«

It does show more detail, but I think to show the 6.75mhz circle as it
really is, you'd really need to use a pro 35mm camera because I just
don't think any digital camera is good enough to do this job.
If there was rock solid detail in the 6.75mhz circle, then a digital
camera would show it, but there not rock solid detail, but it's not
mush either so only a very good 35mm camera would probably show it as
it actually is.
This new camera is a lot better than the old HP Photosmart 120 though
as these pics show.
It shows a lot better detail than the old camera.
If you look really really carefull, you can see that the 6.75mhz
circle is not total total mush and you can very very faintly makeout
some detail.
Most of these pics are over 1 meg in size and you'd probably have to
copy and paste the url because the website uses anti-hotlinking
measures.
http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST1.jpg

http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST2.jpg

http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST3.jpg

http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST4.jpg

http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST5.jpg

http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST6.jpg

BTW, this is what it looks like when a monitor/tv and the dvd player
source both pass the 6.75mhz test with flying colors(see the first pic
at the link)
http://www.keohi.com/keohihdtv/brand...jul02_pg1.html

Jack White wrote:
>


You don't have permission to access
/storage/photos/gigantor/HOME/9bab3719a4c788b25cc39d8b9f53fc6f/TEST2.jpg
on this server.
--
Paul. (This machine will, will not communicate)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

In article < >,
says...
> It does show more detail, but I think to show the 6.75mhz circle as it
> really is, you'd really need to use a pro 35mm camera because I just
> don't think any digital camera is good enough to do this job.
>

Did I miss something? Why do you insist on testing the resolution of
your camera by taking pictures of your TV? Is that what you bought a
digital camera for?

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Olympus E20
Canon G2
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________

why are you posting this in dbs.echostar
"Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In article < >,
> says...
> > It does show more detail, but I think to show the 6.75mhz circle as it
> > really is, you'd really need to use a pro 35mm camera because I just
> > don't think any digital camera is good enough to do this job.
> >
>
> Did I miss something? Why do you insist on testing the resolution of
> your camera by taking pictures of your TV? Is that what you bought a
> digital camera for?
>
> --
> ________________________________
> Todd Walker
> http://twalker.d2g.com
> Olympus E20
> Canon G2
> My Digital Photography Weblog:
> http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
> _________________________________

Excuse me for asking, but why test your camera by taking a shot of a
TV screen test. It seems that your TV may be part of the focus-test
problem. My D60 seems make me want better quality lens because of the
detail it shows compared to my ElanII body. I don't mean to start a
discussion of film vs digital so back to your test results. Try
shooting a high quality text image or something with crisp static
lines rather than a projected image.

If my comments are way off on what you meant... sorry
ss

(Jack White) wrote in message news:<. com>...
> It does show more detail, but I think to show the 6.75mhz circle as it
> really is, you'd really need to use a pro 35mm camera because I just
> don't think any digital camera is good enough to do this job.
> If there was rock solid detail in the 6.75mhz circle, then a digital
> camera would show it, but there not rock solid detail, but it's not
> mush either so only a very good 35mm camera would probably show it as
> it actually is.
> This new camera is a lot better than the old HP Photosmart 120 though
> as these pics show.
> It shows a lot better detail than the old camera.
> If you look really really carefull, you can see that the 6.75mhz
> circle is not total total mush and you can very very faintly makeout
> some detail.
> Most of these pics are over 1 meg in size and you'd probably have to
> copy and paste the url because the website uses anti-hotlinking
> measures.
> http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST1.jpg
>
> http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST2.jpg
>
> http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST3.jpg
>
> http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST4.jpg
>
> http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST5.jpg
>
> http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/p...fc6f/TEST6.jpg
>
> BTW, this is what it looks like when a monitor/tv and the dvd player
> source both pass the 6.75mhz test with flying colors(see the first pic
> at the link)
> http://www.keohi.com/keohihdtv/brand...jul02_pg1.html

Todd Walker <> writes:

>Did I miss something? Why do you insist on testing the resolution of
>your camera by taking pictures of your TV? Is that what you bought a
>digital camera for?

No, he's testing TVs, and wants to show the results of his TV tests.
So he photographs the visual appearance of the test pattern on the TV
screen. Unfortunately, his previous camera was *worse* than the TVs
he's trying to test.

Dave

"Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
news:bekl2m$nf2$...
> Todd Walker <> writes:
>
> >Did I miss something? Why do you insist on testing the resolution of
> >your camera by taking pictures of your TV? Is that what you bought a
> >digital camera for?
>
> No, he's testing TVs, and wants to show the results of his TV tests.
> So he photographs the visual appearance of the test pattern on the TV
> screen. Unfortunately, his previous camera was *worse* than the TVs
> he's trying to test.
>
> Dave
Still off topic here. ( alt.dbs.echostar )

I miss ubc

Jim wrote:
>
> why are you posting this in dbs.echostar

Todd is merely following the thread which is being sent to
rec.photo.digital, alt.home-theater.misc, alt.dbs.echostar

though why is anyone's guess


--
Paul. (This machine will, will not communicate)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Rolly The Pervert wrote:
>
> "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
> news:bekl2m$nf2$...
> > Todd Walker <> writes:
> >
> > >Did I miss something? Why do you insist on testing the resolution of
> > >your camera by taking pictures of your TV? Is that what you bought a
> > >digital camera for?
> >
> > No, he's testing TVs, and wants to show the results of his TV tests.
> > So he photographs the visual appearance of the test pattern on the TV
> > screen. Unfortunately, his previous camera was *worse* than the TVs
> > he's trying to test.
> >
> > Dave
> Still off topic here. ( alt.dbs.echostar )
>
> I miss ubc

ah you love it really... thread is xposted to

rec.photo.digital, alt.home-theater.misc, alt.dbs.echostar
--
Paul. (This machine will, will not communicate)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Paul Heslop <> wrote in message news:<>...
> Jack White wrote:
> >
>
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /storage/photos/gigantor/HOME/9bab3719a4c788b25cc39d8b9f53fc6f/TEST2.jpg
> on this server.

You have to copy and paste the url into your url bar to defeat the
anti-hotlinking measures.
You copy and paste by holding the right button on your mouse and
dragging the cursor over the url till the whole url is highlighted.
After the url is highlighted, you hit control Cntrl and C to copy the
url.
Then you to to the url bar at the top of your browser, and delete
everything from your url bar so that it's empty.
Then you paste the url into the url bar by pressing Cntrl and V.
Then you just hit Enter on your keyboard and you should be able to see
the pic.