 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 8:28 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> you can get the latest Paint Shop Pro
>
> Yeah, would be great if it f'ing worked. :-)
>
Snort.. Got X and X2. I use X, I won't touch X2, due to the mangling of
the damn photo browser in it (why the @#$@#$@ does a photo editor need
to scan videos, and not just the first frame, but the entire damn video,
before it can catalog it in the browser, for example?). Oh, yes. And
then there is the lovely fact that they never did have a "good"
integration between the animation editor (which only supported gif
anyway), and PSP, but at least they **had one**, for a while, then
removed that support too. Now you can't even extract, never mind create,
images in one. :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/05/2010 0:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've done it, so clearly it's possible, I just don't understand the math
> behind it.
there's not really any math involved, the sensor just captures a lot
more than a JPEG-file can store, but a RAW-file stores the unaltered
sensor-data (although in some cases that's not entirely true, but a good
camera will)
cu!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 07:56:18 +0200, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> On 6/05/2010 0:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've done it, so clearly it's possible, I just don't understand the
>> math behind it.
>
> there's not really any math involved, the sensor just captures a lot
> more than a JPEG-file can store, but a RAW-file stores the unaltered
> sensor-data (although in some cases that's not entirely true, but a good
> camera will)
>
> cu!
That makes sense, one of these days I may research it a bit more. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...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).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I can still use 8. The only reason I even bought the new one is that when
> working on vacation photos, I tend to open up a bunch from the same scene
> (so to speak), do the adjustments, pick which ones I want to keep, then
> exit out and tell the paint program to save everything. This fails on PSP8
> under Vista for some reason. Otherwise I was perfectly happy with the
> program.
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).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
