Digital Cam takes pictures where films cannot.
 

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:43:38 -0700, "Mark M"
wrotd:

Because you can amplify the signal in the sensor data FAR beyond what is
first presented upon viewing.

But I hardly needed to do anything. The image just showed up on the
LCD monitor. Did the cam automatically pushed it?

This phenomenon is eminent with the cellphone cameras. They literally
take pictures anywhere--------where I would not even bother to take my
film camera out.



ABC
Do not reply by email.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Mark M wrote:
"ABC" wrote in message
...
Am I just imagining things? I find that in many low light situations
(e.g. indoor with just normal house lights) digital camera can at
least take a picture and show you the image when a film camera cannot
, eventhough the DC is set to the same ISO as the film.

Why?

Because you can amplify the signal in the sensor data FAR beyond what
is first presented upon viewing. Once the film has been processed,
you can't squeeze much more out of it. Any pushing would need to be
done in the chemical development of the film.

I have pushed images out from digital shots that were literally BLACK
upon first inspection, and come up with very identifiable subjects.

So... With digital, you get to push or pull-process in real time.
Shooting in RAW mode allows for AMAZING recoveries of shots that are
poorly metered.

The distance and dark overwhelmed the Nikon CP995 on-camera flash:
http://www.fototime.com/5D645419D962B5C/orig.jpg

Photo Shop (Equalize?) revived it:
http://www.fototime.com/F7D8298AA135794/orig.jpg

Amazing what detail was in the murk:
http://www.fototime.com/CDE634F124A2E9B/orig.jpg

A second, even more obscure exposu
http://www.fototime.com/ECDE0CBEA6757FF/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/7BBC1C3BAC5CE19/orig.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/2FCF2F544AD6A91/orig.jpg


Just for information, the little dog would not give up, so my next move
was to grab the garden hose and spray both participants, who retreated
to their "safe" places with only minor exchange of essences. Several
years later the black-and-white family still lives nearby, and we have
all learned to accommodate each others' preferences.


--
Frank ess

ABC writes:

Am I just imagining things? I find that in many low light situations
(e.g. indoor with just normal house lights) digital camera can at
least take a picture and show you the image when a film camera cannot
, eventhough the DC is set to the same ISO as the film.

Why?

Perhaps because you can hand-hold it at lower shutter speeds than a
film camera. There's no shutter or mirror slap. It's lighter (mixed
bag). And there are easier ways to brace the camera while viewing the
LCD than there are to hold an SLR to your head.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"ABC" wrote

This phenomenon is eminent with the cellphone cameras. They literally
take pictures anywhere--------where I would not even bother to take my
film camera out.

Ah yes, the cell-phone camera: camera of the perverts. Anyway, digital
cameras are no more sensitive than film. If you're shooting in low light,
you need to expose for a long time whether you shoot digital or film.
Digital just allows you to see the image in the LCD, whereas you can't with
film. So, stick to brightly lit changerooms and bathrooms with your
cell-phone camera if you want good pictures. Oh, and if you get a mouthful
of knuckles... good.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:45:43 -0400, "grim"
wrote:

"ABC" wrote

This phenomenon is eminent with the cellphone cameras. They literally
take pictures anywhere--------where I would not even bother to take my
film camera out.

Ah yes, the cell-phone camera: camera of the perverts. Anyway, digital
cameras are no more sensitive than film. If you're shooting in low light,
you need to expose for a long time whether you shoot digital or film.
Digital just allows you to see the image in the LCD, whereas you can't with
film. So, stick to brightly lit changerooms and bathrooms with your
cell-phone camera if you want good pictures. Oh, and if you get a mouthful
of knuckles... good.


Cell-phone camera -- jeez, you sure don't need much to make a
full assessment of someone you've never met, do you?

Maybe you should hire on as a psychic with the CIA. You could
singlehandedly wipe out the problem of lack of humint.

Damned trolls.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:45:43 -0400, "grim"
wrote:

"ABC" wrote

This phenomenon is eminent with the cellphone cameras. They literally
take pictures anywhere--------where I would not even bother to take my
film camera out.

Ah yes, the cell-phone camera: camera of the perverts. Anyway, digital
cameras are no more sensitive than film. If you're shooting in low light,
you need to expose for a long time whether you shoot digital or film.
Digital just allows you to see the image in the LCD, whereas you can't with
film. So, stick to brightly lit changerooms and bathrooms with your
cell-phone camera if you want good pictures. Oh, and if you get a mouthful
of knuckles... good.


It's interesting when someone invents more information than what was
originally in someone else's text. They are only displaying their
own fears, hopes, doubts, obsessions, and psychoses in life.

Not unlike those that do reverse-speech analysis. They're inventing
what they think is valid info out of noise (clouds), revealing their
only own values and fears -- nothing more.

ABC wrote in message . ..
Am I just imagining things? I find that in many low light situations
(e.g. indoor with just normal house lights) digital camera can at
least take a picture and show you the image when a film camera cannot
, eventhough the DC is set to the same ISO as the film.

Why?


Lens speed and focal length play a major r9ole in the amount of light
reaching the CCD/film.
A wide zoom and a fast lens will allow you to take pictures with less
light.

Ihor

"Ihor" wrote in message
om...
ABC wrote in message
. ..
Am I just imagining things? I find that in many low light situations
(e.g. indoor with just normal house lights) digital camera can at
least take a picture and show you the image when a film camera cannot
, eventhough the DC is set to the same ISO as the film.

Why?


Lens speed and focal length play a major r9ole in the amount of light
reaching the CCD/film.
A wide zoom and a fast lens will allow you to take pictures with less
light.

Focal length has no relation to the amount of light...though it may seem
this way since most non-pro level tele lenses have smaller apertures the
longer they go.

Light collection is all about the aperture...not the focal length.
I have a 20mm that is f4.5, and a 200mm that is 2.8.
It's NOT the focal length.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:00:09 GMT, JustPassinThru
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:45:43 -0400, "grim"
wrote:

Ah yes, the cell-phone camera: camera of the perverts. Anyway, digital
cameras are no more sensitive than film. If you're shooting in low light,
you need to expose for a long time whether you shoot digital or film.
Digital just allows you to see the image in the LCD, whereas you can't with
film. So, stick to brightly lit changerooms and bathrooms with your
cell-phone camera if you want good pictures. Oh, and if you get a mouthful
of knuckles... good.


It's interesting when someone invents more information than what was
originally in someone else's text. They are only displaying their
own fears, hopes, doubts, obsessions, and psychoses in life.

Not unlike those that do reverse-speech analysis. They're inventing
what they think is valid info out of noise (clouds), revealing their
only own values and fears -- nothing more.

Sorry. My English is not good enough. What are you people talking
about?



ABC