Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What do you expect?

Reply
Thread Tools

What do you expect?

 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
It's only a webcam...

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Take Care,
Dudley



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
Dudley Hanks wrote:
> It's only a webcam...
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley


Thanks, Dudley. The lower image is broken in Firefox and Internet
Explorer.

Do you find the larger display as a viewfinder more helpful? The fixed
focussing suits the background but leaves Mich out of focus.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009

"Tiring of Being Honest" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>It's only a webcam...
>>
>>http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>
>>

>
> With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...
>
> I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
> composed,
> some day. Today was not it, again.
>
> I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
> has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
> as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
> merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
> purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
> card.
>
> I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
> can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.
>



Well, you don't have to look, do you?



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009

"Tiring of Being Honest" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:18:28 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>It's only a webcam...
>>
>>http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>
>>

>
> With the Netbook's full display being your viewfinder ...
>
> I expect: At least one of your subjects to be properly framed and
> composed,
> some day. Today was not it, again.
>
> I expect: Both of your images to be properly exposed. The second one even
> has some serious data glitch in it where two images appear to be combined,
> as if there was a file-allocation-table (FAT) screw-up and it tried to
> merge two different photos, the lower 7/8ths of it all munged in a deep
> purple-blue tint. Not unlike what can happen on a corrupt flash-memory
> card.
>
> I expect: That you would at least proof these photos through someone who
> can actually see them before you waste our time torturing us with them.
>
> Even a webcam in talented hands can provide decent photography. Don't
> blame
> the size of the images nor the equipment that took them. 1280x1024 is
> plenty of resolution in really talented hands. A once sold (at great cost
> to the buyer) a friend's 1024x768 photo enlarged to a 13"x19" print
> because
> the subject was so overwhelming and rare.
>
> Your images on this page are total user error.
>


What part of REC PHOTOS DIGITAL do you not understand?

If I were a pro, I would use a different group...

If you don't like, don't look...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009

"David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:8ATcm.62812$(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> It's only a webcam...
>>
>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley

>
> Thanks, Dudley. The lower image is broken in Firefox and Internet
> Explorer.
>
> Do you find the larger display as a viewfinder more helpful? The fixed
> focussing suits the background but leaves Mich out of focus.
>
> Cheers,
> David



>Given my condition, the larger display is actually less useful than the
>smaller one. RP tends to reduce one's field of vision down to a point
>where there is only a couple of degrees of anything useful.


The display on the XSi is just about right. I can't take it all in at one
glance, but I can work the edges fairly easily -- given the proper lighting.
The netbook, at about 10 inches, is large enough that my eyes get lost
roaming around the image surface.

As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According to
my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why it's getting garbled
during browser resizing. here's direct links if anybody wants to take a
look at the originals:

http://snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/bored.jpg
http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus. The
laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would be for the
normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying about focus, just
thought everything would be clear...

I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam works
in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
Dudley Hanks wrote:
[]
>> Given my condition, the larger display is actually less useful than
>> the smaller one. RP tends to reduce one's field of vision down to a
>> point where there is only a couple of degrees of anything useful.

>
> The display on the XSi is just about right. I can't take it all in
> at one glance, but I can work the edges fairly easily -- given the
> proper lighting. The netbook, at about 10 inches, is large enough
> that my eyes get lost roaming around the image surface.


OK, Dudley, I appreciate what you mean.

> As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According
> to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
> it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
> anybody wants to take a look at the originals:
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg


The image there is broken.

> Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
> The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
> be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
> about focus, just thought everything would be clear...
>
> I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.


I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps there
is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one on my
earlier Logitech Webcam.

> Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam
> works in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley


You're welcome.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
I used to help many disabled people in the past
> with things they were now incapable of doing. They hated those that gave
> them special treatment and allowances out of sympathy. They wanted to be
> treated just like everyone else


This is why I still read your posts, in spite of the vitriol. You do give
me useful feedback. I just have to wade through a ton of **** to find the
good stuff.

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
>> As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there. According
>> to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
>> it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
>> anybody wants to take a look at the originals:
>>
>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

>
> The image there is broken.
>

This is why I post here. Trying to get a good critique from people who
don't take photography as seriously as I do myself isn't easy, and the
feedback doesn't catch everything...

>> Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
>> The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
>> be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
>> about focus, just thought everything would be clear...
>>
>> I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

>
> I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
> know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps there
> is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one on my
> earlier Logitech Webcam.



I didn't actually buy the netbook for the cam, so I won't waste a lot of
time with it -- got it more for a portable note taker. The web cam was
included so just had to play with it.

But, some things I just can't help tinkering with. So, I'll more than
likely end up looking for an adjustment to see if I can get better results.

Once again, David, thanks for the feedback. It really helps.

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
David J Taylor wrote:
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
> []
>
>> As for the broken image, I'm not sure what is happening there.
>> According to my daughter, the original is good. I'm not sure why
>> it's getting garbled during browser resizing. here's direct links if
>> anybody wants to take a look at the originals:
>>
>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/mich.jpg

>
> The image there is broken.


After the top 1/5 of the image, the green channel seems to have been
lost and it turns purple/red. Also that makes the remainder badly
underexposed. The exposure is probably about right without severely
blowing out the background, try raising the gamma and increasing the
contrast, it holds up surprisingly well. With irfanview I increased
gamma to 3 & contrast to 50. The dog is down there in the dark without
much light on him.


>> Given that it's a web cam, it surprises me that Mich is out of focus.
>> The laptop was set on the floor, farther away from him than it would
>> be for the normal video chatter, so I didn't even consider worrying
>> about focus, just thought everything would be clear...
>>
>> I'll have to play with it a bit to see how it responds.

>
> I imagine that such Webcams might not have a focus control, but I don't
> know as I went for a cheaper laptop with no Webcam myself. Perhaps
> there is a focus adjustment you can play with. I recall there was one
> on my earlier Logitech Webcam.


In my experience, the only variables for a webcam are shutter speed and
perhaps ISO/gain in a fancy model. You could possibly place a pinhole
aperture over the front to stop down for DOF <grin>.


>> Thanks, David, your feedback helps me understand how this little cam
>> works in this sort of situation. I appreciate it a lot.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley

>
> You're welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> David



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2009
According to A Wee Bit Too Honest, the garbled image looked kind of like a
couple of images getting scrambled on a malfunctioning memory card, which
got me thinking...

I keep my web files on a memory card, so the pic was transferred from the
netbook to the memory card before being uploaded. In the off chance the
image got garbled while copying, I've re-uploaded the pic; this time,
directly from the laptop.

http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html

Just wondering if it's improved, or if it's still jumbled.

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RE;Kontki if you delete kontiki any program you loaded with it in it 'will not work I have tried it with three programs and none work anymore (if you se it just stop download) 1-Twitch Computer Support 5 04-23-2009 02:45 PM
Stupid question. Please, only stupid responders. If you're not sureif you're stupid, you probably aren't. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?= Computer Support 6 07-18-2005 05:11 AM
ATTN Programmers: WE pay YOU $1.00 if you let us find you a job. f5 Dennis Perl 0 12-02-2003 11:07 AM
ATTN Programmers: WE pay YOU $1.00 if you let us find you a job. f5 Dennis Java 0 12-02-2003 11:07 AM
ATTN Programmers: WE pay YOU $1.00 if you let us find you a job. jdg Doris Cox Perl 0 12-02-2003 11:07 AM



Advertisments