|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
