For Rich and his fans.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 4 Feb 2010 18:23 > Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo > examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird > shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast > motion-detection capability of CHDK.- Hide quoted text - 45ms motion detection means nothing when you cannot take more than 1.3 fps. I am better off taking continuos shots with my DSLR at 3fps. The best DSLR can achieve up to 10. That is 1 frame nearly every 2*45ms. Then pick the best shot. Follow the link above, scroll to the 5th row, click on the last photo, lightpaint of the guy on the bench with the ball (http:// www.flickr.com/photos/36774021(a)N08/3739744960) and read on what the guy using CHDK has to say: "Not perfect but oh well, I'll post it anyway. I'll take all this more seriously when I get a DSLR, but for now I'm just having fun and trying stuff." DanP
From: NameHere on 4 Feb 2010 19:01 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:23:39 -0800 (PST), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Here's a fun link to browse some of the more popular CHDK P&S-camera photo >> examples <http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk> The lightning and bird >> shots are particularly interesting, taken with the 45ms-fast >> motion-detection capability of CHDK.- Hide quoted text - > >45ms motion detection means nothing when you cannot take more than 1.3 >fps. >I am better off taking continuos shots with my DSLR at 3fps. The best >DSLR can achieve up to 10. That is 1 frame nearly every 2*45ms. >Then pick the best shot. P&S can attain 10 fps too. That's not the issue here. How many photos are you going to waste at 10 fps waiting for a decent lightning strike when a P&S camera can do it without error on the first shot every time. Lightning strike shots can even be taken in daylight hand-held with a CHDK camera. Something that is impossible for you to accomplish with any DSLR. > >Follow the link above, scroll to the 5th row, click on the last photo, >lightpaint of the guy on the bench with the ball (http:// >www.flickr.com/photos/36774021(a)N08/3739744960) and read on what the >guy using CHDK has to say: >"Not perfect but oh well, I'll post it anyway. I'll take all this more >seriously when I get a DSLR, but for now I'm just having fun and >trying stuff." > >DanP Oh wait, let me browse the net and find a post where someone is giving up on the frailties, dust problems, cost, lost shots from changing lenses, and weight of their DSLRs, on ad-infinauseum ... Damn, there's so many I can't decide which of the hundreds of thousands are worth posting here. You're a troll and a fool. One who has now proved in the worldwide arena that you can't even use a simple P&S camera properly. Thanks for playing.
From: Ray Fischer on 5 Feb 2010 03:22 LOL! <lol(a)lol.org> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear ><bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >>NameHere wrote: >>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear >>> <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >>> >> >>> They also do a fine job of >>> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin >>> with. >> >>This is trivial; here an alogorithm: >> >>RAW 0 -> JEPG 0 >>RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX >> >>You speak as if this is some kind of achievment. > >Ask any DSLR owner who worships RAW and you'll find out that .... that you're a lying troll. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: bugbear on 5 Feb 2010 05:15 LOL! wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear > <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >> NameHere wrote: >>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear >>> <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >>> >>> They also do a fine job of >>> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin >>> with. >> This is trivial; here an alogorithm: >> >> RAW 0 -> JEPG 0 >> RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX >> >> You speak as if this is some kind of achievment. > > Ask any DSLR owner who worships RAW and you'll find out that it is very > much some kind of major achievement. Apparently none of their cameras are > capable of something so simple. They're always clamouring how they get two > or more stops of dynamic range out of the RAW data compared to the JPG file > their camera can produce. Go ahead, ask them. They're even stupidly willing > to spend an extra $100-$200 for the required software needed to repair what > their camera's firmware failed to do correctly in the first place. Then on > top of that they waste even more valuable hours of their life trying to > correct all the errors from their camera's firmware on every snapshot they > take. > > LOL! You've address none of th points I raised, choosing to attack a group who aren't even in this thread. You clearly just want to rant, despite my attempt to discuss matters of genuine interest. <END THREAD>
From: NameHere on 5 Feb 2010 12:43
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:14:45 +0000, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns) >to RGB. Wherever did you read this? Must have been one of those "net-truths" that are so popular. The "net-truths" that float to the top of a Google search because it's the most plausible and popular, but wrong, explanation for those who can't think very clearly. The vast majority that don't want to try to understand nor take the time to educate themselves on anything more complex. This comprises the majority of all Google search-hits within the first 3 pages of them which are offered. Someone's feeding you some pretty good manure and keeping you in the dark. Do you feel like a fungus yet? When converting my images to CMYK from their RGB sources it's easy to see how many of the colors are not a match and get shifted. The reverse also true. Have you never done this in any editor with even something as simple as a Granger Calibration Chart? The shifts and obvious gaps between the two color-spaces are astounding. Here's an example to show you, starting with a 3000x3000 16-bit RGB Granger Chart as the source. Sorry, I don't have a CMYK Granger-like chart handy to show you the reverse. It can only be approximated in CMYK anyway. And I've already wasted far too much of my valuable time trying to educate you to begin with. Any CMYK to RGB conversion of anything would, of course, show far less disastrous results. Though, come to think of it, the CMYK to RGB is already implied in the right-panel because the CMYK space has to be converted back again to JPG's RGB and your monitor. This would explain the serious gaps in the colors re-presented. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4332259033_c0dced9de7_o.jpg 3 discreet units of information vs. 4 discreet units of information. There can only be a rough approximation between the two. And you want to argue about 8 vs. 10 vs. 12 senosr bit-depths while ignoring something even more simple for an example? Trying to go from RGB to CMYK is like trying to go from RGB to reconstruct Bayer's RGGB. Though I'll admit, with slightly less difficulty. Have someone explain to you why you can't reconstruct the sensor's RGGB data from the resulting RGB file and you'll start to comprehend why CMYK and RGB are not equivalent. I can't be bothered with trying to educate someone on something so rudimentary. I've tried that in the past and it was a painstaking task not unlike trying to teach a worm how to flip a light switch. I wasn't going to address the rest of your comments because I was trying to spare you the embarrassment. So I'll just address this one to show you why I didn't bother. You can thank me for not addressing the rest of your post. |