anti-aliasing filter to reduce the Moiré fringing and
related effects.
David
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 1:15 am
From: bugbear
nospam wrote:
> In article
> <bbe55aa8-27fb-4062-add6-d1178fa67fcc@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Printing photos is only 8-bit.
>>> Would you care to defend that statement?
>> I read it here:
>>
>> http://photo.net/learn/raw/
>
> that article is five years old.
It was wrong then too :-)
BugBear
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 1:31 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article
> <bbe55aa8-27fb-4062-add6-d1178fa67fcc@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Printing photos is only 8-bit.
>>> Would you care to defend that statement?
>> I read it here:
>>
>> http://photo.net/learn/raw/
>
> that article is five years old.
So? It's true that all the usual printing technologies only use 8 bit
colour depth.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 1:43 am
From: Bob Larter
Hughes wrote:
> I downloaded some Canon Raw images. I want to see the image
> before Bayer demosaicing occurs. In Photoshop 4, when you
> open RAW files, it automatically demosaice it. What program
> shareware do you know that can open RAW file without
> automatic bayer demosaicing? I want to zoom at 4 pixels
> and see the adjacent 2 green and 1 red, blue pixels before
> demosaicing occurs.
I don't know of any specific program that can do that. If you're a good
C programmer, you could probably modify Dcraw to do what you want:
<http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/>
PS: please try to trim your posts so that you're only quoting relevant
material from the previous person.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:28 am
From: Chris Malcolm
bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> p&s cams that offer raw use an 8 bit a/d, maybe 10 bit on higher end
>>> ones (i haven't really kept up with that end of the market). i'd be
>>> surprised if they are any higher since a tiny sensor doesn't warrant
>>> it.
>>
>> Don't forget the P&S cameras with big sensors :-)
> Are you sure there should be an 's' on camera in that sentence?
I only know with certainty of one, but not being familiar with every
high quality P&S on the market I can't be sure there aren't more.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 5:29 am
From: bugbear
Bob Larter wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article
>> <bbe55aa8-27fb-4062-add6-d1178fa67fcc@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>> Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Printing photos is only 8-bit.
>>>> Would you care to defend that statement?
>>> I read it here:
>>>
>>> http://photo.net/learn/raw/
>>
>> that article is five years old.
>
> So? It's true that all the usual printing technologies only use 8 bit
> colour depth.
>
PostScript (a rather common printing engine/language) has supported > 8 bit
samples since Level 2.
BugBear
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 5:37 am
From: nospam
In article <49f81068@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Printing photos is only 8-bit.
> >>> Would you care to defend that statement?
> >> I read it here:
> >>
> >> http://photo.net/learn/raw/
> >
> > that article is five years old.
>
> So? It's true that all the usual printing technologies only use 8 bit
> colour depth.
mac os x supports 16 bit printing and photoshop cs4 takes advantage of
that. there are probably other apps that also support it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/60f3dd9082d09c83?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 12:44 am
From: "Ken"
"Ofnuts" <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote in message
news:49f775c2$0$28866$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Ken wrote:
>>
>> "Ofnuts" <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote in message
>> news:49f6b2f7$0$4850$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when I
>>>> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
>>>> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
>>>> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels
>>>> and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see.
>>>> Couldhe be right or what?
>>>
>>> Is the monitor connected using a VGA or a DVI cable?
>>>
>>> Is the screen sharp with other applications (text, etc...)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>> Hi Bertrand
>> VGA cable and screen is sharp well sharper with other applications.
>
> Switch to DVI nevertheless... Only DVI guarantees that a pixel in your
> video card ends up on the same pixel on the display. VGA is still
> fundamentally an analogic output.
>
>
> --
> Bertrand
Thanks will give it a try.
Ken
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 12:45 am
From: "Ken"
"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:75pb50F18be3aU35@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:48:30 +0100, Ken wrote:
>
>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:49f5af7d$0$2482$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> As per the heading I have a new monitor which is wide screen but when I
>>> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
>>> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
>>> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels
>>> and the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see.
>>> Couldhe be right or what?
>>>
>>> Help please - Ken
>>
>> Just tried the shots in Corel paint Shop X2 and they look substantially
>> better than in Photo Impact X3. Will now try and find my old copy of
>> Photoshop to see what they look like in there. I wonder if there is any
>> other software that would be better. Shame as I can get around the Photo
>> Impact. May try a trial of Elements. I have the time so why not?
>>
>> And thanks for all the help so far much appreciated
>>
>> Ken
>
> GIMP is a free download.
Will give it a go but so frustrating as I can use my current software with
my eyes closed - well not quite:-)
Ken
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 1:08 am
From: Bob Larter
Ken wrote:
>
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:oCyJl.20534$OO7.6202@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Ken wrote:
>>> "David J Taylor"
>> []
>>>> .. but what is your PC set to?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>> It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)
>>
>> Thanks, Ken. Then it sounds as if the software you are using to view
>> the image may be responsible for the lack of sharpness you are
>> seeing. When I look at the pictures from my 10MP DSLR (or 7MP
>> compact) on my display (which is 1600 x 1200, i.e. 1.92MP), the images
>> are completely sharp, but limited to the 1.92MP resolution of the
>> display, of course. I'm talking about viewing at normal distances,
>> and using the computer display instead of paper prints.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
> Thanks David I will try and look through differing software. I have an
> old Photoshop but use Ulead PhotoImpact (don't laugh!!).
Ken, try downloading Irfanview (free) & see if that fixes the problem:
<http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm>
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:44 am
From: Chris Malcolm
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <75ovbvF19m76dU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>> Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50%
>> >>> or 100%?
>> >>
>> >> Possibly because Photoshop is crap. I don't have problems like that with
>> >> GIMP. Obviously there is less to do to resize to 50% than something like
>> >> 66% - at 50% you can simply 'average' each 2x2 block.
>>
>> > God, you're funny! This is the first I've ever heard anyone claim that
>> > GIMP
>> > is better than Photoshop (other than on Linux, where Photoshop won't
>> > natively run). Delusional, much?
>>
>> The delusion is yours. No claim was made that Gimp was better than
>> Photoshop. The claim was that in one very specific area -- image
>> resizing for viewing -- Gimp was noticeably better.
> either it's better or its not.
You really can't understand the idea that something can be better in
one respect and worse in another? Would you say that women are better
or worse than men?
>> You must be new
>> around here, because several have made that same observation after
>> comparing the two in the past. It's one of Photoshop's well known
>> specific weaknesses (at least in some versions of Photoshop on some
>> hardware).
> so now it's only with some versions on some hardware? can you say
> 'edge case' ?
Something whose behaviour improves with improved hardware or a later
version is not necessarily an edge case, and could be very far from
being an edge case.
> cs4 uses the gpu for zooming and rotating, without any artifacts at
> all. gimp doesn't.
There's nothing the gpu can do that the cpu can't, except do it
faster. And there are some sophisticated image transforms cpus will do
which gpus won't, because they can't be done quickly. There's no
special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts the
cpu can't.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:55 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Matt Clara <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:280420090947133517%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <75o5fjF18p8g9U2@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
>>> method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
>>> which do it better.
>>
>> bullshit.
> I second your "bullshit"--I have and like Irfanview, but Chris's assertion
> is patently, and obviously, untrue.
I haven't Photoshop myself, but I've heard some who have compared both
express disappointment and sometimes annoyance at Photoshop
inferiority in that area, and others claim no difference at all. I've
seen technical experts explain the difference by referring to the
different algorithms emplyed. Since it's an area which is improved now
and then as better and sometimes faster methods of resizing are
devised, I conclude that at least some extant versions of Photoshop on
at least some hardware weren't the best.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 4:31 am
From: "Ken"
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49f80b03$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ken wrote:
>>
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:oCyJl.20534$OO7.6202@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>> "David J Taylor"
>>> []
>>>>> .. but what is your PC set to?
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks, Ken. Then it sounds as if the software you are using to view
>>> the image may be responsible for the lack of sharpness you are seeing.
>>> When I look at the pictures from my 10MP DSLR (or 7MP compact) on my
>>> display (which is 1600 x 1200, i.e. 1.92MP), the images are completely
>>> sharp, but limited to the 1.92MP resolution of the display, of course.
>>> I'm talking about viewing at normal distances, and using the computer
>>> display instead of paper prints.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>
>> Thanks David I will try and look through differing software. I have an
>> old Photoshop but use Ulead PhotoImpact (don't laugh!!).
>
> Ken, try downloading Irfanview (free) & see if that fixes the problem:
> <http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm>
Yes thanks I will give it a try.
Ken
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 5:37 am
From: nospam
In article <75qq1nF18q7ogU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
> >>> method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
> >>> which do it better.
> >>
> >> bullshit.
>
> > I second your "bullshit"--I have and like Irfanview, but Chris's assertion
> > is patently, and obviously, untrue.
>
> I haven't Photoshop myself,
yet you insist it's worse.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 5:37 am
From: nospam
In article <75qpcjF19nqloU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > cs4 uses the gpu for zooming and rotating, without any artifacts at
> > all. gimp doesn't.
>
> There's nothing the gpu can do that the cpu can't, except do it
> faster. And there are some sophisticated image transforms cpus will do
> which gpus won't, because they can't be done quickly.
specifics?
> There's no
> special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts the
> cpu can't.
cs4 can zoom to any level without any artifacts using the gpu. zoom to
29.47% or 71.94% and it's just as smooth as 50% and 25%. it can also
rotate the canvas (not the image).
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 5:45 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:75qpcjF19nqloU1@mid.individual.net...
> There's nothing the gpu can do that the cpu can't, except do it
> faster. And there are some sophisticated image transforms cpus will do
> which gpus won't, because they can't be done quickly. There's no
> special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts the
> cpu can't.
An interesting discovery I made :-
I was editing a movie using iMovie09 on a iMac G5, which has a video ram
problem.
After exporting the movie and uploading to youtube, I found my movie had the
same video
problems. So I went back to my previous version of iMovie HD, which didn't
produce
the same video errors that my 'screen' has.
My conclusion is/was that the later iMovie09 uses the GPU RAM and that
iMovieHD(06,07)
didn't.
clips are availible here :-
http://www.youtube.com/davewhisky
cat flap : done with iMovie09
cat flap action : done iMovieHD
not the most exciting of subjects.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 6:14 am
From: nospam
In article <gt9i96$lbn$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
> I was editing a movie using iMovie09 on a iMac G5, which has a video ram
> problem.
> After exporting the movie and uploading to youtube, I found my movie had the
> same video
> problems. So I went back to my previous version of iMovie HD, which didn't
> produce
> the same video errors that my 'screen' has.
> My conclusion is/was that the later iMovie09 uses the GPU RAM and that
> iMovieHD(06,07)
> didn't.
your conclusion is incorrect. imovie '09 is not an updated version of
imovie hd, but an entirely new application, both of which use the gpu.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 6:09 am
From: "J. Clarke"
nospam wrote:
> In article <75qpcjF19nqloU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> cs4 uses the gpu for zooming and rotating, without any artifacts at
>>> all. gimp doesn't.
>>
>> There's nothing the gpu can do that the cpu can't, except do it
>> faster. And there are some sophisticated image transforms cpus will
>> do which gpus won't, because they can't be done quickly.
>
> specifics?
>
>> There's no
>> special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts
>> the cpu can't.
>
> cs4 can zoom to any level without any artifacts using the gpu. zoom
> to
> 29.47% or 71.94% and it's just as smooth as 50% and 25%. it can also
> rotate the canvas (not the image).
In that case it is the first video system in the history of the world that
can display images without artifacts.
Now you may notice them, but that does not mean that they are not there.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Twilight Zone
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/970b24e1bd4b4008?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 12:58 am
From: Bob Larter
Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:DYwJl.24593$Db2.24065@edtnps83...
>> "Troy Piggins" <usenet-0904@piggo.com> wrote in message
>> news:20090428155410@usenet.piggo.com...
>>> * Dudley Hanks wrote :
>>>> Where else would a blind guy shoot his dog?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=71
>>> C'mon mate. I know you're blind, but you can't get the horizon
>>> /that/ badly off horizontal :)
>>>
>>> That's one proud and intelligent looking dog.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Troy Piggins
>> But, Troy, it's the "Twilight Zone" ... :)
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>
> Ooops, sorry, forgot to rotate the image. Here's the link to the
> semi-correct orientation...
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=74&g2_navId=x01609f2c
"Error
Item not found.
Back to the Gallery"
Eh?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: HELP
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ebed45f78e8d52bf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 1:11 am
From: Bob Larter
Plouff Lou wrote:
> My daughter is on a Pc, I am on webtv. She sent me pictures, of my
> granddaughter, by attachments, and They are too big for me to see, is
> there a way she can reduce the size?
<http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm>
I think that reducing them to 640x480 might be small enough for WebTV.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: suggestions for large group shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/49b3da273bd74bd7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:33 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Lloyd W. <lloydwells2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm the team photographer for my daughter's crew team and I've always taken
> candids and photos of individual boats, for example:
> http://robertmacturk.smugmug.com/gallery/8006300_HPvpc#520634538_kTWVa
> I'd like to get a shot of the entire team (41 athletes and 5 coaches) on the
> dock with the obligatory crossed oars. I've never done as large a group as
> this and am looking for some tips from anyone who has experience with large
> group photos.
> I'll be using a Pentax K10D and have both 18-55mm and 50-200mm lens
> available. I have access to the boat house, which overlooks the dock, and
> planned to have an assistant use my Canon G9 (24-44mm) as backup and
> different perspective.
> Any ideas/tips/caveats/etc. will be greatly appreciated.
Prefer to use distance rather than a wide angle of view to get them
all in, because bums look much bigger at the edges of wide angle views
:-)
--
Chris Malcolm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:36 am
From: Shawn Hirn
In article <75p725F19hjl0U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Lloyd W." <lloydwells2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm the team photographer for my daughter's crew team and I've always taken
> candids and photos of individual boats, for example:
> http://robertmacturk.smugmug.com/gallery/8006300_HPvpc#520634538_kTWVa
>
> I'd like to get a shot of the entire team (41 athletes and 5 coaches) on the
> dock with the obligatory crossed oars. I've never done as large a group as
> this and am looking for some tips from anyone who has experience with large
> group photos.
>
> I'll be using a Pentax K10D and have both 18-55mm and 50-200mm lens
> available. I have access to the boat house, which overlooks the dock, and
> planned to have an assistant use my Canon G9 (24-44mm) as backup and
> different perspective.
>
> Any ideas/tips/caveats/etc. will be greatly appreciated.
A panoramic shot might work best. Put the camera on a tripod with the
24-44mm lens. Pose the kids on the dock. Position the camera so you get
a reasonable number of people in the photo and see their faces and some
of the background. Start with the camera positioned on the right third
of the group, then move it to the middle, then to the left third and
keep the tripod at the same height for each shot. Then stitch the photos
together with whatever photo stitching software you like.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo Frame, Slide-Show Without Video Files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b6495ca52c41f858?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:37 am
From: Shawn Hirn
In article <BwDJl.3273$b11.2095@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Talal" <titani@airmail.net> wrote:
> Hello Shawn,
>
> I am displaying pages of a book, scanned, and the audio reads the page
> displayed. The user can flip a page, and the audio for the new page plays
> automatically. The frames I tried did not let me do that. I can flip
> pages, yet the audio cannot be synchronized with pages. I thought some
> frame(s) should enable me to associate an MP3 file with a JPG file.
It seems to me you are trying to turn a picture frame into a book
reader. You might be better off with an Amazon kindle, but I have no
idea if they will accept your scanned in book.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c74cad4ac255f35?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 4:06 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:75le53F18vavvU2@mid.individual.net:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in
>>> news:jb09v49aeql3e7vijm33ulahte7dclfau6@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
>>>> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>>>>
>>>>>nuff sed
>>>>
>>>> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
>>>> really into photography, why not have both?
>>>>
>>> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a
>>> way to use a DSLR each and every time.
>>
>> Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
>> a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
>> balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
>> most avoid for good practical reasons :-)
> Or, you can spend hours and hours designing and building a frigging timed
> exposure mechanism to GO with that little digicam, or you can tether a
> Pentax K20D to the ballons and use the timed shutter facility to do it
> instead.
What on earth is the use of a timed shutter when you already have full
radio control of aim and zoom, radio live view to see the image, and a
radio controlled shutter to take the photograph? No, none of those
facilities are available from the camera manufacturer, but you don't
have to design and build the kit yourself, it can all be bought from
third party suppliers, and is routinely used by the aerial
photographers who use balloons, kites, and masts. DSLRs are often
eschewed in favour of high performance compacts because of the weight
and lack of motorised zoom.
--
Chris Malcolm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 5:03 am
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <MPG.24620caf94bdaeb698bfbe@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>Don't forget that full colour sensors are the future.
With that level of oversampling it doesn't matter whether the sensors
are "full colour" at each site or a Bayer type matrix of single colours.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
==============================================================================
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