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: TIPA awards for Nikon again..
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1aff38ab2b6a193d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 27 2009 11:50 pm
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:13:55 +0100, Bertram "Focus/Sosumi" Paul,
Atlantic-Diesel.com wrote:

> Hm, seems the TIPA is copying Bertram Paul: last year I choose the D300, so
> does TIPA. Few months ago I choose D90, so does TIPA.
> Darn copycats!
>
> I'll make my own award: the BEPA award !

Hmm, seems that Bertram Paul is copying Focus/Sosumi, who also
chose the D300, followed by the D90, and who also post from the same
location. Small world, huh, copycat/sock puppet? :)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:16 am
From: Robert Spanjaard

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:13:55 +0100, Bertram Paul, Atlantic-Diesel.com
wrote:

> http://www.europe-nikon.com/news_room/news.html?locale=en_GB&bandwidth=broad&id=2120&type_index=2&universe=home

http://www.tipa.com/english/XIX_tipa_awards_2009.php

I see that Canon got five, and they didn't even bother to inform the
press about it.

But ofcourse, for Nikon, it's something special. :-P

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:01 am
From: "Bertram Paul"

"Robert Spanjaard" <spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote in message
news:52843$49f6c950$5469b618$15311@cache90.multikabel.net...
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:13:55 +0100, Bertram Paul, Atlantic-Diesel.com
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.europe-nikon.com/news_room/news.html?locale=en_GB&bandwidth=broad&id=2120&type_index=2&universe=home
>
> http://www.tipa.com/english/XIX_tipa_awards_2009.php
>
> I see that Canon got five, and they didn't even bother to inform the
> press about it.

1 SLR versus 2 Nikon. Like last year.
This time they won the Expert trophy: only experts know how to use it ;-)

> But ofcourse, for Nikon, it's something special. :-P

Right, that's why Canon is advertising so many "awards" on their site?
Lamest: TIPA award of 2007 is getting a little stale, maybe?

--
---
Bertram Paul
http://atlantic-diesel.com
Digital Photography Forum

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:00 am
From: Hughes

On Apr 28, 8:07 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The source will be resolution charts set at a long hallway with
> >good enough lighting so you can ignore the atmospheric
> >haze. In this scenerio, an 8-bit webcam and 12-bit DSLR
> >with similar 5.7 micron pixel can see or resolve the same
> >bar details given same telescope/telephoto lens used in
> >both? You said the difference in recorded MTF between
> >8-bit and 12-bit converter would be tiny. Does this also
> >occur in resoluting chart testing in long hallway or did
> >you frame the statement in astronomical imaging
> >scenerio exclusively due to atmospheric haze that
> >can render 8-bit vs 12-bit indistinguishable? Thanks.
>
> Do the experiment and see. My expectation would be that you'll see very
> little difference.
>
> That said, with a color sensor there are some very strange resolution
> effects, and what you actually get depends on the sort of processing
> applied. DSLRs tend to have much more sophisticated image processing to
> eliminate fringing and Moire artifacts, and webcams usually just
> de-Bayer and little else.
>
> If you're comparing just the cameras, your test if fine. If you're
> trying to learn something more fundamental about the effects of bit
> depth, you really need to use a customized webcam driver that lets you
> collect the raw image, and work with the raw DSLR image as well.
>
> An easy test is to take a 12-bit raw with your DSLR, and convert it to
> 8-bit. Look at the two side-by-side and see if there is any visible
> difference.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

You didn't mention about the effect of noise in imaging
resolution chart bars near the resolving limit where the light
grey and dark grey merging into just grey. I tried to research
in the net the difference in the noise between webcam pixels
and DSLR pixels but couldn't find any articles. They
have the same pixel (or sensel) sizes of say 5.7 micron.
The advantage of DSLR over point & shoot is the former
has pixels size twice that of point&shoot's 2 micron size.
Now I wonder how webcam pixel noise compare with
dslr pixel noise since they have the same sizes. Say
the worse webcam in the world made in china with
the worse 5.7 micron size pixels. Could it be that
because it is big enough, it has reached a certain
critical size threshold where the signal to noise ratio
is big enough that noise is suppressed in any 5.7 micron
size pixels of the best and worse made in the planet
(used in the cheapest webcam and priciest of DSLR?)
Or are webcam pixel noise as bad as point&shoot
and they aren't noticed because one doesn't make
make portrait picture out of webcam. If this latter
is true. Then what is the effect of noise in imaging
resolution bars near the resolving limits where the
light grey and dark grey bars are in the threshold
of turning pure grey (when maximum resolution
is reached)?

Hughes

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:12 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

Dave Typinski wrote:
> Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> If you stack 250 8-bit images, the resulting image has close to 16 bits
>> of actual depth. It will be better than the DSLR image because it has
>> higher dynamic range, and because it was constructed from images with
>> better spatial resolution, selected to beat the seeing.
>
> What's a common exposure time for each image? And how soon can that
> be repeated?
>
> I get the overall idea of image stacking, but not much else about it.
> How can you get 250 images of Jupiter without letting it rotate
> noticeably in the process? A one second repetition rate would allow
> Jupiter to turn through about 2½°.

A webcam is typically operating at 25 or 30 fps. So the time is about
30x shorter than you imagine. Also throwing away the worst images (as in
lowest adjacent pixel contrast) before stacking helps a lot. The so
called lucky exposures are much better than the average one.
>
> Does CCD imagery simply not take very long, or does the software
> somehow correct for the changes in the image?

Webcam captures what is intended to be a realtime moving picture for
something nice and bright like Jupiter. This in effect freezes the
seeing (but only some of the images will be sharp). First order
atmospheric distortions move the image about at the focal plane which is
why shift to centroid and stacking works so well after you have thrown
away the obviously wrecked images.

Regards,
Martin Brown

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 1:59 am
From: bugbear

David J Taylor wrote:
> nospam 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.
>
> I think you need to prepare for surprises, then! I think you will find
> that all photographic quality cameras use more than 8-bit ADCs. Even a
> P&S camera analysed in 2006 (Canon S70) showed a linear dynamic range of
> 2000:1, 11 bits.

The Canon powershots are only 10 bit (sadly), at least that's
what in the RAW files.

BugBear

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:02 am
From: bugbear

Hughes wrote:

I'm sorry; I've lost track.

What are you actually trying to achieve here?

Oh, and whilst bottom posting is good, it's only good
in conjunction with editing the post you're replying too.

BugBear

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:06 am
From: bugbear

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?

BugBear

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:26 am
From: Pierre Vandevenne

On 28 avr, 09:00, Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You didn't mention about the effect of noise in imaging
> resolution chart bars near the resolving limit where the light
> grey and dark grey merging into just grey. I tried to research
> in the net the difference in the noise between webcam pixels
> and DSLR pixels but couldn't find any articles. They

Noise in CCD (and CMOS - most of today's consumer imaging devices are
build around CMOS sensors) sensors is a really complex and multi-
factorial issue.

To get at the bottom of things, this document is a good start

http://astro.union.rpi.edu/documents/CCD%20Image%20Sensor%20Noise%20Sources.pdf

In order to get the info for a particular webcam, open it, identify
the sensor it uses and read the sensor data sheet. Some links here.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/molyned/web-cameras.htm

Current DSLR sensors detailed data sheets are usually not available
publicly.

> Now I wonder how webcam pixel noise compare with
> dslr pixel noise since they have the same sizes. Say
> the worse webcam in the world made in china with
> the worse 5.7 micron size pixels. Could it be that
> because it is big enough, it has reached a certain
> critical size threshold where the signal to noise ratio
> is big enough that noise is suppressed in any 5.7 micron

All other things being equal, and provided you chose your optical
train to sample optimally in all cases, larger pixels are usually
better. However, all other factors (and there are many other factors)
aren't equal, some of them already mentioned above . A very cheap
webcam is likely to use low quality sensors whose pixels do not
respond evenly to photons and generate different amounts of dark
current because of the impurities they contain. A cheap webcam is
likely to use poor clocks and noisy amplifiers. In the priciest DSLR,
the whole chain will generally be of much higher quality.

In my practical experience, current DSLRs beat webcams by a very wide
margin in terms of noise. But "webcam" is a matter of definition -
are those "webcams"? http://www.lumenera.com/products/index.php.

> Or are webcam pixel noise as bad as point&shoot
> and they aren't noticed because one doesn't make
> make portrait picture out of webcam.

Well, I don't think "portrait pictures" are a good test for absolute
resolution. :-)

Last but not least, in the constrained environment you describe,
unlike in astronomical applications, you can increase the signal to
get close to the optimum SNR.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:35 am
From: Pierre Vandevenne

On 28 avr, 04:05, Dave Typinski <möb...@trapezium.net> wrote:

> Oh! Much faster than I thought possible. CCD technology is
> apparently better than I realize.

Much faster - for example

http://www.cplab.com/PDF/Mega%20Speed%20V17.pdf

And cheap, widely available, CMOS based consumer P&S cameras are able
to do 1000+ fps...

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:38 am
From: "David J Taylor"

bugbear wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> nospam 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.
>>
>> I think you need to prepare for surprises, then! I think you will
>> find that all photographic quality cameras use more than 8-bit ADCs.
>> Even a P&S camera analysed in 2006 (Canon S70) showed a linear
>> dynamic range of 2000:1, 11 bits.
>
>
> The Canon powershots are only 10 bit (sadly), at least that's
> what in the RAW files.
>
> BugBear

.. but that's still significantly more than 8 bits.

Cheers,
David

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:00 am
From: Hughes

On Apr 27, 2:52 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-
part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 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

The 12-bit sensor gamma correction will be superior to
8-bit gamma correction, even if both will end up as 8-bit
non-linear jpeg image, right? By how many percentage
will the 12-bit be better than 8-bit? If they are the final
output, 12-bit would be obviously better than 8-bit. But
since both would end up as 8-bit, how then do you
qualify the difference? Any images comparisons of
both jpeg but one of them starting as 12-bit sensor
gamma corrected versus the second starting as 8-bit
sensor gamma corrected?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are todays LCD screen any good in bright weather
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d70e4ce3863b627f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:23 am
From: "Ken"

"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rLednQpGr75_kmvUnZ2dnUVZ8gKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:49f5a978$0$2471$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:49ef49a2$0$2544$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>I have an older Nikon 7900 with 2" screen and even in normal light
>>>sometimes have to take a guess when outside that I have got the subject
>>>in frame. I was thinking of getting a modern digi camera with 2.5 or
>>>bigger LCD screen but only if I feel convinced they are better to use
>>>outside. Whats the point in having to guess the shot???
>>>
>>> Anyone with a modern camera with the LCD that will work in brighter
>>> conditions?
>>>
>>> Ken
>>
>>
>> Thanks you to you all for helping with this.
>>
>> Coincidently we had a friend stay this weekend who had a Paznasonic FZ18
>> so was able to make comparisons with my Nikon. It does prove the modern
>> cameras LCD can be viewed in bright conditions. But it also proved that I
>> don't want to carry this size of camera around. So I am now looking for
>> smaller like the Panasonic TZ5 or TZ4 but the drawback is no viewfinder
>> but good zoom. The Canon G10 looks perfect but I haven't go that sort of
>> budget £400!!! Half that at most :-)
>>
>> So 28mm, viewfinder, image stabilisation, £200 max and I will start
>> looking at Dpreview unless anyone shouts with suggestions. I see Sony DSC
>> W170 looks interesting and wonder if anyone has any experience of this
>> camera?
>>
>> Ken
>
> Secondhand G9 *almost* fits the bill (not quite wide enough).

If money was no problem this would be my idea of the right camera - well the
G10

Ken

==============================================================================
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 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:24 am
From: "Ken"

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:NenJl.20303$OO7.11850@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Ken wrote:
>> "Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ooqbv41ejmt1ka3ohicotuntbgu8oqsrnk@4ax.com...
>>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> My monitor is set at the resolution it said in the manual 166 x 768?
>>>
>>> ???
>>> That must be some typo somewhere. Even 30 year old VT200 had a higher
>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> jue
>>
>> Oh dear -- Sorry!
>>
>> 1366 x 768
>>
>> Ken
>
> .. but what is your PC set to?
>
> David

It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:25 am
From: "Ken"

"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

Would it be better if I reduced the picture size before I started playing
with it in the software. Just a novices thought?

Ken

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:40 am
From: Ofnuts

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:53 am
From: "David J Taylor"

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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:52 am
From: Chris Malcolm

Matt Clara <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:75luumF18be3aU16@mid.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:13:30 +0100, 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?
>>>
>>> Help please - Ken
>>
>> Or what. Specifically, your software is not doing what it should be. The
>> image should look sharp at any resolution.

> Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50% or
> 100%?

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.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Corrupt Elites Plan Dispossession of American Citizens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c79005183ee0b90d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 1:40 am
From: Chris H

In message <eoe1v45dv7och02hmtemsgjophlljv6ub8@4ax.com>,
wismel@yahoo.com writes
>On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:18:22 -0700, Felix <felix@nada.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Stop Immigration, Start Deportation
>>
>>Commentary by Mitchell Brooks
>>I am convinced that immigration, legal and illegal, is the most deadly
>>threat to the United States.

Immigration has had a major effect on the USA. Without it the US would
not have had several hi-tech industries . At the last Survey about 50%
of the Engineers at Boeing were foreigners,. That is professional
design people.

There are large numbers of foreign professionals in the US keeping it
afloat. If you remove ALL immigrants the US will sink faster than it is
now

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 2:26 am
From: Chris H

In message <xfj6hNHtDs9JFAgS@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> writes
>In message <eoe1v45dv7och02hmtemsgjophlljv6ub8@4ax.com>,
>wismel@yahoo.com writes
>>On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:18:22 -0700, Felix <felix@nada.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Stop Immigration, Start Deportation
>>>
>>>Commentary by Mitchell Brooks
>>>I am convinced that immigration, legal and illegal, is the most deadly
>>>threat to the United States.
>
>Immigration has had a major effect on the USA. Without it the US would
>not have had several hi-tech industries . At the last Survey about 50%
>of the Engineers at Boeing were foreigners,. That is professional
>design people.
>
>There are large numbers of foreign professionals in the US keeping it
>afloat. If you remove ALL immigrants the US will sink faster than it is
>now
>

Actually ad to that most of the US space technology came from immigrants
as did most of he US Atomic program..... That is just in the last 80
years.

In fact without immigrants over the last 500 years where would the USA
be now? ( the southern 1/3 would be Mexican :-)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 1:43 am
From: Chris H

In message <c01725a0-4c7a-498a-a03c-7f6d4f40f913@y34g2000prb.googlegroup
s.com>, lastico <lasticoman@yahoo.com> writes
>Hi,
>
>What's the highest megapixels possible in APS-C
>DSLRs before noise makes the quality bad...

Currently about 15MP?

At least after that they all seem to go FX

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which Digital Photo Frame for Video?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0ecd4b87cffa7fb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:18 am
From: "Talal"

Hello,

I am looking for a photo frame that can do video well. I tried Pandigital
and Smartparts. I will display only long videos, so I need the frame to
support a file format with very good compression.

Thanks,
T.I.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo Frame, Slide-Show Without Video Files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b6495ca52c41f858?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:21 am
From: "Talal"

Hello,

I need my digital photo frame to execute a slide show, with music in the
background, and associate one photo jpg photo file with one mp3 music file.
I was able to achieve this by generating a video file, yet video files are
very large. I thought there should be a way to use still jpg photos, and
mp3 files, and display the photo for the duration of the mp3 file. The
digital photo frames I tried cannot do that. Do you know of a frame that
can do it?

Thanks,
T.I.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:52 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <bNAJl.1044$fy.629@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Talal" <titani@airmail.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I need my digital photo frame to execute a slide show, with music in the
> background, and associate one photo jpg photo file with one mp3 music file.
> I was able to achieve this by generating a video file, yet video files are
> very large. I thought there should be a way to use still jpg photos, and
> mp3 files, and display the photo for the duration of the mp3 file. The
> digital photo frames I tried cannot do that. Do you know of a frame that
> can do it?

May I ask what the point of your project is? Why not just do the slide
show in a standard way? What are you trying to achieve?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's tips for semi-pros
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/83dd5dc1e72232a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:39 am
From: "Bertram Paul"

I'm starting to wonder about the IQ (not meaning Image Quality) of Canon
shooters or at least how Canon seems to "rate" them.
These are Tips for semi-pros:

"Individual portraits and group photographs
The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. Use a larger
aperture for an individual portrait
(for example F8). This will accentuate the person you are photographing. If
you would you like to shoot
a group photograph in which everyone is sharply in focus, select a smaller
aperture, for example F16.
Try using both possibilities step by step in a single situation and compare
the results with each other.
Look especially at depth and blur."

I guess it was too difficult for them to include information about the
difference between tele and wide angle lenses.
Maybe that's in the real Pro advice?

"If your camera allows *this, you can adjust the light metering
yourself. Consider beforehand which part of the photograph
you want to be properly lit. **In the case of a portrait, this will
usually be the face. With 'partial spot metering' you can
measure very precisely. Certainly in difficult situations,
such as high contrasts, this can be worthwhile."

*LOL, which "semi-pro" shoots with a camera that doesn't allow this?
Caramba! Even my old crappy Powershot has 3 different light metring modes.
**I wouldn't have guessed this one....

--
---
Bertram Paul
http://atlantic-diesel.com
Digital Photography Forum

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pandigital Video Formats
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a4bd26fb3555536b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 28 2009 3:54 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <Az_Il.2908$b11.321@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Talal" <titani@airmail.net> 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.

Try contacting the frame's manufacturer to ask for technical assistance.

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

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

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

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

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic