 | | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) I don't think I am. :-) I'm not saying that the end result of a 2x-downsampled 10x digital zoom will look any better in 24-bit color than a native 5x optical zoom would look in 24-bit color. It won't. What I'm saying is that a 2x-downsampled (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: What I made from the 4099 Robobots Designer Set
|
|
(...) Yeah! These are nice! Dang fleebnorks ruin everything! stuart (23 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish.photography, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) I didn't think that sounded right, but I couldn't figure out why. This sounds an awful lot like how LCD laptop screens work, where they look fine if you set the screen size according to the actual physical pixelation of the screen, but if you (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) I think you are confusing color depth with image area resolution. If the CCD chip has an area of X-by-Y pixels and you are at maximum optical zoom, then any form of digital zoom requires interpolating between adjacent real pixels. The color (...) (23 years ago, 22-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) I tried using thick white paper tape over my flash...and all I got was a blurry large glare spot where previously I'd been getting a crisp large glare spot. The problem is not so much in the quality of light as it is in the direction. If the (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
If you don't have alternative flash solutions there's a trick, put a small piece a transparent (Scotch) tape over the flash lens, it acts as a little diffuser and cost ~$0.000001. Maybe even a smear of some vaseline on the flash lens would work (I'm (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) Ah, but that only works if you've got hand-held flashes. Not all cameras have that capability (I know mine doesn't). So, to be more accurate, never use the built-in flash to photograph LEGO bricks. If you can set up a flash source that's not (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) Yeah, I'll second that. The GIMP rocks. John -- GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. (URL) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) ^^^^^^ Err, I mean a 48-bit image (16 bits per channel) (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish.photography)
|
| |
| | Re: taking good photos
|
|
(...) Unless you know what you're doing. In which case: nothing beats flashes -- not even the sun.[1] --Todd [1] Yup, high-power strobe flashes are even brighter than the sun. Try making a 1/1000 second exposure at f/22 or f/32 from sunlight! And (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.publish.photography)
|
