If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Nixon writes: If you really think it's about the camera, then I doubt that very much. The image capture technology puts an upper limit on image quality. And I wonder what in the heck you're doing in this newsgroup, of course. I scan film. I've seen some lousy pictures done on 4x5 view cameras, and I've made some myself. In fact, I would venture to say that every picture I ever took on 4x5 in my limited experience with that format in college was, regardless of technical merit for the assignment, total crap. That they were done with a "better" format didn't make them any good. But all else being equal, 4x5 produces much higher quality images than 6x6, which produces better quality than 35mm, which produces better quality than digital or APS, and so on. What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture? There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the specific technology used. |
#772
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Nixon writes: If you really think it's about the camera, then I doubt that very much. The image capture technology puts an upper limit on image quality. And I wonder what in the heck you're doing in this newsgroup, of course. I scan film. I've seen some lousy pictures done on 4x5 view cameras, and I've made some myself. In fact, I would venture to say that every picture I ever took on 4x5 in my limited experience with that format in college was, regardless of technical merit for the assignment, total crap. That they were done with a "better" format didn't make them any good. But all else being equal, 4x5 produces much higher quality images than 6x6, which produces better quality than 35mm, which produces better quality than digital or APS, and so on. What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture? There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the specific technology used. |
#773
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeremy Nixon writes: If you really think it's about the camera, then I doubt that very much. The image capture technology puts an upper limit on image quality. And I wonder what in the heck you're doing in this newsgroup, of course. I scan film. I've seen some lousy pictures done on 4x5 view cameras, and I've made some myself. In fact, I would venture to say that every picture I ever took on 4x5 in my limited experience with that format in college was, regardless of technical merit for the assignment, total crap. That they were done with a "better" format didn't make them any good. But all else being equal, 4x5 produces much higher quality images than 6x6, which produces better quality than 35mm, which produces better quality than digital or APS, and so on. What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture? There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the specific technology used. |
#774
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ron Hunter
writes I am sure that a camera could be made to accept waypoint data from a GPS will little trouble, and that a GPS could be made to send that data with as little trouble, Why should you want to send waypoint information to a camera? Waypoints are points you are to visit on a route i.e. change of direction, rest points, check-in stations. They might be entered by visiting them on a previous journey, most locations on a route where you might take a photograph are not waypoints although you could turn them in to waypoints. What you require the camera to do is accept standard NEMA phrases from the GPS Rx and use the location and time/date information from it. You could even set the clock in the camera using it, but since GPS time is UTC you might want to set your time zone in the camera. The GPS Rx does not need to be made to send current location information, that is why it is why it has a serial port (unless you change it from the default to transfer non-NEMA information). A 4800 Bd serial port is quite fast enough for this information, unless you imagine that your location is changing so fast that it needs updating at 480MBd; I doubt that a domestic GPS Rx could track the satellites at the velocity this implies. Fortunately for camera manufactures GPS Rx manufactures have already agreed on a standard for presenting location information to other devices, it is a three wire serial port on a nine pin Dee with defined stop, start, parity, bit length and rate. The base rate is 4800, newer device have the option to select higher rates but will default to the standard. I can see that one change is required since a nine pin Dee is too large for most cameras. A better option would be Bluetooth, this would also allow remote control, both of the camera by the user and a flash by the camera. I am not certain about building it in since this cost would translate to a premium price for the enhanced feature and not every photograph would want or need it; manufacturing two otherwise identical models would make the one with even more expensive because it would have a smaller market. -- Ian G8ILZ |
#775
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ron Hunter
writes I am sure that a camera could be made to accept waypoint data from a GPS will little trouble, and that a GPS could be made to send that data with as little trouble, Why should you want to send waypoint information to a camera? Waypoints are points you are to visit on a route i.e. change of direction, rest points, check-in stations. They might be entered by visiting them on a previous journey, most locations on a route where you might take a photograph are not waypoints although you could turn them in to waypoints. What you require the camera to do is accept standard NEMA phrases from the GPS Rx and use the location and time/date information from it. You could even set the clock in the camera using it, but since GPS time is UTC you might want to set your time zone in the camera. The GPS Rx does not need to be made to send current location information, that is why it is why it has a serial port (unless you change it from the default to transfer non-NEMA information). A 4800 Bd serial port is quite fast enough for this information, unless you imagine that your location is changing so fast that it needs updating at 480MBd; I doubt that a domestic GPS Rx could track the satellites at the velocity this implies. Fortunately for camera manufactures GPS Rx manufactures have already agreed on a standard for presenting location information to other devices, it is a three wire serial port on a nine pin Dee with defined stop, start, parity, bit length and rate. The base rate is 4800, newer device have the option to select higher rates but will default to the standard. I can see that one change is required since a nine pin Dee is too large for most cameras. A better option would be Bluetooth, this would also allow remote control, both of the camera by the user and a flash by the camera. I am not certain about building it in since this cost would translate to a premium price for the enhanced feature and not every photograph would want or need it; manufacturing two otherwise identical models would make the one with even more expensive because it would have a smaller market. -- Ian G8ILZ |
#776
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ron Hunter
writes I am sure that a camera could be made to accept waypoint data from a GPS will little trouble, and that a GPS could be made to send that data with as little trouble, Why should you want to send waypoint information to a camera? Waypoints are points you are to visit on a route i.e. change of direction, rest points, check-in stations. They might be entered by visiting them on a previous journey, most locations on a route where you might take a photograph are not waypoints although you could turn them in to waypoints. What you require the camera to do is accept standard NEMA phrases from the GPS Rx and use the location and time/date information from it. You could even set the clock in the camera using it, but since GPS time is UTC you might want to set your time zone in the camera. The GPS Rx does not need to be made to send current location information, that is why it is why it has a serial port (unless you change it from the default to transfer non-NEMA information). A 4800 Bd serial port is quite fast enough for this information, unless you imagine that your location is changing so fast that it needs updating at 480MBd; I doubt that a domestic GPS Rx could track the satellites at the velocity this implies. Fortunately for camera manufactures GPS Rx manufactures have already agreed on a standard for presenting location information to other devices, it is a three wire serial port on a nine pin Dee with defined stop, start, parity, bit length and rate. The base rate is 4800, newer device have the option to select higher rates but will default to the standard. I can see that one change is required since a nine pin Dee is too large for most cameras. A better option would be Bluetooth, this would also allow remote control, both of the camera by the user and a flash by the camera. I am not certain about building it in since this cost would translate to a premium price for the enhanced feature and not every photograph would want or need it; manufacturing two otherwise identical models would make the one with even more expensive because it would have a smaller market. -- Ian G8ILZ |
#777
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your newsreader ... Correct. Probably still on Win95 too. Windows XP, since that was provided with the machine (I had to install it to allow connection of a USB peripheral, since NT would not support it and there was no supporting software for UNIX). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#778
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your newsreader ... Correct. Probably still on Win95 too. Windows XP, since that was provided with the machine (I had to install it to allow connection of a USB peripheral, since NT would not support it and there was no supporting software for UNIX). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#779
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
I guess that is why you aren't using the lastest version of your newsreader ... Correct. Probably still on Win95 too. Windows XP, since that was provided with the machine (I had to install it to allow connection of a USB peripheral, since NT would not support it and there was no supporting software for UNIX). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#780
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
What good is a high quality image if the subject is lousy, the focus off, the composition terrible, and the camera was set at the wrong aperture? Not much good, but a superbly composed picture that is blurry or improperly exposed or shot through a cheap lens isn't worth much more. The notion that one can somehow compensate for any lack of image quality with talent or luck is mistaken. While it's true that image quality is not always an essential part of a good photography, it is also true that it never detracts from an image, and it usually enhances it. If image quality didn't matter at all, everyone could just shoot with disposables or ultracheap digitals. (Some people do exactly that, if they don't care about image quality.) There is much more to photography than the maximum quality of the specific technology used. Image quality is nevertheless of the essence of photography. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|