Can other cameras do this?
Tim
FD-91.... But it seems to me that nothing can touch this thing when it comes
to producing 640x480 graphics for the web.
It has 14x optical zoom, shutter speeds up to 1/4000th sec
(http://www.blairsville.com/hummers), floppy storage (no wires), and a macro
capability that's only limited by the amount of light that can get into the
lens (http://www.blairsville.com/upclose.jpg). Are there any "modern"
cameras that can do this?
tim
Phut
preview.
Phut
"Tim" <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
Don Coon
"still camera" quality lens in place of the FD-91's "video camera" quality
lens and tons of other advantages. And the 10X can produce highly
compressed 640x480s to your hearts content -- or high quality images as you
desire.
The Canon Pro90, Olympus C2100UZ & C700 come to mind.
Good Luck!
"Tim" <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
Don Coon
looking for.
"Phut" <plo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MTKB7.10564$P4.9...@news1.cableinet.net...
kay
why replace it? Get a new camera that meets your other photography
requirements and you wont have to compromise other features just to match
the Sony spec.
rgds
"Tim" <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
Arjen van Andel
this to replace it. I finally went for the Fuji 6900.
The 6900 only has 6x zoom, but with the very good 4.4 digital zoom you get
26.6x zoom for a 640x480 image resolution. No steady shot, I'm affraid.
Also no swivelling LCD. Macro performance also less than the FD91.
On the other hand, the FD91 sharpens the pics way too much and gets very
noisy in low light situations.
See my gallery for a few FD91 and a bunch Fuji 6900 examples:
http://www.freehomepages.com/avaphoto/
A.
Ron Kramer
and then resample them down to the web if need be. Really nice hummer
pictures "but look at all that noise!" The images look sand blasted.
Floppy? (incredibly slow - my time is valuable - I'm not wasting it waiting
for floppies). Plus ONE picture on my camera won't even fit on a floppy.
If you're pleased with it - why look into buying a new one?
If you want to shoot with the big boys, Id' certainly recommend the upgrade.
Some pics from my 'modern camera' ;-)
http://www.outbackphoto.com/places/2001/20010920_local_safari.html
"Tim" <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
Robert E. Williams
Outstanding Lighting. Can tell you are a portrait Photographer.
Lighting uber alles! ....Bob Williams
Whatevah
close. 10x optical zoom, though.
check it out on www.dpreview.com
--
Jerry
www.whatevah.com
"Tim" <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
Crash
price. It is a fast camera with a 10x zoom. I've owned one for a few
months. Love it. Email me if you have any questions
(mwern...@mediaone.net).
"Tim" <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
vsa...@home.com
has a 10X optical lens and does a fine job. The Cp-950 was a nice camera
but only had a 3X lens. No camera does it all so you have to choose what
will be sacrificed to gain the most important features to you.
Tim <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
Don Coon
"Arjen van Andel" <ava...@hasoft.com> wrote in message
news:9r80jv$3e7$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> I once owned a FD91, so I know how you feel. You cannot get anything like
> this to replace it. I finally went for the Fuji 6900.
>
> The 6900 only has 6x zoom, but with the very good 4.4 digital zoom you get
> 26.6x zoom for a 640x480 image resolution. No steady shot, I'm affraid.
Spare me, please : ) 4.4x digital zoom is a "good" feature?? Why not take
the picture with any old camera and use software to interpolate up to
"26.6x zoom for 640x480 image resoluton.."? Digital zoom is as close as
trash as you can get.
Don Coon
"Crash" <mania...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GhNB7.14649$R9.45...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> Check out the Olympus E-100rs, which has recently been greatly reduced in
> price. It is a fast camera with a 10x zoom. I've owned one for a few
> months. Love it. Email me if you have any questions
> (mwern...@mediaone.net).
Other than the fact that it's a 1.3MP camera in a stage when 2MP is now
entry level.
Mark Leary
higher resolution of the ccd allows you to essentialy zoom by cropping with
no loss of quality (as in "digital zoom") for 640x480 web graphics. Also,
the reason the FD-91 has a 14x optical zoom is because it uses a poor
quality lens. It isn't feasible to create a 14x zoom lens for todays high
resolution camera's.
-Mark
Tim <t...@blairsville.com> wrote in message
news:ttet4kn...@corp.supernews.com...
GWM
Well, you could use an Olympus C2100UZ or Canon Pro90 with the 10x
zoom, and I'm sure that you could crop a pretty good 640x480 out of
it.
-G
David Eppstein
GWM <gar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Well, you could use an Olympus C2100UZ or Canon Pro90 with the 10x
> zoom, and I'm sure that you could crop a pretty good 640x480 out of
> it.
Yes.
I've gotten good deep 640x480 crops from my Oly C700UZ -- a new one I like
is <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/fauna/tanaka-c3.html>
(To give you some idea how much I cropped, this picture was originally
horizontal).
On the other hand, it's still possible to crop so far that you run out of
resolution -- see <http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/heli/> for some bad
examples, especially twotone.html
It doesn't do the fast shutter speed the original poster wants, though --
max is 1/1000s. And its macro capability is not great. Don't know whether
the two you mention are better in those respects...
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Crash
But I assumed he was interested in working at low resolutions. If this is
true, the E-100 would fit his needs well.
"Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:RKWB7.200006$K6.96946613@news2...
Phut
amazing shutter speeds (1/18000) albeit at a lower res then the full 5MP but
he would have better options like a true SLR and 5MP. All for £1200, UK.
Go over to www.dpreview.com for a preview.
Phut
"Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:a3LB7.199214$K6.96282213@news2...
Barry F Margolius
quite useful feature. The user wants 640x480 images, so he will not
suffer the resolution loss typically associated with digital zoom.
Additionally, it will allow him to see what the zoomed image looks
like before taking the picture. And finally, some folks, even some
"digital folks" just don't want to mess around with digital darkrooms.
I'm not much of a fan of digital zoom functions, but in this case, it
seems OK to me.
-barry
Bernard Hill
<plo...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Go over to www.dpreview.com for a preview.
No preview I can see. Just a spec sheet.
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland
Don Coon
Don Coon
You can't make something from nothing. If he wants 640x480 he'd be far
better off taking the picture at the camera's highest resolution and
cropping out the 640x480 he wants.
I stand by my statement: digital zoom is as close to trash as you can get.
"Barry F Margolius" <b...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:rtnhtt076r418pein...@4ax.com...
Barry F Margolius
fan of digital zoom either, but for specific uses (like 640x480) it
can be quite a valuable tool.
"Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote:
>Digital zoom, whether done in the camera OR software, is at best a gimmick.
>You can't make something from nothing. If he wants 640x480 he'd be far
>better off taking the picture at the camera's highest resolution and
>cropping out the 640x480 he wants.
But, this is exactly what digital zoom does!! The camera digitizes at
the highest resolution and then allows the user to, in real time, crop
to 640x480.
>
>I stand by my statement: digital zoom is as close to trash as you can get.
Additionally, you haven't addressed either of my other two points:
1. Digital zoom allows the user to avoid photo editiing software
entirely.
2. Digital zoom gives the user real time feedback about just what
image is being captured.
Don Coon
> You're completely mistaken. See my explanation below. I'm not a big
> fan of digital zoom either, but for specific uses (like 640x480) it
> can be quite a valuable tool.
>
> "Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Digital zoom, whether done in the camera OR software, is at best a
gimmick.
> >You can't make something from nothing. If he wants 640x480 he'd be far
> >better off taking the picture at the camera's highest resolution and
> >cropping out the 640x480 he wants.
>
> But, this is exactly what digital zoom does!! The camera digitizes at
> the highest resolution and then allows the user to, in real time, crop
> to 640x480.
Digital zoom manufactures the extra pixels by guessing based on the adjacent
pixels. If he were to take a 1024x768 pix and crop out the 640x480 he wants,
the pixels he'd get are the best he can get. Better yet take 640x480 from a
2048x1536 3MP camera and, in effect, he's added 3X zoom onto a 3X opical
zoom for a total of 9X. You can't make something worthwhile out of
nothing. If you think so, why not just shoot a 240x180 pix and interpolate
it up to 640x480. Heck to really save memory space, take a 3x2 pixel shot
and interpolate it up to 640x480.
>
> >
> >I stand by my statement: digital zoom is as close to trash as you can
get.
>
> Additionally, you haven't addressed either of my other two points:
>
> 1. Digital zoom allows the user to avoid photo editiing software
> entirely.
He obviously has a computer or he wouldn't be posting here. Why the hell
does he want to avoid photo editing SW. After all, I remember he was posting
these photos to the web which is more difficult than using primitive but
adequate editing SW.
> 2. Digital zoom gives the user real time feedback about just what
> image is being captured.
At the cost of terrible quality pictures. I can tell what I'm getting by
looking at the LCD. Besides, cropping gives him the chance to select the
best part of his larger inage while viewing it on a 1024x768 or greater
monitor rather than a tiny LCD.
I hope you realize that you're in a tiny minority that has anything good to
say about digital zoom : )
It's just a marketing gimmick which you've obviously falling for.
Don Coon
Digital" thread currently posted on this newsgroup:
Exactly. Digital Zoom is merely a marketer's dream. It lets you slap
a "6x" or "7.5x" sticker on a camera when your actual zoom is 2x or
3x. Much like the "200x"+ camcorders... how ridiculous.
SEAN
___
On 26 Oct 2001 10:13:03 -0500, Frank DuPont <fdu...@netonecom.net>
wrote:
>David
>You are not missing anything, digital zooms make ugly pictures! I think
>it is there just to make people think they are getting a bigger zoom.
>Frank
>
>David McWilliams wrote:
>>
>> I recently got a Canon S300. Really pleased with it. One question
>> keeps coming to mind; What is the point of digital zoom? The 2.5x
>> optical zoom is great, wouldn't be without it. But the additional
>> digital zoom only seems to make the existing pixels bigger and makes
>> for really ugly shots... or am I missing something.
>>
>> David
"Barry F Margolius" <b...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:st8jtt89t6i9d8egh...@4ax.com...
Bill Funk
wrote:
>You're completely mistaken. See my explanation below. I'm not a big
>fan of digital zoom either, but for specific uses (like 640x480) it
>can be quite a valuable tool.
>
>"Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Digital zoom, whether done in the camera OR software, is at best a gimmick.
>>You can't make something from nothing. If he wants 640x480 he'd be far
>>better off taking the picture at the camera's highest resolution and
>>cropping out the 640x480 he wants.
>
>But, this is exactly what digital zoom does!! The camera digitizes at
>the highest resolution and then allows the user to, in real time, crop
>to 640x480.
Not really.
What's actually happening is the camera is taking that 640x480 pixel
crop, and expanding it to the full size of the sensor (or whatever
size is chosen).
This is not the same thing as selecting a 640x480 image size in the
first place. It results in pixelation of the image, because the camera
has to guess at what values to assign to the extra pixels.
IOW, it's like taki9ng a native 640x480 image and resizing it up to,
say, 1280x1024. Those extra pixels are simply guessed at (no matter
how good a guess, it's still a guess; you can't make data from nothing
and be accurate), and reduce the quality of the final image.
Ther *is* a bright spot. If the user is not using max resolution of
the camera, a digital zoom may well do as you say. However, why do it
this way? Much better to use the max resolution availabe, and crop to
your needs later, instead of letting hte camera do it; once the camera
has made the crop, you're stuck with it, unlike when you crop later.
>
>>
>>I stand by my statement: digital zoom is as close to trash as you can get.
>
>Additionally, you haven't addressed either of my other two points:
>
>1. Digital zoom allows the user to avoid photo editiing software
>entirely.
*IF* you are willng to accept the crop the camera makes. If not...
And, of course, this only works for cropping, not for any other
manipulation the user may want to do.
>
>2. Digital zoom gives the user real time feedback about just what
>image is being captured.
But won't show the reduced quality of the image. The LCD isn't big
enough.
--
Bill Funk
http://www.users.qwest.net/~bfunk33/
Bill Funk
wrote:
>And just to support my position, I'm pasting this from an "Optical vs
>Digital" thread currently posted on this newsgroup:
A story (true!):
This summer, we were in Yellowstone (many photos here:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=1023296&f=0 )
A friend with us had a brand new camcorder with about 175x zoom, with
an optical zoom of about 8x, the rest digital. I had a Nicon 10x50
binocs.
We were stopped to see a grizzly chowing down on a bison it had killed
the day before, while a grey wolf and several ravens were trying to
get their share.
I'm looking through the Nikon binocs, and can see pretty well what's
going on, and who's present. Our friend is using her camera as a
viewer, and is telling us that there are at least 6 wolves present.
We discussed the actual guest list for awhile, and we ended up trading
hardware. I could understand her inability to correctly see what's
there, as the image was so grainy I could barely make out the bear;
the ravens looked almost exactly like the wolf. She was able to see,
using the binocs, just what was actually there. (This was all at a
range of about a mile; we did not want to get any closer!).
Digital zoom sucks!
Barry F Margolius
that the user is only interested in 640x480 resolution for the
finished product. Seems to me like this is a good scenario for
digital zoom to be of value (perhaps the only such scenario).
-barry
Barry F Margolius
>
>"Barry F Margolius" <b...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:st8jtt89t6i9d8egh...@4ax.com...
>> You're completely mistaken. See my explanation below. I'm not a big
>> fan of digital zoom either, but for specific uses (like 640x480) it
>> can be quite a valuable tool.
>>
>> "Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Digital zoom, whether done in the camera OR software, is at best a
>gimmick.
>> >You can't make something from nothing. If he wants 640x480 he'd be far
>> >better off taking the picture at the camera's highest resolution and
>> >cropping out the 640x480 he wants.
>>
>> But, this is exactly what digital zoom does!! The camera digitizes at
>> the highest resolution and then allows the user to, in real time, crop
>> to 640x480.
>
>Digital zoom manufactures the extra pixels by guessing based on the adjacent
>pixels.
I'm not at all sure this is true, and unless we examine various
digital zoom source code I don't know how we can verify it. My
suspicion is that digital zoom when you have a, say, 2Mp imager, and
are creating a 640x480 result will do exactly what you suggest doing
in an editor: it will (I think) take a smaller part of the sensor
(maybe 640x480, maybe more, maybe less) and crop it to the final
image.
>If he were to take a 1024x768 pix and crop out the 640x480 he wants,
>the pixels he'd get are the best he can get. Better yet take 640x480 from a
>2048x1536 3MP camera and, in effect, he's added 3X zoom onto a 3X opical
>zoom for a total of 9X. You can't make something worthwhile out of
>nothing. If you think so, why not just shoot a 240x180 pix and interpolate
>it up to 640x480. Heck to really save memory space, take a 3x2 pixel shot
>and interpolate it up to 640x480.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >I stand by my statement: digital zoom is as close to trash as you can
>get.
>>
>> Additionally, you haven't addressed either of my other two points:
>>
>> 1. Digital zoom allows the user to avoid photo editiing software
>> entirely.
>
>He obviously has a computer or he wouldn't be posting here. Why the hell
>does he want to avoid photo editing SW. After all, I remember he was posting
>these photos to the web which is more difficult than using primitive but
>adequate editing SW.
Maybe he wants to avoid one more complicated step in the process.
Maybe he wants to avoid learning how to use one more complicated piece
of software. Or, maybe he just wants to take pictures - I know lots
of film photographers who have no interest in darkroom work.
>
>> 2. Digital zoom gives the user real time feedback about just what
>> image is being captured.
>
>At the cost of terrible quality pictures. I can tell what I'm getting by
>looking at the LCD. Besides, cropping gives him the chance to select the
>best part of his larger inage while viewing it on a 1024x768 or greater
>monitor rather than a tiny LCD.
Looking at the LCD only gives you a view of what the lens sees, not
what the final image will look like after you've edited it and cropped
it to 640x480. Maybe it will look small enough that it's worth some
extra effort to get closer to the target.
Barry F Margolius
with the comment. It's only this user's specific requirement of a
640x480 result image that makes digital zoom an interesting
possibility.
Barry F Margolius
Look below for my comment about 3x2 resolution.
"Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Barry F Margolius" <b...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:st8jtt89t6i9d8egh...@4ax.com...
>> You're completely mistaken. See my explanation below. I'm not a big
>> fan of digital zoom either, but for specific uses (like 640x480) it
>> can be quite a valuable tool.
>>
>> "Don Coon" <coondw...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Digital zoom, whether done in the camera OR software, is at best a
>gimmick.
>> >You can't make something from nothing. If he wants 640x480 he'd be far
>> >better off taking the picture at the camera's highest resolution and
>> >cropping out the 640x480 he wants.
>>
>> But, this is exactly what digital zoom does!! The camera digitizes at
>> the highest resolution and then allows the user to, in real time, crop
>> to 640x480.
>
>Digital zoom manufactures the extra pixels by guessing based on the adjacent
>pixels. If he were to take a 1024x768 pix and crop out the 640x480 he wants,
>the pixels he'd get are the best he can get. Better yet take 640x480 from a
>2048x1536 3MP camera and, in effect, he's added 3X zoom onto a 3X opical
>zoom for a total of 9X. You can't make something worthwhile out of
>nothing. If you think so, why not just shoot a 240x180 pix and interpolate
>it up to 640x480. Heck to really save memory space, take a 3x2 pixel shot
>and interpolate it up to 640x480.
You remind me of an interesting question about the opposite extreme:
suppose that technology advances enough that we can put a 1000 Mp
imager in a digital camera. Do we now have enough resolution so that
we can forgo optical zoom entirely and only use digital zoom? I think
so.
Bill Funk
wrote:
>Sounds like you've come in late to this thread. The basic premise is
>that the user is only interested in 640x480 resolution for the
>finished product. Seems to me like this is a good scenario for
>digital zoom to be of value (perhaps the only such scenario).
>
>-barry
No, I'm not late, I've been here all along.
The comparison of a 640x480 crop from a, say, 1024x768 image with a
digital crop inside a camera isn't a good one, because they are done
different ways.
It's called "Digital Zoom" because that's what it does. If it cropped,
it would be called a crop.
The digital zoom takes thet 640x480 part of the image, and expands it
to cover the entire sensor.
Don't believe me? Well, obviously not.
But, try a test.
Take a picture, and see what size it is in pixels.
Then, take another picture, this time using digital zoom, and check
the image size. See? It's the same number of pixels, even though the
subject is larger. Yet, since the enlargement was done digitally
instead of optically, it's impossible to be a simple crop; it must be,
and is, a result of spreading a smaller number of pixels from an
optically fixed image onto a larger number of pixels, which is not a
crop, which is discarding all pixels outside of a border. In the case
of a digital zoom, the pixels are still in the image, but they are
interpolated from a smaller number of pixels.
Try it and see.
Chuck Gadd
>Then, take another picture, this time using digital zoom, and check
>the image size. See? It's the same number of pixels, even though the
>subject is larger. Yet, since the enlargement was done digitally
Sorry, your test failed for my two cameras. An HP618, and a Fuji
MX-1200
On my HP618:
Image size, no digital zoom : 1600x1200
First zoom level : 1344x992
second zoom level : 1072x800
third zoom level : 800x600
On my Fuji:
Image size, no zoom : 1280x960
Zoon : 640x480
Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
Tony Gartshore
> >Take a picture, and see what size it is in pixels.
> >Then, take another picture, this time using digital zoom, and check
> >the image size. See? It's the same number of pixels, even though the
> >subject is larger. Yet, since the enlargement was done digitally
>
> Sorry, your test failed for my two cameras. An HP618, and a Fuji
> MX-1200
Works just as described on my Oly 2100.. Four pics at max optical and
three stages of digital zoom all give 1600 * 1200 pics..
All 'digital zoom' shots used the same exposure settings too. Which, I
think, may be expected.
Tony.
--
Americans think 100 years is a long time
Europeans think 100 miles is a long way.
Bill Funk
See:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Digital_zoom_01.htm
top see the difference.
And, yes, I *know* they call it digital zoom in these cases. In
reality, it's not a zoom, but only a crop.
In cameras that use true digital zoom, the image is interpolated up to
fill the resolution the camera is set at.
--
Bill Funk
http://www.users.qwest.net/~bfunk33/
Chuck Gadd
Funk) wrote:
>Your cameras aren't using a digital zoom, they are only cropping.
Yup, I know. I thought that was pretty much the point.
You said:
> The comparison of a 640x480 crop from a, say, 1024x768 image with a
> digital crop inside a camera isn't a good one, because they are done
> different ways.
>
> It's called "Digital Zoom" because that's what it does. If it cropped,
> it would be called a crop. The digital zoom takes thet 640x480 part
> of the image, and expands it to cover the entire sensor.
My point is, not all manufacturers do it that way. So for some
cameras, using the "Digital Zoom" feature will simply grab only the
"important" pixels that are surrounding the desired image. No point
storing a bunch of pixels that I'm simply going to throw away in
photoshop.
>In cameras that use true digital zoom, the image is interpolated up to
>fill the resolution the camera is set at.
I think that a camera doing a "true digital zoom" by your definition
would be undesirable. Much better to just give me the cropped image,
and let me decide if I want to interpolate it back up.
Per the bottom of the page you pointed me to:
>Digital Zoom can be useful when using lower output resolutions
> than that of the CCD.
Seems to me that my cameras are simply forcing me to use the reduced
output resolutions, thereby making digital zoom useful in some way.
Anyone have a list of which cameras do it which way?
Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
Bill Funk
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 11:09:35 GMT, bfu...@pippinf.com.invalid (Bill
>Funk) wrote:
>
>>Your cameras aren't using a digital zoom, they are only cropping.
>
>Yup, I know. I thought that was pretty much the point.
OK. :-)
>
>You said:
>
>> The comparison of a 640x480 crop from a, say, 1024x768 image with a
>> digital crop inside a camera isn't a good one, because they are done
>> different ways.
>>
>> It's called "Digital Zoom" because that's what it does. If it cropped,
>> it would be called a crop. The digital zoom takes thet 640x480 part
>> of the image, and expands it to cover the entire sensor.
>
>My point is, not all manufacturers do it that way. So for some
>cameras, using the "Digital Zoom" feature will simply grab only the
>"important" pixels that are surrounding the desired image. No point
>storing a bunch of pixels that I'm simply going to throw away in
>photoshop.
Personally, I'd rather do the cropping myself. Once the camera crops,
it's been cropped forever. If *I* decide to crop the image, I can
always undo the crop, or even crop another way.
Personal taste, I guess.
>
>>In cameras that use true digital zoom, the image is interpolated up to
>>fill the resolution the camera is set at.
>
>I think that a camera doing a "true digital zoom" by your definition
>would be undesirable. Much better to just give me the cropped image,
>and let me decide if I want to interpolate it back up.
>
>Per the bottom of the page you pointed me to:
>
>>Digital Zoom can be useful when using lower output resolutions
>> than that of the CCD.
>
>Seems to me that my cameras are simply forcing me to use the reduced
>output resolutions, thereby making digital zoom useful in some way.
Sure, but why? If the purpose is to magnify as much as possible, why
not use max resolution and max optical zoom in the first place?
I ask because I really don't understand why a user would forego the
optical zoom for something that's allows far fewer options?
>
>Anyone have a list of which cameras do it which way?
>
>
>Chuck Gadd
>http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
--
Bill Funk
http://www.users.qwest.net/~bfunk33/
Barry F Margolius
>[...snip...]
>Sure, but why? If the purpose is to magnify as much as possible, why
>not use max resolution and max optical zoom in the first place?
>
>I ask because I really don't understand why a user would forego the
>optical zoom for something that's allows far fewer options?
>
I can think of two reasons:
Some users probably don't want to "mess with" photo editing software.
I know that this flies in the face of what most folks think of as the
primary digital paradigm, but still some people want a Brownie webcam.
Some users may not have a well developed sense of what is possible, so
they need the visual cue of a zoomed image when taking the picture.
You can probably imagine quite well what the finished product might
look like, but there are, no doubt, others who cannot.
-barry
MyName
>Seems to me that my cameras are simply forcing me to use the reduced
>output resolutions, thereby making digital zoom useful in some way.
>
>Anyone have a list of which cameras do it which way?
>
>
I found it interesting in my Fuji 2600z. Going by the way digital zoom is
implemented, it seems that at 640x480 mode I am given the greatest digital
zoom ratios. I can only guess that the whole CCD is being used when
shooting in standard 640x480 mode and the image sensors are being combined
to produce the resulting lower resolution image. Then you are allowed to
zoom in digitally to where just the central 640x480 image sensors are used.
You cannot use any digital zoom at all in 1600x1200 mode, and just partial
digital zoom in 1280x960 mode.
aside: I'm also suprised at the quality of those 640x480 images. The
clarity and color is phenomenal for such a low resolution. When viewing
them in ACDSee where it auto-fills the viewing frame, I have to double
check the status bar to remind myself they are 640x480 images. I accidently
left it set to 640x480 mode during some shooting and was upset when I found
out. But later when viewing them realized they were still very usable for
what I had intended. All were keepers.
But the way they implemented their digital zoom begs a question: If all
2.1megs worth of sensors are being used for non-digital-zoomed 640x480
mode, why couldn't they have put that extra light-gathering area to
advantage and given me some much needed low-light exposure range? I would
have loved to been able to get a 4 sec. exposure at 640x480 rather than no
4 sec. exposure at all at any resolution.
What a shame. They missed a nice marketing trick (and wonderful addition to
its capabilities) with a few changed bytes of firmware. Some manufacturers
should jump on this. Lower resolution images could give you free low-light
advantages. An imaging compromise I'd love to have.
Chuck Gadd
Funk) wrote:
>Sure, but why? If the purpose is to magnify as much as possible, why
>not use max resolution and max optical zoom in the first place?
>
>I ask because I really don't understand why a user would forego the
>optical zoom for something that's allows far fewer options?
I don't really see it as foregoing the optical zoom. In fact, on my
HP, digital zoom is only available after you have fully zoomed in via
the optical zoom.
An example of where I've used the digital zoom: Shooting pics of the
moon. At full optical zoom, it was still a fairly small ball. The
rest of the image was either black, or junk. Nothing I wanted, or
could use.
Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
Bill Funk
Sometimes I get in the "if *I* can do it, anyone can do it" mindset.
Thanks!
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 03:48:25 GMT, Barry F Margolius <b...@pobox.com>
wrote:
>bfu...@pippinf.com.invalid (Bill Funk) wrote:
--
Bill Funk
http://www.users.qwest.net/~bfunk33/