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 |
#781
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#782
|
|||
|
|||
Prometheus wrote:
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. How many cameras are out there? Now how many GPS receivers are out there. Now is it more feasible to put USB on all the GPS receivers, or to put serial ports on all the cameras. You figure it out. 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. Bluetooth would certainly be better, serial is out of the question since it appears on very few cameras and would require yet another connector. 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. I never suggested that such a feature would be on all cameras, only that more expensive ones will probably have something like that, or a built-in GPSR. Not all photographers would want such a feature, but I expect it would be rather popular as an option even on P&S cameras. |
#783
|
|||
|
|||
Prometheus wrote:
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. How many cameras are out there? Now how many GPS receivers are out there. Now is it more feasible to put USB on all the GPS receivers, or to put serial ports on all the cameras. You figure it out. 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. Bluetooth would certainly be better, serial is out of the question since it appears on very few cameras and would require yet another connector. 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. I never suggested that such a feature would be on all cameras, only that more expensive ones will probably have something like that, or a built-in GPSR. Not all photographers would want such a feature, but I expect it would be rather popular as an option even on P&S cameras. |
#784
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
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). AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!! |
#785
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
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). AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!! |
#786
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
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. Yet there is a point beyond which improvements in image quality are not visible in the finished product. It is like the audophile who insists on flat speaker/amplifier response from 30 to 22,000hz, even though he KNOWS he can't hear past 12,000, or lower than 60. Not much sense in entertaining the dogs next door... I believe it was Adam Osbourne (the father of the portable computer) who said 'Good enough is good enough.' That could be applied to photography as well. Note that the value of a photograph is often more about what it captured than the quality of the capture, because the alternative is nothing at all. |
#787
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
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. Yet there is a point beyond which improvements in image quality are not visible in the finished product. It is like the audophile who insists on flat speaker/amplifier response from 30 to 22,000hz, even though he KNOWS he can't hear past 12,000, or lower than 60. Not much sense in entertaining the dogs next door... I believe it was Adam Osbourne (the father of the portable computer) who said 'Good enough is good enough.' That could be applied to photography as well. Note that the value of a photograph is often more about what it captured than the quality of the capture, because the alternative is nothing at all. |
#788
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!! I don't understand this reaction. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#789
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
AGHAST! What? Unix didn't have support for it? Could it be? Unix isn't perfect? Call CNN, Call FOX, Call MSN!!!! I don't understand this reaction. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#790
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Hunter writes:
Yet there is a point beyond which improvements in image quality are not visible in the finished product. You're arguing the wrong point. I didn't say that image quality is everything, I said that it's important and essential to some extent in every photo. Why is this distinction so difficult to grasp? I believe it was Adam Osbourne (the father of the portable computer) who said 'Good enough is good enough.' That could be applied to photography as well. It can be applied to anything, but good enough and bad are not synonyms. Note that the value of a photograph is often more about what it captured than the quality of the capture, because the alternative is nothing at all. Yes, but if it is poorly captured, it often has less value than if it is well captured. After all, an image quality of zero is the same as no image at all. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|