Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best "Live View" cameras

Reply
Thread Tools

Best "Live View" cameras

 
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2009
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:38:01 -0500, Troll Killer <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:42:15 +1000, "Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Great feature set but sadly you would then have to put up with crap result
>>from a tiny weeny sensor that just can't walk the walk.... no matter how
>>much bullshit gets spread.
>>

>
>You mean like this P&S camera from the same line that is supported by CHDK
>that rivals the quality of images from a medium-format Hasselblad H2?
>Something that no DSLR can even do.
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>
>Like that?
>
>Go get a life and learn how to use ANY camera properly, you useless **** of
>a pretend-photographer DSLR TROLL.


Although the processing of the various images all use ProPhoto as a
color space, am I right in thinking that in saving them as JPG the
color space is reduced to sRGB?



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2009
"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed) ...
[]
> Alas, we no longer have a local photo store in my small city. Had quite
> a nice one right on Main Street, but it folded. They did their own film
> processing and printing and I'm afraid that may have been too big a part
> of their business. There was a small photo store one town over but I
> haven't been to it in years.
>
> Invariably I buy my cameras etc. online anyway, after researching them
> also online and in Pop Photo magazine reviews. I have rarely been
> disappointed. Now that I think about it, it must be at least 40 years
> since I last bought a camera in a "brick and mortar" camera store or
> department. Before the WWW came along I bought them by phone order from
> magazine ads, usually after reading reviews in the same.


Neil, I must admit that, for me, handling is a rather important aspect of
a camera, and I would miss the chance to handle one somewhere. Although I
am unlikely to swap system, I would like to see how well the
high-resolution screen of the Panasonic G1 works - reading the reviews is
not quite enough. Being in a capital city, I hope we will keep at least
some brick-and-mortar stores.

I should clarify that with the 360-degree video panorama I mentioned, I
don't process it into stills, but would simply display it as a short
movie. For normal panoramas I use a commercial version of Auto-Stitch
(AutoPano Pro):

http://www.autopano.net/en/

which is not cheap but has (for me) been well worth the money. I
sometimes even throw a couple of identical images at the program so that I
can use its perspective correction feature, when it would be less obvious
how to correct just using Paint Shop Pro 10.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2009
"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Well, that is an advantage I'm sure. Panorama Maker doesn't have any
> sort of perspective control (that I'm aware of) so the camera has to be
> kept reasonably level.


Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be vertical -
so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't work on a
single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in a single
image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and copy-of-image.jpg.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2009

"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
> news:OvDxm.101147$(E-Mail Removed). com...

[]
>> Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
>> allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be
>> vertical - so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't
>> work on a single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in
>> a single image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and
>> copy-of-image.jpg.

>
> That's interesting. I just looked on the AutoPano Pro site, and it does
> look like a great program. However, it's $139 U.S., which frankly
> exceeds my interest in panoramas. I enjoy them a lot, but don't really
> do that many of them. Those that I do, I keep the camera level which of
> course prevents the converging verticals. Panorama Maker can handle very
> small deviations from level all right.


I recall downloading a free trial version of AutoPano Pro before I bought
the program, but whether it had the "set these edges vertical" feature I
can't recall. It should have - the demo version renders images with a
watermark, can't save projects, and can't export fully to Panotools.
Apart from that, it should all be there.

Whilst the verticals feature can be used in panoramas, I actually find it
very handy for correcting the single image of a building from a wide-angle
lens - tilted upwards. I do sometimes make vertical panos in such
situations as well.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2009
"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
[]
> That's interesting. I've never considered doing a vertical panorama. But
> I can't really visualize how this would work. If for example you're
> photographing a tall building, and at a distance close enough that you
> have to do it in two or three sections moving progressively upward, I
> should think it would be very difficult if not impossible to keep the
> verticals parallel (with any sort of software) and still keep adequate
> resolution at the top of the building. Am I missing something, or
> misunderstanding something?


Quite correct - the resolution at the top (when straightened) will be less
than that at the base, but it may still be adequate (I tend to be talking
churches rather than skyscrapers).

You can even take a pano as a matrix of, say, nine pixtures - three
vertical by three horizontal - three rows of three side-by-side. You
might do this with a less wide-angle lens to get more resolution at the
top. AutoPano Pro seems to sort those out quite nicely....

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2009
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:0oLxm.101324$(E-Mail Removed). com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
>>> news:OvDxm.101147$(E-Mail Removed). com...

>> []
>>>> Converging verticals might be the best description, Neil. AutoPano Pro
>>>> allows you to draw lines on such an image which you want to be
>>>> vertical - so you draw on edges of buildings, drainpipes etc. It won't
>>>> work on a single image (as it doesn't think there can be a panorama in a
>>>> single image), so I just point it two files: image.jpg and
>>>> copy-of-image.jpg.
>>> That's interesting. I just looked on the AutoPano Pro site, and it does
>>> look like a great program. However, it's $139 U.S., which frankly exceeds
>>> my interest in panoramas. I enjoy them a lot, but don't really do that
>>> many of them. Those that I do, I keep the camera level which of course
>>> prevents the converging verticals. Panorama Maker can handle very small
>>> deviations from level all right.

>> I recall downloading a free trial version of AutoPano Pro before I bought
>> the program, but whether it had the "set these edges vertical" feature I
>> can't recall. It should have - the demo version renders images with a
>> watermark, can't save projects, and can't export fully to Panotools. Apart
>> from that, it should all be there.
>>
>> Whilst the verticals feature can be used in panoramas, I actually find it
>> very handy for correcting the single image of a building from a wide-angle
>> lens - tilted upwards. I do sometimes make vertical panos in such
>> situations as well.

>
> That's interesting. I've never considered doing a vertical panorama. But I
> can't really visualize how this would work. If for example you're
> photographing a tall building, and at a distance close enough that you have
> to do it in two or three sections moving progressively upward, I should
> think it would be very difficult if not impossible to keep the verticals
> parallel (with any sort of software) and still keep adequate resolution at
> the top of the building. Am I missing something, or misunderstanding
> something?


You could try zooming in as you pan up the skyscraper but that's still
pushing it. Better to go to the middle floor of an adjacent skyscraper.
Also see the recent thread about the National Geographic Largest Trees
panorama for a very difficult method.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2009
Further Info wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> CHDK cameras provide the most information-rich and user-adaptable live-view
> displays of any cameras on earth. Any one, some, all, or none of these
> information bites available as user-selectable options to be displayed, at
> whatever position on the screen that you want, and in whatever opaque or
> transparent colors that you need them displayed in. All completely user
> configurable from the CHDK menu options. After you have configured what
> information you want, in what colors and screen positions you want, then
> you can even turn them all on and off with a quick button-press, as needed.


<edited>

Could CHDK be copied to a digicam's internal memory, for convenience? Or,
would that be somehow dangerous (e.g., risking corruption of the camera's
own firmware)?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2009
John Navas wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:31:04 -0500, John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:


<edited for brevity>

> >Could CHDK be copied to a digicam's internal memory, for convenience? Or,
> >would that be somehow dangerous (e.g., risking corruption of the camera's
> >own firmware)?

>
> CHDK is stored on and loaded (manual or auto) from a memory card.
> It is cleared from the camera by a power cycle.
> <http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief>



Yes, I was already aware of that fact; I'm merely wondering whether
any harm could be done, by the approach I'd mentioned, above?

(Just curious, even though I've never owned a Canon camera of any
type.)

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Teraposa Lunodas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2009
sony does not have 'live view' in that you aren't looking at the
actual
sensor taking the image, you are looking at a secondary sensor. the
advantage of that is you can still use the phase detect autofocus
sensors because the mirror is still down, but the disadvantage of
course, is that you are using an entirely different sensor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
Teraposa Lunodas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> sony does not have 'live view' in that you aren't looking at the
> actual
> sensor taking the image, you are looking at a secondary sensor. the
> advantage of that is you can still use the phase detect autofocus
> sensors because the mirror is still down, but the disadvantage of
> course, is that you are using an entirely different sensor.


Except for those models where you can switch between the sensors of
course.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
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
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 1 04-01-2007 07:55 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 4 04-01-2007 01:12 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 0 03-31-2007 11:38 AM
Best site for buyers of Digital cameras!!! over 200 cameras reviews :) chrisstian.b@gmail.com Digital Photography 4 08-07-2006 12:23 AM
People with both pocket digital cameras & bigger digital cameras zxcvar Digital Photography 12 01-04-2004 02:38 AM



Advertisments