 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some people have managed to hack the firmware of several cheap Canon cameras
(Powershot/IXUS models). The hacks adds some neat additional features like
RAW files, manual control of shutter speed, ISO and focus, exposure and
focus bracketing etc.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
There also the possibility to script the camera behaviour in BASIC.
Using the hacked firmware I just tried the automatic exposure bracketing on
my IXUS 950 and it works like a charm (see the 8-bit HDR image below,
composited from 5 exposures with a freeware called TraumfliegerDRI).
http://www.oyonale.com/blog/2008/03/hacking-cheap-canon-camera.html
I did manual exposure bracketing before on the IXUS (to create 32-bit HDR
environments for 3D images) but it's hard to keep the camera still between
shots while changing the exposure value (the camera weighs 150g), so the HDR
made that way tend to be blurry.
Of course, more expensive models and SLRs can do that, but it's nice to get
some high-end features on such cheap models.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I had an A75, but the CCD eventually went bad. I had to bang it around
repeatedly in order to get it to "stabilize" the image, and then I could
take a few pictures. I loved that camera, though.
I replaced it with a newer model (A570) which has more mega-pixels, etc, but
I don't think it takes pictures as well as my old A75. One feature notably
lacking is the manual shutter speed control. On my A75, I could set it all
the way up to 30 seconds, which made for some fun night-time photos. The
new camera has only automatic settings. But more than that, the pictures
just look washed-out. It's like it's trying too hard to eliminate shadows,
and the end-result ends up looking very flat and grainy.
Maybe I'll try this out, though.
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:47e59454@news.povray.org...
> Some people have managed to hack the firmware of several cheap Canon
> cameras (Powershot/IXUS models). The hacks adds some neat additional
> features like RAW files, manual control of shutter speed, ISO and focus,
> exposure and focus bracketing etc.
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
> There also the possibility to script the camera behaviour in BASIC.
> Using the hacked firmware I just tried the automatic exposure bracketing
> on my IXUS 950 and it works like a charm (see the 8-bit HDR image below,
> composited from 5 exposures with a freeware called TraumfliegerDRI).
> http://www.oyonale.com/blog/2008/03/hacking-cheap-canon-camera.html
> I did manual exposure bracketing before on the IXUS (to create 32-bit HDR
> environments for 3D images) but it's hard to keep the camera still between
> shots while changing the exposure value (the camera weighs 150g), so the
> HDR made that way tend to be blurry.
> Of course, more expensive models and SLRs can do that, but it's nice to
> get some high-end features on such cheap models.
>
> G.
>
> --
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
> - Posters
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 47e7ebf2$1@news.povray.org...
> I replaced it with a newer model (A570) which has more mega-pixels, etc,
> but I don't think it takes pictures as well as my old A75. One feature
> notably lacking is the manual shutter speed control. On my A75, I could
> set it all the way up to 30 seconds, which made for some fun night-time
> photos. The new camera has only automatic settings. But more than that,
> the pictures just look washed-out. It's like it's trying too hard to
> eliminate shadows, and the end-result ends up looking very flat and
> grainy.
From what I understand, the maximum settings are camera-dependent, but you
can go much higher than the OEM settings. I tried 30s and 1/50000 shutter
speeds and 5000 ISO shot for instance.
Your A570 should be able to make 65 second shots.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escribió:
> The hacks adds some neat additional features like RAW files,[...]
>
> Of course, more expensive models and SLRs can do that, but it's nice to get
> some high-end features on such cheap models.
RAW files isn't a high-end feature. That is what Canon wants you to believe.
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/antifeatures
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
message de news: 47e82c82$1@news.povray.org...
>> The hacks adds some neat additional features like RAW files,[...]
> >
>> Of course, more expensive models and SLRs can do that, but it's nice to
>> get some high-end features on such cheap models.
>
> RAW files isn't a high-end feature. That is what Canon wants you to
> believe.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/antifeatures
Well, yes and no. That's in fact the conclusion of my blog post about CHDK,
that the hack opens features that are actually disabled rather than absent.
This is pure marketing, not technology, and I agree that's it's annoying
from a consumer's point of view. It's just strange to think that a cheap
little camera can do a 1/50000 shutter speed and that instead of using this
as a selling point Canon prefers to disable the feature and activate it only
on more expensive models. Same for RAW and the other features that CHDK
"liberates".
OTOH, this is the real world, not the FSF's fantasyland where everyone is a
geek, and this part of the article is, to be blunt, clueless. RAW *** is ***
a high-end feature not because camera manufacturers say so but because the
only people able to use RAW files are amateur/pro users who have a really
good understanding of photography and digital image processing. In fact,
shooting RAW on a Powershot can be occasionally useful but given the lens
quality it's also a little bit pointless. A real photography buff is going
to use a SLR with proper lenses and sensors anyway, not Powershot-like
cameras, except for the pics where top control doesn't really matter.
The Powershots are aimed at people who don't know about photography
technology or don't care that much. The selling point is that Powershots are
simple, point-and-shoot, fully automatic cameras that offer good quality
with minimal user control. This is really what people like the FSF blogger
have trouble understanding: for many users, the lack of power-user features
is itself a feature. In fact, many people have been burnt in the past by
featuritis in consumer products (VCRs anyone?). When I lend the camera to
other people, I often have to turn off the manual mode because the few
overrides made available by Canon are confusing to them. Yes, Canon could
enable RAW saving and then what? A very small percentage of the users would
know what it is and use it accordingly, and for the rest it would just add a
level of clutter in the already cluttered menus, with the additional risk of
people turning it on either accidentally or in the hope of making "better"
pictures without knowing that RAW images would fill up the disk much quicker
than the JPEG and require special software and large amounts of time to be
processed.
Now, if the FSF author had used the lack of battery indicator as an example
(something that is really meant to force users to buy a backup battery),
he'd have a much better point...
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's just strange to think that a cheap little camera can do a 1/50000
> shutter speed and that instead of using this as a selling point Canon
> prefers to disable the feature and activate it only on more expensive
> models.
It's just pure economics.
By disabling some little-used features and then making a higher-price
version with these features, they get more money from the rich people,
whilst still selling a cheap 99% functioning camera to everyone else.
That's an extreme way of looking at it, but you get the idea.
Any company with their head screwed on right does this, car manufacturers
have been selling mechanically identical cars with different software for
vastly different prices for ages.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:34:35 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Gilles Tran escribió:
>> The hacks adds some neat additional features like RAW files,[...]
> >
>> Of course, more expensive models and SLRs can do that, but it's nice to
>> get some high-end features on such cheap models.
>
> RAW files isn't a high-end feature. That is what Canon wants you to
> believe.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/antifeatures
Using RAW files is an advanced usage of the camera, though - I don't
disagree with the FSF article, but I never considered it an advanced
feature per se, but rather an advanced usage because you need software
that can understand raw files. But if you have such software (like the
Gimp with UFRAW, which is what I tend to use), you have a lot more
control over exposure settings and whatnot if the capture was bad. What
I wish was that the "auto" mode on my powershot S50 was capable of saving
the RAW output - I tend to use RAW a lot, but have to do so using manual
settings, which makes it take longer to configure the camera settings.
If I could do auto-everything except sending it through the JPEG
compressor, I'd be a happy guy.
A friend of mine showed me his camera last week - it actually saves both
RAW and JPEG - makes sense that it could, since it has to have the raw
data in order to generate the jpeg image - it just saves off the raw data
as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:33:16 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> In
> fact, shooting RAW on a Powershot can be occasionally useful but given
> the lens quality it's also a little bit pointless.
Well, for me it's not about the lens so much as it is correcting exposure
problems on the image. One of these days I'll be able to afford a real
digital SLR, though. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
