For the purpose of getting some 'grab shots' while driving taxi, I 
finally settled on a point-and-shoot Pentax Optio A30.  The shake 
reduction was the primary consideration.  OFten the pictures I want to 
take are night scenes with lots of radiant lights, which quickly show up 
blur from pressing the shutter.  Here are a few test shots, in the wild, 
after having read just enough of the manual to know how to load the 
battery, and using all automatic settings.  I was quite encouraged by 
the results.

http://tinyurl.com/5mpjna

Post a reply to this message

Looking forward to seeing these pics - looks like you've exceeded your 
daily bandwidth from the hosting provider, though - popular shots, no 
doubt. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> - looks like you've exceeded your 
> daily bandwidth from the hosting provider,

didn't realize that

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 11 May 2008 21:13:36 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>  
did spake, saying:

> For the purpose of getting some 'grab shots' while driving taxi, I  
> finally settled on a point-and-shoot Pentax Optio A30.  The shake  
> reduction was the primary consideration.  OFten the pictures I want to  
> take are night scenes with lots of radiant lights, which quickly show up  
> blur from pressing the shutter.  Here are a few test shots, in the wild,  
> after having read just enough of the manual to know how to load the  
> battery, and using all automatic settings.  I was quite encouraged by  
> the results.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5mpjna

Well it does seem to keep it stable, I have to use the burst for such  
things and hope at least one comes out okay. Is it me though or do they  
seem a bit noisy close-up? Only a problem if you decide to do some close  
cropping, but have you got any stable shots with the IS system turned off?

Good photos though, you need to create a dashboard swivel mount :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

I like the urban feeling in the photos.

  Maybe you could do an entire urban photo series, using the same kind
of urban ambience as in the second photo.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> I was quite encouraged by the results.

Looks OK to me...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> 
> Well it does seem to keep it stable, I have to use the burst for such  
> things and hope at least one comes out okay. Is it me though or do they  
> seem a bit noisy close-up? 

Yes there are far too many variables for this to be a useful test.  It 
was more a matter of basic proof of concept, can I snap a shot from a 
moving car or in low light and get something even remotely useful? 
Previously, this was not possible.  And yes, next I will try some shots 
'in the field' with side by side comparisons of SR turned on and off.

Understaning the noise and jpeg artifacting will require me to boost my 
understanding of how digital imaging and how these digital cameras work 
by a factor of 1000 at least! But it seems to me that focus, exposure, 
and what is probably some sort of automatic digital filtering applied by 
the camera's various exposure 'modes' are all factors in this.  Further, 
these shots were cropped, resized, and saved from Photoshop at different 
jpeg 'quality levels' in order to get a file < 1 Mb each time.  In 
general the texture in the the foreground pavement seemed to be the most 
sensitive to artifacting and is what I kept my eye on when resaving the 
images.

Since I used fully automatic settings, how the camera acquires a focus 
automatically a factor I think.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:54:26 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> - looks like you've exceeded your
>> daily bandwidth from the hosting provider,
> 
> didn't realize that

Still getting the message:

The daily bandwidth limit for this customer has been exceeded. Try again 
after midnight, EST.
Click here for more information.

When going to that URL.  "Here" is a link, and it says nothing 
particularly useful (just links to the site's main page)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I like the urban feeling in the photos.
> 
>   Maybe you could do an entire urban photo series, using the same kind
> of urban ambience as in the second photo.
> 

Thanks Warp.  Yes, I find a fascination in the second photo with the 
density of information and simultaneity of events.  That sense, perhaps 
the 'ambience' of urban life to which you refer, is what I find so 
captivating about the city and is something that I can remember excited 
me from the very first time I got off the bus exactly 30 years ago.  I 
can remember how, in those days, I used to write letters to friends 
describing my experiences here, and would dwell on the activity, on a 
single street corner, in a single moment.

Interesting to me about that second photo is the car's rearview mirror. 
  It is both tiresome and unavoidably cliche, but also very difficult to 
avoid including when framing shots from inside the window of the car.  I 
wonder if it could add a 'dimension' to be exploited with this kind of 
image.

A further dimension that is not communicated in the shot is how I am 
taking it while simultaneously turning to deal with the instructions 
from a customer, who is himself barking at me as he is in the process of 
climbing into the car.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 12 May 2008 16:11:42 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>  Well it does seem to keep it stable, I have to use the burst for such   
>> things and hope at least one comes out okay. Is it me though or do  
>> they  seem a bit noisy close-up?
>
> Yes there are far too many variables for this to be a useful test.  It  
> was more a matter of basic proof of concept, can I snap a shot from a  
> moving car or in low light and get something even remotely useful?

So that would be a yes.

> Previously, this was not possible.  And yes, next I will try some shots  
> 'in the field' with side by side comparisons of SR turned on and off.

Reading from Jim H and below why not get a Flickr or Picasa account and  
stick them all up their?

> Understaning the noise and jpeg artifacting will require me to boost my  
> understanding of how digital imaging and how these digital cameras work  
> by a factor of 1000 at least! But it seems to me that focus, exposure,  
> and what is probably some sort of automatic digital filtering applied by  
> the camera's various exposure 'modes' are all factors in this.

Heh I would suggest reading the manual, but having read about five or six  
for various models I won't say that'll be any help. They barely tell you  
what the camera does let alone how it actually works :-)

>  Further, these shots were cropped, resized, and saved from Photoshop at  
> different jpeg 'quality levels' in order to get a file < 1 Mb each time.

Well yeah that'll do it :-)

>  In general the texture in the the foreground pavement seemed to be the  
> most sensitive to artifacting and is what I kept my eye on when resaving  
> the images.
>
> Since I used fully automatic settings, how the camera acquires a focus  
> automatically a factor I think.

Had a quick Google and it seems a standard multi-point focus with face  
recognition. So it should spot faces and try to focus on and expose them  
all automatically. I'd have thought that might cause a problem with delay  
if you're moving, but your test photos look fine

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message