 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 05 May 2010 16:28:37 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> you can get the latest Paint Shop Pro
>
> Yeah, would be great if it f'ing worked. :-)
Point. I'm still using v7.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I bet a £7,000 lense is really, really heavy...
>
> Usually you mount the tripod to the *lens* and the camera body hangs off
> the back:
>
> http://www.kiroastro.com/images/cannon/8640.jpg
>
> You don't want to be holding that by yourself for very long...
LOL! The lense is 8x bigger than the damned camera! :-D
Still, given that it's a high-powered zoom lense, you need to hold it
very still anyway...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0016.html
>>
>> (For whatever reason, my camera utterly refuses to focus on small
>> objects. I guess it's beyond the physical limits of the lense system or
>> something...)
>
> The fact that the corner is in focus, and is just a bit further away
> than the center, suggests that the camera focused as near as it could. A
> macro mode might get you a bit closer to your subject.
It is as I suspected then...
Presumably if I had a DSLR, I could fit a different lense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> ...but once the image has been taken, the exposure has already
>> happened. How can you change it after the fact?
>
> Think about how the camera works (in a very simple way). It counts
> photons for a certain length of time, applies a scale factor, then gamma
> correction and writes the byte values to a JPEG file.
>
> If you start with the JPEG file, you can undo the gamma, scale the data
> using some exposure-adjustment factor, then reapply the gamma. You then
> have a new file that will look similar to if the camera had used a
> different exposure. Obviously the further your scale factor is from
> 1.0, the more artifacts will be introduced to the image.
>
> However pros use the raw sensor data from the camera and not a JPEG.
> This allows them some margin to adjust the exposure later without adding
> any artifacts to the final JPEG image they create. Because of this it
> is extremely important not to saturate the sensor (ie 100% white) in any
> areas, it is impossible to get back detail in areas that are at 100%.
> If you under-expose it you can scale up the brightness without
> introducing artifacts (because usually the raw sensor data is higher bit
> depth than JPEG).
...in other words, you're not changing the exposure (i.e., the number of
seconds that the shutter opens) at all, you're simulating it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 21:09:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> Just FYI, the camera doesn't have any option to save anything but JPEG
>> format. You can adjust the colour balance (but not very much), and
>> exposure and IIRC you can manually set the shutter speed in case you're
>> insane.
>>
>> I still want a new camera. It's a PITA that I can't leave the batteries
>> in this one...
>
> What kind of camera have you got? (I suppose I could look at the EXIF
> tags.....Fujifilm FinePix S304 it looks like.
Yeah, that sounds right.
> Changing the shutter speed, though, that's not insane, that's sensible
> when you can tell how it will affect the image.
No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
*relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
It's not relative to what the camera chose.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
>
> Believe me, it is worth it. Especially a lens at that price (Just a
> guess: 400mm f/2.8 aperture, which would be one heck of a lens!)
It was the most expensive lense I could find in the catalogue. ;-) I'm
strange like that; when looking at a price list, I often go to the final
page, just to see how silly the price is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
>> jaw-droppingly expensive...
>
> It's less than pocket change for individuals or businesses doing actual work
> with it, as far as tools go.
Sure. I can believe that. It's just that _for an individual_ it's
exorbitantly expensive. (But then, it's not designed for individuals...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> No, I mean... When you adjust the exposure, you turn it up or down
> *relative* to what the camera thinks it should be. But with the shutter
> speed, you can have it automatic, or completely manual (i.e., you have
> to somehow *guess* what the number should be without any assistence).
> It's not relative to what the camera chose.
My point-n-shoot previews the effects of manual shutter speed and aperture on
the screen... it's pretty reliable, it usually only takes me one or two test
shots to get the effect I'm after. I don't quite understand how it does this for
the exposure times; presumably it's just a precalibrated brightness
change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Still, given that it's a high-powered zoom lense, you need to hold it very
> still anyway...
A rough rule of thumb is that you need a shutter speed of 1/focal length or
faster to get a blur-free hand-held shot. With the Canon 600m F4 (costing
just over 7K) you would be limited to using it in daylight handheld, or
maybe just about under floodlights if you crank up the ISO setting and can
tolerate a bit of image noise in the darker areas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Not really, there are some scary lawyer words buried in those owner's
>> manuals.
>
> I just read a recent discussion where someone went thru a bunch of user
> manuals for all the high-end cameras, including like the things that TV
> studios and digital movie production houses use, and they *all* say you
> have to go get your license for any commercial use. Indeed, individual
> viewers also need a license to watch any video that was *ever* in MPEG
> (h.264?) format that ever had any sort of money transfer associated with
> it.
>
> So if you take a video with a camera that records it as mpeg, transcode
> that to FLV, share it via youtube (where youtube makes money serving
> ads), and I watch it, I technically need a license to watch that video.
>
We read the same discussion, then.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
I suspect this is the one.
Engadget cleared up a lot of her story with this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
For the most part, I think they are right. The patents are in coding and
decoding, and patent infringement does not extend to the end user.
People building the encoder chips are already paying licenses to use the
patents, it's just software that hasn't been paying. I think there is a
mistake in the Engadget story, in that distributing an h.264 file would
still not be patent infringement for the end user. If the video encoder
paid their license and the video player did as well, should they finally
be asked to, then the video host should not be liable. Now, they mention
YouTube, and I suppose since currently YouTube does both encode from any
video type to h.264 and then display through a decoder that they are
distrubting, their flash player, that they might be liable to pay a
license as well.
Obligatory car analogy; think of Honda Hybrid owners. They do not need a
license from Toyota to use the car. They don't even need a license to
replace parts, as long as those parts are bought from people who hold a
license. And if they buy unlicensed parts, no one is going to come along
and repossess the car.
/still not legal advice
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
