 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 3:53 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html
>
> Similar deal. No contrast anywhere, half the frame is bleached white,
> and it doesn't even appear to be properly in focus in places.
Nice knotty tree. Lovely texture on that log.
What you may want to do is find out where your camera's exposure
compensation setting is and bring it down a little.
Of course, you can always try to adjust the image in post, here's an
example with the log picture. Not the greatest, but definitely gives
richer tones. (I'm using Aviary for this, which is powerful (in the
right hands) I would have preferred the Curves tool in Gimp or Photoshop.)
http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/3855500/3855504_9d0a_625x625.jpg
>
> These images are scaled down; usually the full-res image is horribly
> grainy too. (Because, let's face it, usually it *isn't* a dazzlingly
> bright June afternoon, and my camera is supremely insensitive to light.
> If it's not blinding sunshine, it wants to use the flash...)
>
> There's no way my camera would ever capture the lush colours and sharp
> edges of the images you show.
Sure it can! Careful management of exposure, and judicious
post-processing work can make any image really pop. If your camera has a
very noisy sensor, look into something like NeatImage to clean up the
noise. I use it for extremely high ISO images (e.g. ISO 3200, or 3200
pushed 1 stop) and it works great.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 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.
Well, it's the end user doing the decoding. And if I upload an h.264 video
to a host and that host distributes it, the host isn't doing encoding or
decoding any more than the routers are. So while this may be business as
usual, it doesn't sound like the legal system has figured out the reality of
the situation yet.
> 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.
That would be my guess, yes, but this is the legal system we're talking about.
And what happens if the video transcoding is hosted where there's no
software patents? Does that make it clear to send that encoded video back to
the USA?
I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as either side makes it seem. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Same story here, except 8 used to crash about 50% of the time when I
> tried to crop an image. Got X2 now and TBH I don't remember it trying
> to index all the images on my HD (maybe I turned it off somehow, I don't
> remember).
It only does it once at the start, of course. :-) Maybe you don't have
enough images to notice, but I carry several thousand fairly large images on
my machine.
(OK, make that 40,000 images totaling 60+G. It takes a while to scan them all.)
Look in your appdata\local\corel\thumbs and see what you have there. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:24:07 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>
> Second, if you're talking about the ISO setting rather than the
> exposure, that's about how much you pre-bias the electrons in the
> sensor. Basically, you load up each pixel of the sensor with some
> electrons, and if light kicks out an electron, you add one to the
> intensity of the light there. Adding more electrons makes it easier to
> get kicked out.
No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO
setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> No, there is no pre-bias; that is not how the sensors work. The ISO
> setting only affects amplification of the analogue sensor output.
OK.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 00:56:35 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
>
> I've actually wondered this myself - raw editing software gives you the
> option to adjust the exposure; obviously, you can't pull details out
> doing this that are completely washed out or completely underexposed, but
> it is possible to bring additional detail out by making changes to the
> exposure setting (ev) after the photo has been taken.
>
> I've done it, so clearly it's possible, I just don't understand the math
> behind it.
When the camera creates a JPEG file, part of the raw data is discarded and
the rest is then adjusted to fit in the 0-255 range. The camera picks a
black-point somewhere near the low end of the (raw) range, and all values
below that are made black (i.e. 0) in the JPEG. Similarly, a white-point
is selected, and all values above that are made white (i.e. 255). When you
edit a RAW file, you have access to the parts that would otherwise have
been cut off. If the exposure was somewhat less than perfect, there can be
useful data in those parts.
Also, the raw data has a higher bit-depth than a JPEG, typically 12 or 14
versus lossy compressed 8. This gives you more leeway for making
adjustments without getting posterization.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 18:00:07 +0200, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Also, the raw data has a higher bit-depth than a JPEG, typically 12 or
> 14 versus lossy compressed 8. This gives you more leeway for making
> adjustments without getting posterization.
That makes sense to me - thanks!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 08:16:58 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/5/2010 5:35 AM, scott wrote:
> Wedding photogs are another group of pro's that some will do jpeg rather
> than raw, simply because they want a ton of images.
That's not strictly true - I know a couple guys who do wedding photos and
do their captures in raw format. They just bring several large memory
cards with them so they can capture lots of images.
Though I suppose it depends on what they're photographing at the wedding;
if it's the lucky couple, then raw is probably more commonly used than,
say, photos of guests at the reception.
> Though most that don't have high volumes of images prefer raw. I prefer
> raw simply because I'm a control freak.
Same here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 09:09:05 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 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.
Well, yeah, but "somehow guess" is something that comes with taking some
trial photos (which I tend to do) until you get a feel for what the light
levels should be like for a particular setting.
My camera (a Canon PowerShot S50) lets me see what the exposure will be
without taking a picture - so I can adjust it before even shooting. I
typically set the value to -1/3 because I can use raw tools to lighten it
up (that idea of not overexposing the image that someone else mentioned).
Then when I process it, I typically will increase the colour saturation
to some degree, as well as adjusting the white balance (my camera's auto-
balance isn't that good; I usually manually adjust the white balance in
the camera so it's "close" and then do a final adjustment on the image
when I'm reviewing the image).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 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.
Youtube doesn't distribute a video decoder. Flash has it built-in, so it's
Adobe who is distributing the decoder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
