Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 4 Nov 2009 09:41 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:bCaIm.1511$Ym4.1142(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:fqaIm.50462$Db2.10523(a)edtnps83... > [] >> I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will >> interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was >> thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the >> digital zoom being used. >> >> I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only >> to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the portion >> "zoomed" in to. >> >> Take Care, >> Dudley > > Correct - it's not a double operation in the firmware, just a simple > in-camera crop. Like digital zoom, it may have the advantage that > functions like exposure or focus measurement can be carried out on fewer > pixels, in the wanted part of the image, and may therefore be faster or > more accurate. Digital zoom then simply expands the result of a crop to > create the number of pixels the user expects. > > Cheers, > David On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital zoom depending on the image size selected. Effectively, it won't allow upsizing. If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing would need to be done. It's a handy setting. Take Care, Dudley
From: -hh on 4 Nov 2009 10:17 the lame Copy & Paste troll writes: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of > >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions... > > And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot > your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your > shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ... Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S. And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's sunlit shot. -hh
From: David J Taylor on 4 Nov 2009 11:44 "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:RogIm.50476$Db2.25978(a)edtnps83... [] > On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital > zoom depending on the image size selected. > > Effectively, it won't allow upsizing. > > If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a > smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing > would need to be done. > > It's a handy setting. > > Take Care, > Dudley Although I've used neither the Panasonic "Extra Optical Zoom" nor the A720, it does sound quite similar, except that Panasonic automatically selects the smaller number of pixels. Cheers, David
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Nov 2009 17:00 On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:17:11 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >the lame Copy & Paste troll writes: >> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of >> >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions... >> >> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot >> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your >> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ... > >Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I >also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online >years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S. BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!! > >And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that >represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy >& flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far >revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's >sunlit shot. > >-hh Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls' bullshit as often as he does.) And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda yadda... LOL! http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4075539835_e91b811770_o.jpg (Let's all watch them again claim how JPG artifacts are NR artifacts. That's always funny.) Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @ 330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image stabilization in that camera either. No crop, downsize only. Note: also devoid of *any* shadows on the subject whatsoever, no flash used. I happened to still have this one handy on my old HDD that I threw online last night to look for something unrelated, in my give-aways scrapshot folder before deleting it. Good thing I forgot to delete it. With my talents and expertise, I'll beat every last one of you fool snapshooter DSLR-Trolls with *ANY* P&S camera, any time, any subject, anywhere. Guaranteed. LOL!
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 4 Nov 2009 19:18
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:00:24 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > >Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @ >330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image >stabilization in that camera either. For anyone that still might doubt the ambient light levels, I just noticed another telling feature in the images themselves that show the drastic differences in light levels. Compare the birds' iris-sizes between this one of mine taken with another P&S camera that I posted earlier (using 735mm optical focal-length): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3528/4072075593_1553bcbaa1_o.jpg And this one mentioned in the previous post in this sub-thread: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4075539835_e91b811770_o.jpg I'm sure that the more biologically astute amongst you might even be able to determine the exact ambient light levels by measuring those birds' iris sizes alone. (Within a margin of error between the dusk and daylight species' seeing requirements. As well as knowing and compensating for each species pupil and eye size. The Green Heron with the vastly larger iris size being a much smaller species than the Cormorant.) I thought it an interesting nature-photo observation of mine. The birds' eyes reflecting the aperture of camera lens required for the light levels. And yet further proof that my images and words are not in any way equivalent to the usual DSLR-Trolls' heaps of endless bullshit. Even my scrapshot pictures are worth more than 1,000 true words. |