Digital Cameras for Library Research
Cann...@aol.com
Hi,
I've read with interest the posting about the expanding use of
digital cameras for genealogical research. I am planning a research
trip next month and very much want to use a camera to record
information. I know nothing about digitals so I spent a good part
of the day yesterday reviewing archives to collect brands mentioned
and compile a list of features needed. I visited a camera store
today and tried out several models but none were capable of
capturing text. My wish list includes: 3.2 megapixels, optical zoom
(3x), picture mode vs text mode, macro capabilities, glass lens
(good rating).
Several on this list have written about their successful use of
digitals and I would like to hear what brand/models they used (pros/
cons) and would appreciate any guidance about features.
TIA,
dj
Larry Thompson
DJ:
I use a Kodak DC4800 3.1 mp model and it works beautifully. I use
all of the automatic settings. It has a manual brightness
adjustment which I sometimes have to lighten or darken the picture a
little but that's all.
Larry
Larry Thompson <m...@nowhere.com>
0_Qed
Cann...@aol.com wrote:
:-)
A 'fair' <?>.
Some time ago ,
I went =directly= from a Polaroid One_Touch to a Cannon G2 ...
because I wished to use the G2 camera mostly in "Idiot", One_touch
'mode' ...
:-)
I suspect the 'choice' is far wider 'now', for digital cameras
that'll tolerate idiot operation.
I had to read the Manual one-time , tho ,
to properly set up the camera 'as-such'.
All manner of lens/filter addons available ... still permitting
'Idiot" mode.
Key in my 'choice' (back when) was camera's use of Flash Card(FC)
"cards" , because of the card's variety of capacity/price/etc
availability ... I even found an el_cheapo 'PC_card' that plugs into
your IDE's controller and its ribbon cable ... allows you to
'handle' the 'pics'(files) in DOS mode, without resort to Win +
device_readers et_al. The FC_cards are basically "Fat16/32" based
file systems. And, you can even 'find' a DOS 7.10 OS( w/addons )
that'll handle fat16/32, and BIG HDs ... "at" the DOS black screen.
Not 'quite' sure of what you mean by " capturing text " ...
unless it's photos of 'paper' ... maybe grave stones ...
for "which" the G2 has a 'raw' pic mode ... makes a 12Mb 'pic' file ...
you might be able to resolve the "grains" of toner using 'it'.
For =well= weathered, =old=, moss_covered grave stones ...
I'd take several pics from several different 'lite' angles.
Be 'aware' that half the 'battle' lies in the photo 'bashing'
software that you aquire & use, as opposed to battling the digital
camera itself.
Stick with a =reputable= camera peddler,
beware the online hawkers ... 'some' good, some not.
Sorry for the 'rant',
Qed.
Greg Surratt
> I've read with interest the posting about the expanding use of
> digital cameras for genealogical research. I am planning a research
> trip next month and very much want to use a camera to record
> information.
>
> digitals and I would like to hear what brand/models they used (pros/
> cons) and would appreciate any guidance about features.
>
DJ,
I've had three different digital cameras (Casio 3.0 mp with a 350 mb
minidrive, Sony 4.0 mp with mini-CD storage and a Cannon 4.0 mp with
512 MB flashcard). The text part of photography takes practice to
get it right.
We've had good success using all three at a county courthouse to
take pictures of deed books and such that are too large and bulky to
use a copier on. We use a small tripod to mount the camera on.
We use the copier services at the site we are doing the research at
when available. I figure if they are nice enough to open the
facility to us, we can afford to spend a dime or quarter per copy.
We also always ask permission to take the pictures for those
documents that are too big for the copier or that we feel a
photograph would be a better option for enhancing on the computer
later. We are a bit more selective at those places that charge a
dollar a document ;-(
Either way, if you can't take the book apart to get the document
out, you are going to get the distortion along the spine regardless
of whether you copy or photograph.
Make sure you get plenty of storage for the camera when you make
your decision. We bought all three of ours based on picture quality
and storage. I now also have a laptop so I can download the
flashcard from the Cannon if I fill it up (200 high res pictures).
I also have 10 mini CD-RWs for the Sony, for a total capacity of 650
pictures.
The other consideration is battery life. We like to go find a
cemetery and just take a shot or two of every stone. Gives the
cameras some exercise. Medium sized church cemeteries take about 6
hours and somewhere between 300-500 shots. I like the Sony for the
battery life. The Sony batteries last about 3 hours. I can
recharge one battery outside the camera in a portable charger and a
second battery inside the camera in about 3-4 hours. On the Cannon,
I have to use rechargeable AA batteries that only last about 2
hours. These won't recharge in the camera and it takes 6 hours to
recharge a set. That means I always have a set on charge.
Keep looking for one that suits your needs and don't depend on the
sales people to give you accurate answers for your applications -
most of them have never tried to take a picture of a 1790's era deed
or go out and take 100's of pictures in a single day.
Greg
Greg Surratt <glsu...@verizon.net>
Pam
> I use a Kodak DC4800 3.1 mp model and it works beautifully. I use
> all of the automatic settings. It has a manual brightness
> adjustment which I sometimes have to lighten or darken the picture a
> little but that's all.
I also use the Kodak DC4800. I don't think it's a current model,
however. It has a good lens (glass not plastic) and a macro setting
which allows me to get fairly close to what I'm photographing if I
need to. You need to make sure you can choose not to use the flash
(I've seen some lower end cameras which have an automatic flash and
there's no way to shut them off--most better cameras do give you the
choice).
It's done a very nice job for me, especially since our local FHC
does not have a microfilm copier. I actually like the photos better
than some of the older copies I got at my old FHC.
Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net/
"Pam" <p...@nospam.com>
cecilia
> [...] don't depend on the
> sales people to give you accurate answers for your applications -
> most of them have never tried to take a picture of a 1790's era deed
>
> Greg Surratt
Take a photocopy (A3, lifesize) of, eg, a deed to the shop to try
out cameras.
Mike Curtis
I have a 4 megapixel Canon G3 that I bought about a year ago. I
have taken over 3,000 shots with it; about half are photographs, but
the other half are various documents like deeds, diaries,
newspapers, etc. I have taken pictures of images on microfilm
readers - both backlit and projectable image type. I have taken
pictures of full size newspapers, pages out of books, diaries, etc.
I have never used a tripod, though I'm sure the pictures in some
low-light conditions would probably have come out better. The
bottom line though, is that I am extremely pleased with the results.
Here are a few general comments about features and other relevant
issues:
* The most important feature to get from my perspective is a flip/
rotating LCD screen. This will allow you to frame the image
correctly whether you are taking a picture of a deed in a microfilm
reader or a huge deedbook opened on a table.
* I like the compact flash cards for memory storage. I have 2 256MB
cards and the 32 MB card that came with the camera. If I fill
everything (I never have) I can quickly walk out to my car and
download the images onto my laptop.
* My 4 megapixel camera works fine. I think a 3 megapixel camera
would be adequate for almost everything as well. The only photos I
have taken that are a bit hard to read are when I try to capture a
fullsize newspaper page. The text is legible, but just barely.
Usually I will take a picture of the whole page, then take a closer
picture of the article I am interested in.
* Some facilities won't allow you to use the camera. I have
experienced that in some county records offices in New York state.
I think in some cases they are afraid they are going to lose
revenue. In one instance I agreed to pay the going copy rate for
each picture I took. It is a much better approach than having their
personnel make copies. I can take images of 10 deeds in the time it
takes them to copy one. They get 10 times as much money, I get 10
times as much research done, there is less wear and tear on the
deedbooks and the employees (where they are required to do the
copying) can continue doing other work without interruption.
* I have taken lots of pictures of bound books - deeds, county
history books, diaries, etc. Someone mentioned earlier the problem
with the curvature of the pages. It doesn't look perfect; you can
definitely tell that the pages are curved, but the most important
point is that they are still legible. Even curved handwritten pages
tend to stay pretty focused.
* I have even had good success taking pictures of slides. I bought
a cheap plastic backlit slide viewer that allows you to insert one
slide at a time and view it through a 3 inch x 2 inch screen. I use
the macro setting on the camera (another useful feature), photograph
the slide, then put the image into Adobe Photoshop and crop off the
black space. I shot over 100 slides like this and the quality
ranges from good to excellent.
* The other main feature to have is the ability to manually turn off
the flash, even in low light situations. I think this feature is
fairly standard on all but the cheapest cameras, but I'm not
positive.
The bottom line is, I had an idea of what I hoped a digital camera
could do for my genealogy research, and this has exceeded my
expectations.
Best regards,
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis <mecu...@citcom.net>
Phil Stevens
> > [...] don't depend on the
> > sales people to give you accurate answers for your applications -
> > most of them have never tried to take a picture of a 1790's era deed
> >
> > Greg Surratt
>
> Take a photocopy (A3, lifesize) of, eg, a deed to the shop to try
> out cameras.
>
> my...@ic24.net
Hello guys , I would not waste my time trying this at a big
box store Such as Best Buy, The cameras they have on display DO NOT
Work, They mostly have NO Batteries installed, AND MOST OF ALL NO
memory card !!!!!!, I have tried a few time to get a demo of $ 500
camera, Big joke !!!!!, Sale persons don`t know diddly squat about
the product, Phil
"Phil Stevens" <joe2...@drizzle.com>
Celia Mitschelen
> > Take a photocopy (A3, lifesize) of, eg, a deed to the shop to try
> > out cameras.
> >
> > my...@ic24.net
>
> Hello guys , I would not waste my time trying this at a big
> box store Such as Best Buy, The cameras they have on display DO NOT
> Work, They mostly have NO Batteries installed, AND MOST OF ALL NO
> memory card !!!!!!, I have tried a few time to get a demo of $ 500
> camera, Big joke !!!!!, Sale persons don`t know diddly squat about
> the product, Phil
>
> "Phil Stevens" <joe2...@drizzle.com>
It all depends on which one you go into I would guess. I bought a
Canon PowerShot at a Best Buy near me this summer because I was
impressed with the what it did. I wasn't really looking for a
camera just wondering if I should upgrade my 1999 camera. I don't
know if all of them were ready to go or not. I asked about one with
a swivel viewer, as someone already mentioned this is a big help
with documents, etc., he picked one up and snapped a shot and
printed it out for me.
Any way it is worth asking for a demonstration.
Celia
"Celia Mitschelen" <cmi...@ix.netcom.com>
Dennis Lee Bieber
> Hello guys , I would not waste my time trying this at a big
> box store Such as Best Buy, The cameras they have on display DO NOT
> Work, They mostly have NO Batteries installed, AND MOST OF ALL NO
> memory card !!!!!!, I have tried a few time to get a demo of $ 500
>
Batteries and memory cards are pocketable and removable -- easy to
be taken out of the store without passing $$$ <G>
Get an idea of what features you want; check the photo mags for
reviews; do the homework, and show up with a comparison chart &
check-list of what you want demo'd... And if the store doesn't want
to help -- tell the clerk that you are going somewhere else, and
exactly WHY you are going... (I nearly walked out of a CompUSA last
week; it was taking longer to get a clerk to unlock the graphics
card cabinet then it took to get my driver's license upgraded -- and
I should know, the DMV was a walk-in and CompUSA was across the
street).
--
> ============================================================== <
> wlf...@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> wulf...@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ============================================================== <
> Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
> Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/> <
A. John Birkholz
Good morning dj,
> I've read with interest the posting about the expanding use of
> digital cameras for genealogical research. I am planning a research
> trip next month and very much want to use a camera to record
> information. I know nothing about digitals so I spent a good part
> of the day yesterday reviewing archives to collect brands mentioned
> and compile a list of features needed. I visited a camera store
> today and tried out several models but none were capable of
> capturing text. My wish list includes: 3.2 megapixels, optical zoom
> (3x), picture mode vs text mode, macro capabilities, glass lens
> (good rating).
>
> Several on this list have written about their successful use of
> digitals and I would like to hear what brand/models they used (pros/
> cons) and would appreciate any guidance about features.
>
> TIA,
> dj
Disclaimer-I am making no suggestions-the following as informational
only-without recommendation or encouragement.
CNET Help.com is offering "Beyond Point & Shoot: Digital Photography
Techniques" online class
http://courses.help.com/courses/overview.jsp?courseId=2007&mcid=d497040907
A. John Birkholz broth...@imt.net
singhals
> > [...] don't depend on the
> > sales people to give you accurate answers for your applications -
> > most of them have never tried to take a picture of a 1790's era deed
> >
> > Greg Surratt
>
> Take a photocopy (A3, lifesize) of, eg, a deed to the shop to try
> out cameras.
>
It always puzzles me when I read of so many people doing things I
can't make work. (g) I'd chalk it up to "user error", but then 5
out of the 6 people I see trying it live can't make it work either,
which suggests there are tricks to be learned in advance. [The
sixth one simply borrowed a camera and started doing point'n'shoot
and came up smiling. We're envious. -g-]
F'instance: one of the patrons at my FHC has been coming in daily
with her digital camera. She makes about 6 shots a day, uses the
same film and the same frame on it, uses the same reader, changes
only the camera settings. She's been doing this about two weeks
now, and reports she has FINALLY gotten one shot that's no harder to
read than a bad printout would be. She and I both consider this to
be faint praise indeed. (g)
I've tried to make copies off the backlit reader -- and in the
center of the screen is the white bloom from the light-source. I've
tried to make copies off the flat-bed reader -- and the top and
bottom of the frame look like the opening scenes from Star Wars.
So, would someone who has been successful tell us -- how much
practice does one need to pull this off? How much of the success is
directly proportional to the quality of the camera itself,
regardless of other factors? How much of the successes reported
here are due to magic manipulation of the images at home and how
much to dumb-luck? How much does the user's familarity with
photographic theory in general contribute to his dumb-luck with
digital copying?
And, how tall are you? We discovered that a 5-9 person got quite
different results than the 5-1 one or the 6-2 one. The shot gets
cut off at the top for the 6-2 one unless he bends his knees and
gets cramps doing that. The shot has that distance-perspective for
the 5-1 person unless he stands on a stool about 8 inches off the
floor....
Cheryl
Mike Curtis
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:12:54 +0000 (UTC), singhals <sing...@erols.com>
wrote:
Hi Cheryl,
I have responded to some of your comments below, but you raise a
number of good points. I decided to put a bunch of the digital
images I took with my Canon G3 on a web site for you to take a look
at. Some of the files are fairly large, but I wanted you to be able
to look at exactly what I took. You may think they're great or you
may think they're crap, but i find that this process works extremely
well for my research. Anyway, the web site with the images is:
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~curtis/digitalimages.htm
> F'instance: one of the patrons at my FHC has been coming in daily
> with her digital camera. She makes about 6 shots a day, uses the
> same film and the same frame on it, uses the same reader, changes
> only the camera settings. She's been doing this about two weeks
> now, and reports she has FINALLY gotten one shot that's no harder to
> read than a bad printout would be. She and I both consider this to
> be faint praise indeed. (g)
These images are some of the hardest to take for me, but the shot I
included on the web site is fairly representative - no better or
worse than the others I took. I should point out that the microfilm
itself wasn't the greatest. The biggest problem though is that it is
very hard to get the entire page in focus on the microfilm flatbed,
and if it isn't in focus there it isn't going to be in focus on the
camera either. The one thing I wish I had done was to also take a
picture of just the family I was interested in on the page. I think
it would have been much more legible.
> I've tried to make copies off the backlit reader -- and in the
> center of the screen is the white bloom from the light-source. I've
> tried to make copies off the flat-bed reader -- and the top and
> bottom of the frame look like the opening scenes from Star Wars.
The images I have are newspaper articles rather than census images,
but they came out very legible.
> So, would someone who has been successful tell us -- how much
> practice does one need to pull this off? How much of the success is
> directly proportional to the quality of the camera itself,
> regardless of other factors? How much of the successes reported
> here are due to magic manipulation of the images at home and how
> much to dumb-luck? How much does the user's familarity with
> photographic theory in general contribute to his dumb-luck with
> digital copying?
The success is entirely due to the camera. I'm a hack. You can put
what I know about photography into a thimble and still have room
left over. ANYBODY can do this.
> And, how tall are you? We discovered that a 5-9 person got quite
> different results than the 5-1 one or the 6-2 one. The shot gets
> cut off at the top for the 6-2 one unless he bends his knees and
> gets cramps doing that. The shot has that distance-perspective for
> the 5-1 person unless he stands on a stool about 8 inches off the
> floor....
I'm 5'11" but it doesn't really matter if you have a swivel LCD
screen. You could easily have problems otherwise.
> Cheryl <sing...@erols.com>
Mike
TheHob...@aol.com
> [...] don't depend on the
> sales people to give you accurate answers for your applications -
> most of them have never tried to take a picture of a 1790's era deed
> [...]
>
> Greg Surratt
I agree with you Gary.
When you walk into a store like Best Buy or Circuit City just keep
in the back of your mind these people that are waiting on you are
just there for a job and at best maybe 1 out of a 100 will really be
doing genealogy and even have a clue as to why you want the camera
in the first place.
The best salesperson you will find anywhere is "yourself" do all the
comparing, pricing and what you want the camera to do before you go
looking for it. That way, you will know far more about the camera
than the person waiting on you. In other words, don't let them sale
you something you don't need or want.
Terry Thacker
Join Now!
Subscribe: EASTERNKENTU...@rootsweb.com
Join Now!
Subscribe: KYHeritageFolk...@yahoogroups.com
Join Now!
Subscribe: rememberingw...@yahoogroups.com
Join Now!
Subscribe: lawrencecounty...@yahoogroups.com
Doing genealogy is like writing OUR own family Bible. Our ancestors are the
ones that have came to pass, and our descendants are the ones to fulfill it.
Lesley Robertson
> I've tried to make copies off the backlit reader -- and in the
> center of the screen is the white bloom from the light-source. I've
> tried to make copies off the flat-bed reader -- and the top and
> bottom of the frame look like the opening scenes from Star Wars.
>
I hadn't thought of using it with the readers or screens... The
places I visit generally have a fiche/film printer attached (coin
operated) or somewhere one can order copies. I use the digital
camera for old, original documents that are too fragile, cumbersome
or otherwise valuable to put through a copier or scanner.
Maye the OP should tell us what he/she wants to photocopy before we
offer any more advice!
Lesley Robertson
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl>
Edith Fensom
> I have responded to some of your comments below, but you raise a
> number of good points. I decided to put a bunch of the digital
> images I took with my Canon G3 on a web site for you to take a look
> at.
>
I've been enjoying the thread on digital cameras. I'm about ready to
buy one too. Mike, thanks for showing the samples of the different
type of documents taken with your digital camera.
Does anybody have a digital camera who is also using Mac OS9.2? I
know some cameras are only compatible with OSX.
Edith
Edith Fensom <ecfe...@comcast.net>
0_Qed
> I've been enjoying the thread on digital cameras. I'm about ready to
> buy one too. Mike, thanks for showing the samples of the different
> type of documents taken with your digital camera.
>
> Does anybody have a digital camera who is also using Mac OS9.2? I
> know some cameras are only compatible with OSX.
>
Try some of the 'NGs' under [rec.phots.-xyz-] , for your <?>. ...
Qed.
TheHob...@aol.com
When I visit a court house or library I use my Sony Mavica MVC-FD73
camera. This model has been replaced now with the MVC-FD75. This
camera uses the floppy disk to store the photos on and you get about
42 photos per disk if set to standard mode. Also, this camera has a
10X zoom which lets you really get in close if need be.
When I take a photo of a document I lay it flat on the floor and
stand directly over it with my camera. This way you are getting a
straight down shot of the document not one at a slant. Being tall
or short has no effect on this method.
If you ask the clerk at the court house or library they will most
time let you take the document out of the book to take a photo of.
The last court house I was at the asked me $1.50 for a copy of a
marriage bond. I asked the lady if she would take the bond out of
the book and let me take a photo of it. She did with no problem.
Matter of fact she said that several people done that to save on
copy cost.
Also, the best feature I like about my camera is that I can take a
color, sepia tone or B&W photo without having to change film or
disk. If a photo doesn't turn out right I just delete it from the
disk and take over.
This is just my 2 cents worth and not intended to put down any brand
of camera over another.
Terry Thacker
Join Now!
Subscribe: EASTERNKENTU...@rootsweb.com
Subscribe: KYHeritageFolk...@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: rememberingw...@yahoogroups.com
Greg Surratt
> Hi Cheryl,
>
> I have responded to some of your comments below, but you raise a
> number of good points. I decided to put a bunch of the digital
> images I took with my Canon G3 on a web site for you to take a look
> at. Some of the files are fairly large, but I wanted you to be able
> to look at exactly what I took. You may think they're great or you
> may think they're crap, but i find that this process works extremely
> well for my research. Anyway, the web site with the images is:
>
> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~curtis/digitalimages.htm
Mike,
That's a very impressive collection - well done for a "hack" (you
said it, I didn't ;-)
Greg
Greg Surratt <glsu...@verizon.net>
Edith Fensom
> Try some of the 'NGs' under [rec.phots.-xyz-] , for your <?>. ...
>
> Qed.
Thanks but how do I find that?
Edith
[ All, Edith is posting to GENM...@rootsweb.com and doesn't
directly have access to USENET. Edith, you could try
visiting:
http://groups.google.com/
to get to the rec.photo hierarchy. Other folks may have
other ideas for how you can talk to the rec.photo folks. - Mod ]
Celia Mitschelen
I know little about photography. Point and shoot is my method but
trial and error helps. I have photographed 2 1/2 rolls of
microfilmed church records. I started doing it when I knew the
winter weather would be keeping me off the highway and away from my
FHC. With the photos I could read my film at home. My camera is an
outdated ePhoto 1680 Agfa. A mere 1.3 mega pixels with a 3X optical
zoom. Forget the digital zoom it is not really a zoom. It has what
it calls a document mode (the feature that attracted me to it.) as
well as macro mode. I learned that one must have a way of steadying
it or set it on delayed shutter to avoid the movement caused by
pressing the shutter release. I solved the steadying problem by
taking a length 1 1/2" wide webbing and elegantly pinning it into a
circle with a safety pine -voila- an adjustable sling! People teased
me about the bandage on my reader but it worked. The Agfa has a lens
that swivels and I twist it so that I can shove the camera inside
the projection type reader and aim it as nearly parallel to the
table as possible which gets a better picture than holding it
outside the reader. Height has nothing to do with it, just turn the
viewer what ever direction you need to be able to see it. There will
still be some parallax because you cannot get centered without
getting in the way of the projection.
I prefer the photos to a Xerox copy, grayscale gives one clues with
the variation of color and Xerox turns it all black and white. With
print that is okay but hand writing is a different matter.
The size that you can include in one shot depends on the size of the
print/handwriting. If it is small you may have to divide the page in
half. At least with my original camera that was true. I now have a
new 4 MP Canon with a camera type viewfinder as well as the
swiveling view finder. I insist on a movable viewer for documents. I
am still trying to get acquainted with it, it has too many options
and puzzling tiny little icons but point and shoot works pretty good
and with more pixels I should be able to more enlarging and still be
clear.
This is just what has worked for me but it has worked well. When in
Germany the local Heimatmuseum loaned me a copy stand which I used
in the church library and local archive. I did wish for a remote
shutter release but compensated for it by setting it at a 5 second
delayed release. I was not allowed to use flash but flash doesn't
work well in document copying anyway. I have several hundred
documents taken that way. I really impressed my German friends; they
had never seen anything like it though the camera was made in
Germany.
My first effort didn't turn out too well. Just before leaving on my
first research trip I read someone's report that he had used his
camcorder to take a few seconds of each document, then when he got
home he captured individual frames with a Snappy(?). Not sure that
was the name of the critter, it's been a long time since I returned
it. The documents looked okay on the camcorder but it did not work
with the German TV system so it wasn't until I got home that I was
able to really see them and by the time they were large enough to
read they were unreadable. I lost all the precious time I had in the
local archive and was determined not to do that again.
If at first you don't succeed . . . . . .
Celia
"Celia Mitschelen" <cmi...@ix.netcom.com>
Dennis Lee Bieber
singhals <sing...@erols.com> declaimed the following:
> I've tried to make copies off the backlit reader -- and in the
> center of the screen is the white bloom from the light-source. I've
Try a spot meter (if you have it).
Camera meters are based on the assumption that the typical
scene is an "18% grey". A typical "averaging" meter that looks at
the whole scene and tries to set the exposure to make that average
"18% grey". You've just encountered how the human eye can compensate
for bright to dim where camera's can't. A spot meter will set the
18% based on the center of the image only. It will make the corners
look much darker...
> tried to make copies off the flat-bed reader -- and the top and
> bottom of the frame look like the opening scenes from Star Wars.
You mean tapering text?
1) you were not perpendicular to the center of the frame
(ie, the camera was tilted from the beginning).
2) you were too close and using a macro mode -- meaning
the corners of the frame were farther away than the center... Things
farther away naturally look smaller.
> And, how tall are you? We discovered that a 5-9 person got quite
> different results than the 5-1 one or the 6-2 one. The shot gets
> cut off at the top for the 6-2 one unless he bends his knees and
> gets cramps doing that. The shot has that distance-perspective for
> the 5-1 person unless he stands on a stool about 8 inches off the
> floor....
That's what the swivel/tilt LCD is for... you hold the camera
high/low with the display tilted so you can see it. And you
shouldn't be hand-holding for text, anyways. <G>
Dennis Lee Bieber
> Does anybody have a digital camera who is also using Mac OS9.2? I
> know some cameras are only compatible with OSX.
>
At the worst, can you get a memory card reader compatible
with your OS? You don't have to use the camera specific transfer
functions for most files (though you may need the software for RAW
conversions).
Greg Surratt
"Celia Mitschelen" <cmi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I know little about photography. Point and shoot is my method but
> trial and error helps. I have photographed 2 1/2 rolls of
> microfilmed church records. I started doing it when I knew the
> winter weather would be keeping me off the highway and away from my
> FHC. With the photos I could read my film at home. My camera is an
> outdated ePhoto 1680 Agfa. A mere 1.3 mega pixels with a 3X optical
> zoom. Forget the digital zoom it is not really a zoom. It has what
> it calls a document mode (the feature that attracted me to it.) as
> well as macro mode. I learned that one must have a way of steadying
> it or set it on delayed shutter to avoid the movement caused by
> pressing the shutter release.
The Canon we bought has a "wireless remote" option (that we didn't
get) that would solve that problem too.
> The size that you can include in one shot depends on the size of the
> print/handwriting. If it is small you may have to divide the page in
> half. At least with my original camera that was true. I now have a
> new 4 MP Canon with a camera type viewfinder as well as the
> swiveling view finder. I insist on a movable viewer for documents. I
> am still trying to get acquainted with it, it has too many options
> and puzzling tiny little icons but point and shoot works pretty good
> and with more pixels I should be able to more enlarging and still be
> clear.
Sounds like the same one we just bought - lots of little sensitive
buttons to push by accident? "Darn, why'd it do THAT?" ;-(
Greg Surratt <glsu...@verizon.net>
Dennis Lee Bieber
> home he captured individual frames with a Snappy(?). Not sure that
> was the name of the critter, it's been a long time since I returned
>
Been a long time since I looked to see if I could even use mine
again (essentially not -- my new laptop does not have parallel or
serial ports, and I doubt the USB translators work perfectly for
non-printing applications).
Yes, it was called Snappy; it was basically an analog frame capture
device for video signals which worked by aligning up to four frames
to get a single sharp one.
Designed by some of the renegades from NewTek -- the creators of
the Amiga Video Toaster, a board that was capable of doing a "live"
StarTrek (original series) transporter effect (by "freezing" the
frame, letting the "actors" walk in or out, then randomly merging
the frozen with the live image), among other video effects. NewTek's
3D software, which was part of the full Video Toaster suite, went on
to generate the original Babylon 5 ships, and SeaQuest DSV subs.
Mike Curtis
> Mike,
>
> That's a very impressive collection - well done for a "hack" (you
> said it, I didn't ;-)
>
Thanks Greg. I find that I can be incredibly productive in a
courthouse if I don't have to stop and make copies, then write down
the source information. I just take the picture, then I take a
picture of the relevant source info, like the spine or cover of the
book, the microfilm description on the box, or whatever. If I am
going to multiple facilities I will take a shot of the courthouse as
a "place setting" so I don't get confused later.
One of the most productive uses for the camera is when I am copying
long text documents like deeds. I might find 50 different documents
in the grantor/grantee index that have my particular surname of
interest. Instead of reading through them to see which may be
relevant, I can take photos of all of them, then read them at my
leisure. The other benefit is that I get copies of documents I
might have otherwise bypassed as irrelevant, only to find out a year
later that it contains key information.
As long as I am allowed to use it, my digital camera is about the
only tool I take with me to research facilities any more.
Mike
Mike Curtis <mecu...@citcom.net>
Celia Mitschelen
> The Canon we bought has a "wireless remote" option (that we didn't
> get) that would solve that problem too.
>
Thanks, I'll have to look into that.
Celia
Kathy Tabb
> Several on this list have written about their successful use of
> digitals and I would like to hear what brand/models they used (pros/
> cons) and would appreciate any guidance about features.
>
Just yesterday I tried to take digital photos for the first time, at
the State of MI library. I have an Olympus D-580 with 3x optical
zoom. Had some trouble with it on a flat bed microfilm machine --
it was difficult to get the top bulb flare out of the way of what I
wanted. And then once I got rid of the flare problem, there was a
big shadow in the photo from the camera itself interefering with the
light from above. Once I got that adjusted, the photo came out
really good! A little skewed but still good. I took the photo of
just the article I wanted; doubt I could have gotten the whole page
into the lens because it was a flat bed and I couldn't have gotten
far enough away to get the whole page focused in. But the best use
of the camera was in photoing pages from books. I am short -- only
5'1" but by laying the book flat on the table and standing, I was
able to get whole pages into the lens. Didn't use any tripod; just
stood and clicked away. Now, in the camera's preview, they didn't
look so hot, so I also photocopied the most important pages -- just
in case. Downloaded them to the pc at home, into PSElements and
WOW! they are super!!! Yes, the image is rounded at the spine of
the book, but very, very readable. I also used a large rubberband to
hold some of the books open, wrapping it around the book and out of
the way of any print. I've heard others say to use those
potato-chip bag clips, but the books I was looking at were all too
thick to clip. This is sooooo much easier and faster than lugging
books over to the photocopy machine, waiting in line, and spending
20 cents a copy.
Kathy
"Kathy Tabb" <kath...@chartermi.net>
Roots Webmaster
> I've read with interest the posting about the expanding use of
> digital cameras for genealogical research. I am planning a research
> trip next month and very much want to use a camera to record
> information. I know nothing about digitals so I spent a good part
> of the day yesterday reviewing archives to collect brands mentioned
> and compile a list of features needed. I visited a camera store
> today and tried out several models but none were capable of
> capturing text. My wish list includes: 3.2 megapixels, optical zoom
> (3x), picture mode vs text mode, macro capabilities, glass lens
> (good rating).
>
> digitals and I would like to hear what brand/models they used (pros/
> cons) and would appreciate any guidance about features.
>
> Cann...@aol.com
Just a modest reminder about libraries: some have policies about use of
cameras (video, still, whatever) on the premises. Be sure to ask at the
desk before whipping yours out.
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
Webmaster: Cynthia Van Ness, MLS -- roots AT bfn DOT org
Roots: The Buffalo NY Genealogy Forum -- http://www.bfn.org/~roots
With obits, vital records, city directories & hundreds of local links
Roots Webmaster <ro...@bfn.org>
Ernie Wright
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> NewTek's 3D software, which was part of the full Video Toaster suite,
> went on to generate the original Babylon 5 ships, and SeaQuest DSV
> subs.
And a few other things.
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/projects_list.html
Until recently I was one of the programmers.
Regarding Celia's Snappy experience, I'm not surprised it didn't
work very well for recording documents. In modern terms, a Snappy
grabbing frames from a consumer camcorder tape had a resolution no
better than about 0.2 megapixels, less than a tenth of the
resolution now common for digital cameras, and that would be in good
light with a tripod. Handheld in normal room light, the image would
be much worse.
The Snappy was the first and most successful product of Play, Inc., a
company formed by Paul Montgomery after he left NewTek. Play did very
well for a while, but its long-term plans were always murky, and it
folded soon after Paul's untimely death in 1999. Conceptually, Snappy
wasn't much different from DigiView, NewTek's first product a decade
earlier.
Based on the way Snappy could integrate multiple fields, Play
claimed much higher resolution for Snappy than the figure I've given
here, and Snappy provided output in resolutions up to 1500 x 1125,
equivalent to 1.5 megapixels. But in the real world the results
were just what you'd expect: the quality of the output was no
better than the quality of the input, which with the video equipment
available to most people wasn't good enough for document scanning.
-- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Ernie Wright <ern...@comcast.net>
Pam
> Just yesterday I tried to take digital photos for the first time, at
> the State of MI library. I have an Olympus D-580 with 3x optical
> zoom. Had some trouble with it on a flat bed microfilm machine --
> it was difficult to get the top bulb flare out of the way of what I
> wanted. And then once I got rid of the flare problem, there was a
I'm not sure what you did to correct it but when we were at SLC some
of the readers had a really bad glare on the machines and we placed
sheets of blank, white paper (probably any light color would do) and
that really absorbed the glare.
--
Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net/
"Pam" <p...@nospam.com>
Kathy Tabb
> > Just yesterday I tried to take digital photos for the first time, at
> > the State of MI library. I have an Olympus D-580 with 3x optical
> > zoom. Had some trouble with it on a flat bed microfilm machine --
> > it was difficult to get the top bulb flare out of the way of what I
> > wanted. And then once I got rid of the flare problem, there was a
>
> I'm not sure what you did to correct it but when we were at SLC some
> of the readers had a really bad glare on the machines and we placed
> sheets of blank, white paper (probably any light color would do) and
> that really absorbed the glare.
Thanks for the tip, sounds like it would really help. My "solution"
(not really) was to move as far over from the light reflection as I
could. Still got a bit of the glare but it was still readable. I
try your idea next time I go out.
Kathy
"Kathy Tabb" <kath...@chartermi.net>