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.

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

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.

"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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.