CHDK Story in Nuts and Volts Magazine

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SMS, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. SMS

    SMS Guest

    This month's Nuts and Volts magazine has the first part of a multi-part
    article on CHDK. This month's section is pretty basic, but next month
    they should get into more of the programming.

    "http://nutsvolts.texterity.com/nutsvolts/201009?pg=70#pg70" is a
    sample, but the magazine is not free on-line.

    If you're not familiar with CHDK (Canon Hacker's Development Kit) it's a
    very useful program for many of Canon point and shoot cameras.
    SMS, Sep 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SMS

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:59:18 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    > >This month's Nuts and Volts magazine has the first part of a multi-part
    > >article on CHDK. This month's section is pretty basic, but next month
    > >they should get into more of the programming.

    >
    > >"http://nutsvolts.texterity.com/nutsvolts/201009?pg=70#pg70" is a
    > >sample, but the magazine is not free on-line.

    >
    > >If you're not familiar with CHDK (Canon Hacker's Development Kit) it's a
    > >very useful program for many of Canon point and shoot cameras.

    >
    > How would you know? You've never used it. You've never used ANY real
    > camera. Just the imaginary ones in your head that you read about in
    > downloadable manuals.


    CHDK is simply hot-rodding a toy. It's hotter, but it's still a toy.
    Rich, Sep 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SMS

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/09/2010 05:57, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

    > The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage, easily compensated
    > for by the 2-3 stop larger apertures at long focal-lengths available on all
    > superzoom cameras.


    And clean, sharp images, easily compensated by, er, wait...

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 3, 2010
    #3
  4. On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:28:52 +0200, Ofnuts <>
    wrote:

    >On 03/09/2010 05:57, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >
    >> The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage, easily compensated
    >> for by the 2-3 stop larger apertures at long focal-lengths available on all
    >> superzoom cameras.

    >
    >And clean, sharp images, easily compensated by, er, wait...


    Oh? You mean like these superzoom and compact cameras that beat even the
    newest DSLRs in image quality and sharpness?

    <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

    <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>

    Like that?

    I still have a superzoom camera built in 2003 that was beating the image
    quality from all DSLRs made that year. This is nothing new. Except to
    DSLR-TROLLS like you.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 3, 2010
    #4
  5. SMS

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/09/2010 09:04, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:28:52 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 03/09/2010 05:57, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>
    >>> The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage, easily compensated
    >>> for by the 2-3 stop larger apertures at long focal-lengths available on all
    >>> superzoom cameras.

    >>
    >> And clean, sharp images, easily compensated by, er, wait...

    >
    > Oh? You mean like these superzoom and compact cameras that beat even the
    > newest DSLRs in image quality and sharpness?
    >
    > <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
    >
    > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
    >
    > <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>


    Aw, yes, the page that says the best of the lot is the Rebel... and
    anyway, it's ironic you extol this series of tests, since they are done
    using RAW (which is also really why the 7D doesn't come out well, see
    the following tests that show somewhat different results...).


    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 3, 2010
    #5
  6. SMS

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/09/2010 11:26, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 03/09/2010 09:04, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:28:52 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 03/09/2010 05:57, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage, easily compensated
    >>>>> for by the 2-3 stop larger apertures at long focal-lengths available on all
    >>>>> superzoom cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>> And clean, sharp images, easily compensated by, er, wait...
    >>>
    >>> Oh? You mean like these superzoom and compact cameras that beat even the
    >>> newest DSLRs in image quality and sharpness?
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
    >>>
    >>> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>

    >>
    >> Aw, yes, the page that says the best of the lot is the Rebel...

    >
    > Are you busy reading pages that don't exist and weren't posted?
    >
    >> and
    >> anyway, it's ironic you extol this series of tests, since they are done
    >> using RAW

    >
    > No they weren't.


    "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".

    "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "

    "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
    the 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you
    compare the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames
    in the building. For some reason, even though we processed both RAW
    images in DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white
    balance (auto), the two cameras gave very different colour renditions of
    the scene."

    YCLIU. Funny how you are blind to the part of the paragraph that doesn't
    please you.

    >
    >> (which is also really why the 7D doesn't come out well,

    >
    > No it's not.
    >
    >> see
    >> the following tests that show somewhat different results...).

    >
    > <insert his imaginary links to his imaginary proof>
    >
    > Ah yes, the imaginary proof that exists only in your own mind. What great
    > links you provide for that.


    The link is on the page:

    http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/canon-7d-vs-the-canon-xsi/

    Overall Conclusion

    Drew figured he put the baby to bed and debunked the problems with soft
    files in the 7d and showed without a doubt that the 7d bested the Rebel.

    >
    > Getting your rocks off on trolling for attention again with your blatantly
    > obvious lies? Yep.
    >
    > You're a waste of everyone's time,


    Why do you answer then?

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 3, 2010
    #6
  7. SMS

    Peter Guest

    "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    news:4c80ea5f$0$16984$...

    >
    > "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    > Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".
    >
    > "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    > that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "
    >
    > "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against the
    > 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you compare
    > the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames in the
    > building. For some reason, even though we processed both RAW images in
    > DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white balance (auto),
    > the two cameras gave very different colour renditions of the scene."


    I have friends who share you conclusion about the G11. Some of them carry it
    as a walk around camera.



    --
    Peter
    Peter, Sep 3, 2010
    #7
  8. SMS

    SMS Guest

    On 9/2/2010 8:42 PM, Rich wrote:
    > On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN!<>
    > wrote:
    >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:59:18 -0700, SMS<> wrote:
    >>> This month's Nuts and Volts magazine has the first part of a multi-part
    >>> article on CHDK. This month's section is pretty basic, but next month
    >>> they should get into more of the programming.

    >>
    >>> "http://nutsvolts.texterity.com/nutsvolts/201009?pg=70#pg70" is a
    >>> sample, but the magazine is not free on-line.

    >>
    >>> If you're not familiar with CHDK (Canon Hacker's Development Kit) it's a
    >>> very useful program for many of Canon point and shoot cameras.

    >>
    >> How would you know? You've never used it. You've never used ANY real
    >> camera. Just the imaginary ones in your head that you read about in
    >> downloadable manuals.

    >
    > CHDK is simply hot-rodding a toy. It's hotter, but it's still a toy.


    You're so full of it. Probably every D-SLR owner also has "a toy" for
    when they aren't willing to carry around their D-SLR.

    No, CHDK does not turn a P&S or ZLR into a high-ISO, low-noise, fast AF
    D-SLR, with a super sharp lens but it does add some functionality that
    can be quite useful. If you're choosing between "toys" it makes sense to
    choose one that can at least be used with CHDK. I admit that I'm a
    biased in favor of CHDK because I helped write the documentation for it,
    but I use it almost on a daily basis, and I find it a useful addition to
    my Canon P&S cameras.

    Just because our favorite troll likes CHDK too, don't let his
    cluelessness turn you against it.
    SMS, Sep 3, 2010
    #8
  9. SMS

    SMS Guest

    On 9/3/2010 6:08 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c80ea5f$0$16984$...
    >
    >>
    >> "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    >> Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".
    >>
    >> "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    >> that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "
    >>
    >> "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
    >> the 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you
    >> compare the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames
    >> in the building. For some reason, even though we processed both RAW
    >> images in DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white
    >> balance (auto), the two cameras gave very different colour renditions
    >> of the scene."

    >
    > I have friends who share you conclusion about the G11. Some of them
    > carry it as a walk around camera.


    Yes, the G11 is no doubt the finest non D-SLR on the market today.
    Remember, Canon did the unthinkable, and forgot about the megapixel war
    for a moment and actually gave the G11 a lower noise, larger pixel, but
    a significantly lower resolution sensor than the G10. With the G12 they
    increased the resolution slightly, but it's still less than the G10 was.
    SMS, Sep 3, 2010
    #9
  10. SMS

    Peter Guest

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4c81156f$0$1583$...
    > On 9/3/2010 6:08 AM, Peter wrote:
    >> "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4c80ea5f$0$16984$...
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    >>> Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".
    >>>
    >>> "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    >>> that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "
    >>>
    >>> "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
    >>> the 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you
    >>> compare the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames
    >>> in the building. For some reason, even though we processed both RAW
    >>> images in DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white
    >>> balance (auto), the two cameras gave very different colour renditions
    >>> of the scene."

    >>
    >> I have friends who share you conclusion about the G11. Some of them
    >> carry it as a walk around camera.

    >
    > Yes, the G11 is no doubt the finest non D-SLR on the market today.
    > Remember, Canon did the unthinkable, and forgot about the megapixel war
    > for a moment and actually gave the G11 a lower noise, larger pixel, but a
    > significantly lower resolution sensor than the G10. With the G12 they
    > increased the resolution slightly, but it's still less than the G10 was.



    IMHO G10 images looked cartoonish.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Sep 3, 2010
    #10
  11. SMS

    SMS Guest

    On 9/3/2010 8:57 AM, Peter wrote:

    <snip>

    > IMHO G10 images looked cartoonish.


    Somehow, some product manager at Canon managed to let a good P&S, the
    G11 slip through into production. I'm convinced that the reason that so
    many manufacturers are selling such low quality superzoom cameras is a
    fear that if they made something good it would hurt D-SLR sales.

    There's the old joke that the IBM PC sales department challenged the
    engineering department with "there's no product you could design that is
    so bad that we would be unable to sell it." Engineering took on the
    challenge, and won, with the IBM PC Jr.
    SMS, Sep 3, 2010
    #11
  12. SMS

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/09/2010 18:12, SMS wrote:
    > On 9/3/2010 8:57 AM, Peter wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> IMHO G10 images looked cartoonish.

    >
    > Somehow, some product manager at Canon managed to let a good P&S, the
    > G11 slip through into production. I'm convinced that the reason that so
    > many manufacturers are selling such low quality superzoom cameras is a
    > fear that if they made something good it would hurt D-SLR sales.
    >
    > There's the old joke that the IBM PC sales department challenged the
    > engineering department with "there's no product you could design that is
    > so bad that we would be unable to sell it." Engineering took on the
    > challenge, and won, with the IBM PC Jr.


    And the PC/RT... the Sun folks are still laughing.

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 3, 2010
    #12
  13. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 9/3/2010 9:08 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c80ea5f$0$16984$...
    >
    >>
    >> "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    >> Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".
    >>
    >> "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    >> that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "
    >>
    >> "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
    >> the 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you
    >> compare the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames
    >> in the building. For some reason, even though we processed both RAW
    >> images in DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white
    >> balance (auto), the two cameras gave very different colour renditions
    >> of the scene."

    >
    > I have friends who share you conclusion about the G11. Some of them
    > carry it as a walk around camera.


    I presume you've seen
    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>. That's the
    G10 vs a 39 megapixel Hasselblad.
    >
    >
    >
    J. Clarke, Sep 3, 2010
    #13
  14. SMS

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/09/2010 21:14, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:30:22 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 03/09/2010 11:26, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 03/09/2010 09:04, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:28:52 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 03/09/2010 05:57, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage, easily compensated
    >>>>>>> for by the 2-3 stop larger apertures at long focal-lengths available on all
    >>>>>>> superzoom cameras.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And clean, sharp images, easily compensated by, er, wait...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh? You mean like these superzoom and compact cameras that beat even the
    >>>>> newest DSLRs in image quality and sharpness?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>
    >>>>
    >>>> Aw, yes, the page that says the best of the lot is the Rebel...
    >>>
    >>> Are you busy reading pages that don't exist and weren't posted?
    >>>
    >>>> and
    >>>> anyway, it's ironic you extol this series of tests, since they are done
    >>>> using RAW

    >
    > Oh, I get it now, you were referring to only ONE of those links, not the
    > whole SERIES of them.
    >
    > So what you are trying to tell us all then, is that using RAW in DSLRs will
    > always spit out poorer images in DSLRs.


    No, I'm telling you that you can't read, plain and simple :)

    >> The link is on the page:
    >>
    >> http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/canon-7d-vs-the-canon-xsi/
    >>
    >> Overall Conclusion
    >>
    >> Drew figured he put the baby to bed and debunked the problems with soft
    >> files in the 7d and showed without a doubt that the 7d bested the Rebel.
    >>

    >
    > And how does that prove that a DSLR beats the image quality of those
    > superzoom and compact cameras? You can't face reality so now you have to
    > try to twist your mind around unrelated tests, hoping they might somehow
    > fit the subject at hand?


    Easy: original page states that the Rebel is better than the 7D or G11.
    After further checks the 7D turns out to be better than the Rebel, and
    becomes the best of the lot. So in the end, fine, the 7D is better than
    the Rebel that is better than the G11. Are you also logic-challenged?

    >>> Getting your rocks off on trolling for attention again with your blatantly
    >>> obvious lies? Yep.
    >>>
    >>> You're a waste of everyone's time,

    >>
    >> Why do you answer then?

    >
    > Outing Trolls is FUN!


    So is wasting your time...
    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 3, 2010
    #14
  15. SMS

    James Nagler Guest

    On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 12:30:59 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2010-09-03 10:47:20 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/3/2010 9:08 AM, Peter wrote:
    >>> "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c80ea5f$0$16984$...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    >>>> Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".
    >>>>
    >>>> "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    >>>> that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "
    >>>>
    >>>> "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
    >>>> the 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you
    >>>> compare the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames
    >>>> in the building. For some reason, even though we processed both RAW
    >>>> images in DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white
    >>>> balance (auto), the two cameras gave very different colour renditions
    >>>> of the scene."
    >>>
    >>> I have friends who share you conclusion about the G11. Some of them
    >>> carry it as a walk around camera.

    >>
    >> I presume you've seen
    >> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>. That's the
    >> G10 vs a 39 megapixel Hasselblad.

    >
    >...and that is a comparison of 13x19 prints. When it comes to prints,
    >if the basic image file is good, it would be difficult to tell the
    >difference between almost any decent current 10 MP and greater, digital
    >camera on a print made with care. Some 6 MP cameras might also be able
    >to produce acceptable 13x19 prints given the right subject and
    >conditions.
    >
    >I too use a G11 as a supplementary camera and find it a great addition
    >to my bag when used within its limitations, and there are low light
    >limitations, even with the improved G11 low light performance.
    >But it can produce some good quality images given the right conditions.


    Unfortunately, in your case, you don't know that nearly any lighting and
    photography situation is "the right condition" for using ANY camera. IF YOU
    KNEW HOW TO USE ANY CAMERA PROPERLY. As your following examples (again)
    prove that you do not. But we've known that from every other image you've
    ever posted.

    >< http://snipr.com/1197k9-ksq >
    >You can even get decent panos out of it.
    >< http://snipr.com/11996s-avi >
    James Nagler, Sep 3, 2010
    #15
  16. On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:32:42 +0200, Ofnuts <>
    wrote:

    >On 03/09/2010 21:14, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:30:22 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 03/09/2010 11:26, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 03/09/2010 09:04, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>>>>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:28:52 +0200, Ofnuts<>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 03/09/2010 05:57, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage, easily compensated
    >>>>>>>> for by the 2-3 stop larger apertures at long focal-lengths available on all
    >>>>>>>> superzoom cameras.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And clean, sharp images, easily compensated by, er, wait...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh? You mean like these superzoom and compact cameras that beat even the
    >>>>>> newest DSLRs in image quality and sharpness?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Aw, yes, the page that says the best of the lot is the Rebel...
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you busy reading pages that don't exist and weren't posted?
    >>>>
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> anyway, it's ironic you extol this series of tests, since they are done
    >>>>> using RAW

    >>
    >> Oh, I get it now, you were referring to only ONE of those links, not the
    >> whole SERIES of them.
    >>
    >> So what you are trying to tell us all then, is that using RAW in DSLRs will
    >> always spit out poorer images in DSLRs.

    >
    >No, I'm telling you that you can't read, plain and simple :)
    >
    >>> The link is on the page:
    >>>
    >>> http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/canon-7d-vs-the-canon-xsi/
    >>>
    >>> Overall Conclusion
    >>>
    >>> Drew figured he put the baby to bed and debunked the problems with soft
    >>> files in the 7d and showed without a doubt that the 7d bested the Rebel.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And how does that prove that a DSLR beats the image quality of those
    >> superzoom and compact cameras? You can't face reality so now you have to
    >> try to twist your mind around unrelated tests, hoping they might somehow
    >> fit the subject at hand?

    >
    >Easy: original page states that the Rebel is better than the 7D or G11.
    >After further checks the 7D turns out to be better than the Rebel, and
    >becomes the best of the lot. So in the end, fine, the 7D is better than
    >the Rebel that is better than the G11. Are you also logic-challenged?


    So sorry that you are such a pathetic role-playing pretend-photographer
    troll. Unless they are compared side by side on the same subjects then your
    "logical" conclusions are just more glaring examples of your psychoses.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 3, 2010
    #16
  17. SMS

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 2, 11:57 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    > >wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:59:18 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    > >> >This month's Nuts and Volts magazine has the first part of a multi-part
    > >> >article on CHDK. This month's section is pretty basic, but next month
    > >> >they should get into more of the programming.

    >
    > >> >"http://nutsvolts.texterity.com/nutsvolts/201009?pg=70#pg70" is a
    > >> >sample, but the magazine is not free on-line.

    >
    > >> >If you're not familiar with CHDK (Canon Hacker's Development Kit) it's a
    > >> >very useful program for many of Canon point and shoot cameras.

    >
    > >> How would you know? You've never used it. You've never used ANY real
    > >> camera. Just the imaginary ones in your head that you read about in
    > >> downloadable manuals.

    >
    > >CHDK is simply hot-rodding a toy.  It's hotter, but it's still a toy.

    >
    > Awww... what's the matter boobie! Upset that your DSLR doesn't have
    > under/over-exposure overlays in the viewfinder? That you don't have
    > built-in motion detection fast enough to catch lightning strikes? That you
    > don't have an easy to use programming language where you can program
    > scripts for your cameras? That you don't have aperture, shutter, ISO, and
    > focus-bracketing in as many 1/3EV steps or 1mm increments as you want in
    > high-speed burst mode? That you don't have ....well, the list of what
    > CHDKed cameras have and DSLRs DON'T HAVE is quite long.
    >
    > The ONLY thing that DSLRs have is a 2-3 ISO advantage,


    Yeah, that's all...
    Rich, Sep 3, 2010
    #17
  18. SMS

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 03/09/2010 21:48, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > Unless they are compared side by side on the same subjects then your
    > "logical" conclusions are just more glaring examples of your psychoses.


    So when you grace these newsgroups with your pictures and tell us that a
    DSLR would never have achieve such a nice result you are also victim of
    your psychoses, because I assume that you haven't taken the same photo
    of the same subject with a DSLR?

    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 3, 2010
    #18
  19. SMS

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 3, 4:32 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:59:18 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    > >>> This month's Nuts and Volts magazine has the first part of a multi-part
    > >>> article on CHDK. This month's section is pretty basic, but next month
    > >>> they should get into more of the programming.
    > >>> "http://nutsvolts.texterity.com/nutsvolts/201009?pg=70#pg70" is a
    > >>> sample, but the magazine is not free on-line.
    > >>> If you're not familiar with CHDK (Canon Hacker's Development Kit) it's a
    > >>> very useful program for many of Canon point and shoot cameras.
    > >> How would you know? You've never used it. You've never used ANY real
    > >> camera. Just the imaginary ones in your head that you read about in
    > >> downloadable manuals.

    >
    > > CHDK is simply hot-rodding a toy.  It's hotter, but it's still a toy.

    >
    > When hot rods are faster than Ferraris, Ferraris tend
    > to look ... overpriced.
    >
    >    BugBear


    If that gimmickry had any real value, to anyone, then things like
    Casio's 1200fps cameras wouldn't have been essentially ignored by
    everyone.
    Rich, Sep 3, 2010
    #19
  20. SMS

    Rich Guest

    On Sep 3, 9:08 am, "Peter" <> wrote:
    > "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:4c80ea5f$0$16984$...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "We shot all cameras in RAW mode and processed all files in Canon’s
    > > Digital Photo Pro (DPP) software.".

    >
    > > "When we processed the RAW images in DPP we were surprised by the fact
    > > that the G9 files looked nearly as good as the 7D files! "

    >
    > > "The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against the
    > > 7D in terms of file quality. This is especially noticeable if you compare
    > > the points of contrast in the image, such as the window frames in the
    > > building.  For some reason, even though we processed both RAW images in
    > > DPP using the same picture settings (standard) and white balance (auto),
    > > the two cameras gave very different colour renditions of the scene."

    >
    > I have friends who share you conclusion about the G11. Some of them carry it
    > as a walk around camera.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Only because they are lazy. I've never seen any P&S at any ISO that
    can produce as good an image as a good DSLR.
    Rich, Sep 3, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. catwalker63
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    534
    =meanoldman=
    Nov 2, 2004
  2. mb1896
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    588
    www.BradReese.Com
    Jan 25, 2006
  3. HokusPokus
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,385
    ASAAR
    Jul 16, 2007
  4. D. Larson

    CHDK NEWS: A Discussion Forum Dedicated to CHDK

    D. Larson, Nov 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
    D. Larson
    Nov 28, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    663
    Peter
    Aug 18, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page