"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:bCaIm.1511$Ym4.1142@text.news.virginmedia.com ...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:fqaIm.50462$Db2.10523@edtnps83...
> []
>> I realize that simply setting the image to a smaller size will
>> interpolate a full sensor image down to the smaller rez, but I was
>> thinking about the smaller size being selected in conjunction with the
>> digital zoom being used.
>>
>> I don't think the firmware would up-size the digitally zoomed image only
>> to have to down-size it again back to something equivalent to the portion
>> "zoomed" in to.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> Correct - it's not a double operation in the firmware, just a simple
> in-camera crop. Like digital zoom, it may have the advantage that
> functions like exposure or focus measurement can be carried out on fewer
> pixels, in the wanted part of the image, and may therefore be faster or
> more accurate. Digital zoom then simply expands the result of a crop to
> create the number of pixels the user expects.
>
> Cheers,
> David
On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital zoom
depending on the image size selected.
Effectively, it won't allow upsizing.
If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a
smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing would
need to be done.
the lame Copy & Paste troll writes:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
> >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>
> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I
also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online
years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that
represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy
& flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far
revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's
sunlit shot.
"Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:RogIm.50476$Db2.25978@edtnps83...
[]
> On my Canon A720, there is a setting that limits the amount of digital
> zoom depending on the image size selected.
>
> Effectively, it won't allow upsizing.
>
> If the large image size is selected, digital zoom is disabled, but if a
> smaller size is chosen, then digital zoom is allowed up until upsizing
> would need to be done.
>
> It's a handy setting.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Although I've used neither the Panasonic "Extra Optical Zoom" nor the
A720, it does sound quite similar, except that Panasonic automatically
selects the smaller number of pixels.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:17:11 -0800 (PST), -hh
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>the lame Copy & Paste troll writes:
>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
>> >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>>
>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
>
>Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I
>also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online
>years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
>
>And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that
>represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy
>& flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far
>revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's
>sunlit shot.
>
>-hh
Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls'
bull**** as often as he does.)
And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda
yadda... LOL!
(Let's all watch them again claim how JPG artifacts are NR artifacts.
That's always funny.)
Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @
330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image
stabilization in that camera either. No crop, downsize only. Note: also
devoid of *any* shadows on the subject whatsoever, no flash used. I
happened to still have this one handy on my old HDD that I threw online
last night to look for something unrelated, in my give-aways scrapshot
folder before deleting it. Good thing I forgot to delete it.
With my talents and expertise, I'll beat every last one of you fool
snapshooter DSLR-Trolls with *ANY* P&S camera, any time, any subject,
anywhere. Guaranteed.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:00:24 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
<otif@trollouters.org> wrote:
>
>Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @
>330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image
>stabilization in that camera either.
For anyone that still might doubt the ambient light levels, I just noticed
another telling feature in the images themselves that show the drastic
differences in light levels.
Compare the birds' iris-sizes between this one of mine taken with another
P&S camera that I posted earlier (using 735mm optical focal-length):
I'm sure that the more biologically astute amongst you might even be able
to determine the exact ambient light levels by measuring those birds' iris
sizes alone. (Within a margin of error between the dusk and daylight
species' seeing requirements. As well as knowing and compensating for each
species pupil and eye size. The Green Heron with the vastly larger iris
size being a much smaller species than the Cormorant.)
I thought it an interesting nature-photo observation of mine. The birds'
eyes reflecting the aperture of camera lens required for the light levels.
And yet further proof that my images and words are not in any way
equivalent to the usual DSLR-Trolls' heaps of endless bull****.
Even my scrapshot pictures are worth more than 1,000 true words.
Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:17:11 -0800 (PST), -hh
><recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>the lame Copy & Paste troll writes:
>>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
>>> >which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>>>
>>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
>>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
>>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
>>
>>Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I
>>also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online
>>years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
>
>BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
More gibbering idiocy.
>>And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that
>>represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy
>>& flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far
>>revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's
>>sunlit shot.
>
>Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:00:24 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
><otif@trollouters.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset in a dark overgrown cypress-swamp @
>>330mm, f2.4, 1/10s, ISO200, with a hand-held P&S camera, no image
>>stabilization in that camera either.
>
>For anyone that still might doubt the ambient light levels,
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> >Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
>
> It's not in sunlight, *******. *Get a clue.
I recall doing some research awhile back on solar-based power systems
for dismounted military. Stuff was looking pretty promising until
someone pointed out the 'all terrains' requirement and asked, "How
well would this have worked in Vietnam?" Long story short is that in
jungle triple canopy, roughly 95% of available light is absorbed
before it hits the ground...and despite arguments of "find a patch of
sunlight", this solar project was killed.
Applying that 95% loss in photographic terms, that's four (4) stops.
Plus armchair guesstimates based on pupil dilation fails when not
comparing same-to-same. All bets are off as soon as one changes
species. For example, here's resized but totally unedited images of a
kingfisher and a bee eater...both with dilated eyes ... and for both,
when you check the EXIF, one finds that it is a clearly non-gloomy EV
14.
Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:17:11 -0800 (PST), -hh
> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>> the lame Copy & Paste troll writes:
>>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...but the shots aren't comparable in several ways, not the least of
>>>> which is that it represents 'worst case' conditions...
>>> And there was a stone in your shoe, your girdle was too tight, you forgot
>>> your glasses, there was a string broken in your tennis racket, and your
>>> shoelace was untied ... yadda yadda yadda ...
>> Try to make whatever lame excuses you want, but the reality is that I
>> also had a new digital P&S with me, yet what I chose to put online
>> years before this debate as the better shot wasn't one from the P&S.
>
> BETTER?? LOL!!!!!!!!!
>
>> And naturally, we can expect to never see any image from you that
>> represents something comparable...call it a long telephoto at a gloomy
>> & flat EV 5-9 lighting (semitropical cloud forest), which is far
>> revmoved from the nice and bright EV 14-16 that was present in John's
>> sunlit shot.
>>
>> -hh
>
> Yet shadows are clearly seen in your photo because it was *SO* far removed
> from sunlight. LOL! (Yet he thinks he can get away with his DSLR-Trolls'
> bull**** as often as he does.)
>
> And the stone was in your shoe, your girdle was too tight yadda yadda
> yadda... LOL!
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/...1b811770_o.jpg
Jeez, do you think you could over-sharpen that tiny shot even more?
ROTFL.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
nospam wrote:
> In article <4af0e434$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> John just likes to play his little word games, and he doesn't care if he
>>>> is
>>>> even in the same galaxy as the rest of us, let alone the same ball park.
>>> that's exactly what it is. word games. technically you can upgrade a
>>> car, even though virtually nobody does it.
>> And technically, buying a new lens for your DSLR is 'upgrading' it.
>
> or downgrading it, depending on the lens
There is that, of course. OTOH, you can also swap in a new memory card,
or bolt on a better flash gun, all of which count as upgrades.
> although you can't swap out the cpu in a camera, there have been memory
> or other hardware upgrades for some older dslrs.
>
> you can also add new features with a firmware upgrade. for example, the
> 2.0 firmware on the nikon d70 added all of the features in the nikon
> d70s that did not require a change in hardware, such as a wired remote
> jack.
Indeed.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Lens question 
Linear Mode
