Jack,
Thanks for the info, I will try using film and scanning.
I was wondering why you used an f-stop of 2.8, I would
think that maximum depth of field is desired, so an f-stop
of 16 or 22 would be better. Stopping down, you would
then use longer shutter speeds but get better
sharpness across the depth range. I think.

Harold


"Jack Couilliard" <jack underscore couilliard at hotmail dot com> wrote in
message news:3e24a247$1@news.povray.org...
> > What digital camera did you use?
>
> Olympus c-3040 (3 Megapixel). Not the world's best digicam, but certainly
> not the worst. I held my f-stop at 2.8 and shot 12 shots in tiff mode with
> auto whitebalancing turned off. Shots were spaced one exposure apart using
> different shutter speeds (ie 1/800, 1/400, 1/200, etc). I also used a
remote
> control and tripod to minimize pixel drift from one shot to the next. 12
> shots was probably overkill, I am planning on using 5 or so for some tests
> in the future.
>
> > I wonder if a regular film camera would work?
>
> I'm sure it would, but you have the extra step of scanning in your
negatives
> (I don't think you would be able to get good results scanning prints,
which
> only hold 200dpi or so). Scanning 35mm file might even have a couple
> advantages over digital. Film would provide a constant "white balance",
> although in many cameras you can turn auto whitebalancing off. Also, good
> negative scanners can capture a higher dynamic range (10, 12 or 16
> bits/pixel) than digital cameras, decreasing the number of braketed shots
> needed to make an HDRI image.
>
> Anyway, good luck. I hope to see some of your results.
>
> Jack
>
>

Post a reply to this message