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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 19:01:51 +1000, "Pete D" wrote:
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:26:50 -0400, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 06:00:35 +0100, "David J Taylor" wrote: "Crash!" wrote in message news:7b6dnbp7IJpoIBjRnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@pghconne ct.com... Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Perhaps they don't need "something like CHDK"? Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/CHDK/ Insecure DSLR-TROLL fools never find what they don't want to look for. LOL, can't find what is never posted anywhere. Oh, by the way, that link is posted on the main page for the CHDK Wiki. I know, because I put it there about 2 years ago. It's available to anyone that has a sincere interest in CHDK. That counts out numbnuts DSLR-TROLLS like you, don't it. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
In message , tony cooper
writes Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. I've seen some very nice lightning-strike pictures taken using CHDK to detect the flash and trigger the recording of the image. I believe there are custom lightning-flash detectors that can be coupled to conventional cameras to do the same thing but it's not a standard feature in any digital camera that I know of, and certainly not in any of the point-and-shoot range. I also recall seeing some high-speed "frozen" images that were taken under conventional lighting rather than using high-speed strobes as is usual in such cases. For some Canon cameras CHDK allows exposure times as short as 1/40,000 second, again not something that is conventionally available even on higher-end cameras. -- To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,etc?
On 9/7/2010 7:47 AM, DanP wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:30 am, Robert wrote: I also recall seeing some high-speed "frozen" images that were taken under conventional lighting rather than using high-speed strobes as is usual in such cases. For some Canon cameras CHDK allows exposure times as short as 1/40,000 second, again not something that is conventionally available even on higher-end cameras. So, what aperture will you use for that 1/40,000 sec exposure and how do you light your subject? And have you seen anything taken at that speed that is worth looking at? Looking at for what purpose? Hint--someone trying to figure out why his bullets are tumbling may have a different view of "worth" than someone who is trying to create a work of photographic art. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
... [] So how do you do lightning-strike photos with Canon's competitors? One might speculate that the users of those cameras follow the advice generally available on the Web: http://www.weatherscapes.com/techniq...page=lightning http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Ho...lightning-4795 http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/weather/lightningtips.htm but you would have to ask the users yourself to be sure. Cheers, David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
in rec.photo.digital, Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?; On Tue, 7 Sep, Pete D wrote: "Superzooms Still Win" wrote... On Tue, tony cooper wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote: "Crash!" wrote... Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Perhaps they don't need "something like CHDK"? Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/CHDK/ Insecure DSLR-TROLL fools never find what they don't want to look for. While I found your original reply to my question very useful, your (and others' in this childish feud) overuse of mindless lazy stereotypes/ ad homs is one of the reasons I found/find CHDK to seem unreputable, somewhat unbelievable, and why I wonder if the programming and interface might be sloppy and Rube Goldberg. That's just going on "first glace," with mostly this newsgroup as evedence. While I do find your pointing out possible prejudice, I think it's 1) so childish, and 2) so overused and inescapale/dominating, that it's off-putting and degrades your arguments and their points. LOL, can't find what is never posted anywhere. Feel free to post links to all your great shots Bozo...... go on I dare you!! How about a nature shot motion trigger of wildlife on bait or trail, ...or feeding on your garden? Backseat time lapse movie of your vacation? Remote cable shutter release? Wireless remote shutter release (with $5 - $10 for parts). I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that Ya gatta admit, that's carefully worded and highly restrictive. Sometimes "good photograph" is not the main criterion, but rather "any photgraph or video source material, as opposed to none, zip, zero, nada." Agree? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,etc?
On 9/6/2010 10:26 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 06:00:35 +0100, "David J Taylor" wrote: wrote in message om... Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Perhaps they don't need "something like CHDK"? Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. Some functionality of CHDK is useful and not present on many P&S cameras. For example, I find the histograms very useful (especially for higher ISO shots), and other than some high end Canon P&S cameras like the G11, histograms were apparently deemed too complex a feature to be included as standard on a P&S like the A570 IS or SD00 IS (the models that I use CHDK on). Bracketing is another feature that my P&S cameras don't come with but that CHDK allows, though I've never used bracketing. You're probably right that it would be possible to take the same high-ISO shots without the histogram that CHDK provides, but CHDK makes the process more straightforward. Some of the features of CHDK are not even related to the actual image. Features like the battery meter which provides a more accurate indication of the remaining batter life than Canon decided was necessary. A lot of the objections to CHDK are solely because our favorite troll spends so much time promoting it. If you look at it objectively, I think you'll find that it really is a useful program, and you should not let the rantings of one troll turn you against it. I'm a bit biased because I've been a frequent contributor to the CHDK effort, but since it's a cooperative, open-source program it's dependent on users to help out with it. I don't blame Canon for not including much of the capability that CHDK adds. Including those capabilities would mean providing support and documentation for those capabilities, something that would be difficult and expensive to do for low cost cameras. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?; On 07 Sep 2010, Superzooms Still Win wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep, "Pete D" wrote: "Superzooms Still Win" wrote... On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, "David J Taylor" wrote: "Crash!" wrote... Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Perhaps they don't need "something like CHDK"? Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/CHDK/ Nice pics! But does it answer the question? How do we know those are CHDK influenced? But as, or more important, In what way does CHDK improve those "Canon point-and-shoot" cameras' [are they really ???] photos? On that page, For example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76048894@N00/3055748652 " M?zen from Yemen (22 months ago) I wasn't aware that she was buried beneath that car, died burning, until a soldier stopped me from photographing then told me "just look there, and you'll understand why." She had absolutely no human details but a posture. However, the other three passengers survived, one (her husband, and seemingly the driver) with minor injuries. " "Tags * Yemen * Accident * Burning * Flames * Depression * Death * Heavy smoke * Land Cruiser * Mazen * CHDK * HDR" Insecure DSLR-TROLL fools never find what they don't want to look for. Well I breifly looked, nothing other than the tag. What did you find that I missed? LOL, can't find what is never posted anywhere. Oh, by the way, that link is posted on the main page for the CHDK Wiki. I know, because I put it there about 2 years ago. It's available to anyone that has a sincere interest in CHDK. That counts out numbnuts DSLR-TROLLS like you, don't it. Well I have a sincere interest in CHDK, since it may help me decide against buying a Panasonic. IF the PowerShot SX120 even has CHDK! I wrote this a few months ago: "I'm very impressed with your reviews and test images! "I was trying to compare the Panasonic Lumix ZS1/TZ6 with the Canon PowerShot SX120, particularly in low light with your CompareOmeter. They were both sorta OK until about ISO 1600, when the SX120 utterly fell apart, utterly unusable color-wise. This alone seemed reason to go with the ZS1, despite it's trouble focusing, weak LCD, and loose mode knob and so forth. IOW, I favored the Canon, but this alone was reason to fail it. But then I realized that the test was actually for tungsten color correction! " OK, so the Canon failed tungsten color correction, but what about natural low-light such as tree cover and indoor open window...where most of my low-light would be in the real world? ....Or is the tungsten color correction test an indicator of natural low-light colors too? " ....and so forth.... And you were saying? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:57:02 -0700, Crash! wrote:
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?; On 07 Sep 2010, Superzooms Still Win wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep, "Pete D" wrote: "Superzooms Still Win" wrote... On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, "David J Taylor" wrote: "Crash!" wrote... Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Perhaps they don't need "something like CHDK"? Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/CHDK/ Nice pics! But does it answer the question? How do we know those are CHDK influenced? You would have to read the comments for every photo in question to be certain. And many of them are obviously CHDK influenced. The HDR, long exposures, fast shutter-speed ones, etc. You have to know something about the basics of photography and the camera limitations to easily pick out which ones couldn't have been done on those particular cameras without CHDK. But as, or more important, In what way does CHDK improve those "Canon point-and-shoot" cameras' [are they really ???] photos? On that page, For example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76048894@N00/3055748652 " M?zen from Yemen (22 months ago) I wasn't aware that she was buried beneath that car, died burning, until a soldier stopped me from photographing then told me "just look there, and you'll understand why." She had absolutely no human details but a posture. However, the other three passengers survived, one (her husband, and seemingly the driver) with minor injuries. " "Tags * Yemen * Accident * Burning * Flames * Depression * Death * Heavy smoke * Land Cruiser * Mazen * CHDK * HDR" That photo was done with HDR techniques. Many of the Powershots do not have any bracketing modes in them. Until they install CHDK. Insecure DSLR-TROLL fools never find what they don't want to look for. Well I breifly looked, nothing other than the tag. What did you find that I missed? At least 2/3rds of all those photos posted show obvious signs of having used CHDK enhancements. If you can't spot that, I'm not going to waste my time picking them out for you. You're sounding like as much of a troll as the rest of these fools. LOL, can't find what is never posted anywhere. Oh, by the way, that link is posted on the main page for the CHDK Wiki. I know, because I put it there about 2 years ago. It's available to anyone that has a sincere interest in CHDK. That counts out numbnuts DSLR-TROLLS like you, don't it. Well I have a sincere interest in CHDK, since it may help me decide against buying a Panasonic. IF the PowerShot SX120 even has CHDK! I wrote this a few months ago: "I'm very impressed with your reviews and test images! "I was trying to compare the Panasonic Lumix ZS1/TZ6 with the Canon PowerShot SX120, particularly in low light with your CompareOmeter. They were both sorta OK until about ISO 1600, when the SX120 utterly fell apart, utterly unusable color-wise. This alone seemed reason to go with the ZS1, despite it's trouble focusing, weak LCD, and loose mode knob and so forth. IOW, I favored the Canon, but this alone was reason to fail it. But then I realized that the test was actually for tungsten color correction! " OK, so the Canon failed tungsten color correction, but what about natural low-light such as tree cover and indoor open window...where most of my low-light would be in the real world? ...Or is the tungsten color correction test an indicator of natural low-light colors too? " ....and so forth.... And you were saying? A few months ago and you still haven't decided? You're a TROLL. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:06:21 -0700, Crash! wrote:
in rec.photo.digital, Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?; On Tue, 7 Sep, Pete D wrote: "Superzooms Still Win" wrote... On Tue, tony cooper wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote: "Crash!" wrote... Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Perhaps they don't need "something like CHDK"? Does anyone? I have yet to see an example of a good photograph that was taken utilizing the CHDK "features" that was not an image that could have been taken with an off-the-shelf, unhacked, Canon point-and-shoot. http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/CHDK/ Insecure DSLR-TROLL fools never find what they don't want to look for. While I found your original reply to my question very useful, your (and others' in this childish feud) overuse of mindless lazy stereotypes/ ad homs is one of the reasons I found/find CHDK to seem unreputable, somewhat unbelievable, and why I wonder if the programming and interface might be sloppy and Rube Goldberg. That's just going on "first glace," with mostly this newsgroup as evedence. While I do find your pointing out possible prejudice, I think it's 1) so childish, and 2) so overused and inescapale/dominating, that it's off-putting and degrades your arguments and their points. Then don't use it! No skin off anyone's nose if you don't. I could care less if anyone uses CHDK or not. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:22:55 +0100, "David J Taylor"
wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... [] So how do you do lightning-strike photos with Canon's competitors? One might speculate that the users of those cameras follow the advice generally available on the Web: http://www.weatherscapes.com/techniq...page=lightning http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Ho...lightning-4795 http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/weather/lightningtips.htm but you would have to ask the users yourself to be sure. Cheers, David If that's their usual advice that's been used for the whole last century, perhaps you should ask them how they might accomplish it in daylight without using stacks of ND filters and shooting hundreds of frames hoping one might have something on it. Something that's never been done before, handheld daytime lightning strikes. Set the shutter for proper exposure for daylight conditions and it will only trigger when a lightning event happens. No need for even a tripod. There have been some handheld lightning photos posted at the CHDK forums. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time Lapse Video | Alan Smithee[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | February 5th 09 04:32 AM |
Time lapse pointing at sun ok or not? | DeanB | Digital Photography | 12 | June 22nd 07 05:55 AM |
DSLR time lapse | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | December 13th 06 05:09 AM |
time lapse | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | February 27th 06 02:32 AM |
Time lapse photography | sam maradia via PhotoKB.com | Digital Photography | 1 | February 7th 05 12:55 PM |