What's wrong with my digital camera?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jack White, Jul 7, 2003.

  1. Jack White

    Jack White Guest

    I used to have webtv plus and used to take digital pics using webtv
    plus's built in capture card with my camcorder and the results were
    not exactly breathtaking.
    I've now got a broadband puter in my bedroom on a network and I now
    use a digital camera hooked up to a USB 2.0 port now that my trusty
    old webtv plus has been sold and is now probably being used thousands
    of miles away :(
    Back when I used webtv plus to take these types of pics, everybody
    used to blame the camcorder and webtv plus for the lack of detail.
    I'm now taking over a megapixel images(before cropping) and I'm still
    not getting the visual detail I need for these types of pics(see pics
    below).
    Do I have to go out and spend 1500 bucks for a 6.3 megapixel digital
    camera with a massive optical zoom and interchangable lenses to get
    the kind of visual detail needed for these types of pics?
    Here are 2 pics of a test pattern being displayed on the tv in my
    bedroom, it's a Sony KV-20V80.
    The 6.75mhz circle shows NOTHING but mush in the pics, but that's NOT
    how it looks like in real life.
    With the naked eye, there is some detail in the 6.75mhz circle, it's
    not rock solid detail, but it's not mush either.
    What would you guess is the horizontal resolution of this tv looking
    at the wedge from this pics,
    I saw the horizontal resolution spec on an Crutchfield that's a few
    years old.
    Judging from how close you come to the actual spec from looking at the
    pic will be a good indication of how good or crappy this digital
    camera is.
    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...c39d8b9f53fc6f/Sony_KV20V80_CROPPED_FIXED.jpg
    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...9bab3719a4c788b25cc39d8b9f53fc6f/IM000025.JPG

    Now I've tried EVERTHING, zooming in, using the flash, using no flash,
    using lights, no lights, total darkness, and nothing gives the kind of
    visual detail needed for these kinds of pics with this camera.
    Here's a pic of the biggest screen in the house in the living room.
    I used the flash again this time just to show that there isn't enough
    visual detail with our without the flash.
    This time the pic is so bad, that even the 4.18MHZ circle looks like
    mush, but on this livingroom tv in the pic, in real life there's ROCK
    SOLID detail in the 4.18MHZ circle when seen with the naked eye.
    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...8cce351247314e86c891f80/TV7_CROPPED_FIXED.jpg

    I may be trading in this camera for a higher priced model soon so
    maybe that will fix the problem.
    BTW, the links may break up because of the long url so if you want to
    see them, you may have to copy and paste the 2 broken pieces of the
    link together in your url bar and then hit enter to see the pic.
    BTW, the only reason I posted this to the Echostar newsgroup was
    because they talk about calibrating your tv/monitor more in that
    newsgroup than just about ANY newsgroup on usenet.
    Everytime somebody says how bad the picture quality on Dish sucks on
    the Echostar newsgroup, it seems like half a dozen people tell him
    "you need to calibrate your tv", "turn the sharpness all the way down
    on your tv", etc.
     
    Jack White, Jul 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jack White

    Richard A. Guest

    That's about what I would expect from a 1.0 megapixel camera. You may want
    to see if you can borrow a friends and check out his camera's results. A
    5.0 megapixel camera can be bought for a LOT cheaper than $1500 and will
    likely do everything you want.

    Richard

    "Jack White" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I used to have webtv plus and used to take digital pics using webtv
    > plus's built in capture card with my camcorder and the results were
    > not exactly breathtaking.
    > I've now got a broadband puter in my bedroom on a network and I now
    > use a digital camera hooked up to a USB 2.0 port now that my trusty
    > old webtv plus has been sold and is now probably being used thousands
    > of miles away :(
    > Back when I used webtv plus to take these types of pics, everybody
    > used to blame the camcorder and webtv plus for the lack of detail.
    > I'm now taking over a megapixel images(before cropping) and I'm still
    > not getting the visual detail I need for these types of pics(see pics
    > below).
    > Do I have to go out and spend 1500 bucks for a 6.3 megapixel digital
    > camera with a massive optical zoom and interchangable lenses to get
    > the kind of visual detail needed for these types of pics?
    > Here are 2 pics of a test pattern being displayed on the tv in my
    > bedroom, it's a Sony KV-20V80.
    > The 6.75mhz circle shows NOTHING but mush in the pics, but that's NOT
    > how it looks like in real life.
    > With the naked eye, there is some detail in the 6.75mhz circle, it's
    > not rock solid detail, but it's not mush either.
    > What would you guess is the horizontal resolution of this tv looking
    > at the wedge from this pics,
    > I saw the horizontal resolution spec on an Crutchfield that's a few
    > years old.
    > Judging from how close you come to the actual spec from looking at the
    > pic will be a good indication of how good or crappy this digital
    > camera is.
    >

    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...c39d8b9f53fc6f/Sony_KV20V80_CROPPED_FIXED.jpg
    >

    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...9bab3719a4c788b25cc39d8b9f53fc6f/IM000025.JPG
    >
    > Now I've tried EVERTHING, zooming in, using the flash, using no flash,
    > using lights, no lights, total darkness, and nothing gives the kind of
    > visual detail needed for these kinds of pics with this camera.
    > Here's a pic of the biggest screen in the house in the living room.
    > I used the flash again this time just to show that there isn't enough
    > visual detail with our without the flash.
    > This time the pic is so bad, that even the 4.18MHZ circle looks like
    > mush, but on this livingroom tv in the pic, in real life there's ROCK
    > SOLID detail in the 4.18MHZ circle when seen with the naked eye.
    >

    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...8cce351247314e86c891f80/TV7_CROPPED_FIXED.jpg
    >
    > I may be trading in this camera for a higher priced model soon so
    > maybe that will fix the problem.
    > BTW, the links may break up because of the long url so if you want to
    > see them, you may have to copy and paste the 2 broken pieces of the
    > link together in your url bar and then hit enter to see the pic.
    > BTW, the only reason I posted this to the Echostar newsgroup was
    > because they talk about calibrating your tv/monitor more in that
    > newsgroup than just about ANY newsgroup on usenet.
    > Everytime somebody says how bad the picture quality on Dish sucks on
    > the Echostar newsgroup, it seems like half a dozen people tell him
    > "you need to calibrate your tv", "turn the sharpness all the way down
    > on your tv", etc.
     
    Richard A., Jul 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jack White

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Jack White" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Do I have to go out and spend 1500 bucks for a 6.3 megapixel digital
    > camera with a massive optical zoom and interchangable lenses to get
    > the kind of visual detail needed for these types of pics?


    It's not just pixels, it's the quality of a camera's optics that
    particularly determines the subjective sharpness of an image. Manual focus
    often beneficial when photographing reflective surfaces, as is the ability
    to manually control the aperture when photographing sources that emit light.

    640x480 or even 1024x768 is also not particularly high resolution, but it's
    still possible to get better pictures than the ones you've posted, which
    look like the output of a cheap camera with a "focus free" plastic lens set
    on full auto.

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Jul 7, 2003
    #3
  4. Jack White

    Lucas Tam Guest

    (Jack White) wrote in
    news::

    > I'm now taking over a megapixel images(before cropping) and I'm still
    > not getting the visual detail I need for these types of pics(see pics
    > below).


    Are you using your Camcorder? A camcorder's still image capability usually
    pales in comparison to a digital camera. Also, if you're using a frame from
    the digital video, it's even worse quality.

    > Do I have to go out and spend 1500 bucks for a 6.3 megapixel digital
    > camera with a massive optical zoom and interchangable lenses to get
    > the kind of visual detail needed for these types of pics?


    No, 2 or 3MP camera is more than enough. Actually, even a 1.3MP camera
    might be good enough.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()

    Kodak DC240 Digital Zoom Camera w/ EXTRAs for Auction! 99c!
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2937992463
     
    Lucas Tam, Jul 7, 2003
    #4
  5. Jack White

    Jay Guest

    Jack, I used to work as an industrial photographer for a major defense
    contractor, being given assignments to photograph off of high resolution
    computer displays on almost a daily basis. I would say that considering #1
    that you are photographing off a consumer tv set, and #2 that you are using
    a 1 megapixel camera, your results are about what I would have expected.
    Even a better, higher resolution camera will probably give you disappointing
    results if you do this off the same tv set. The resolution in the picture
    tube just isn't there. Yes you can do a little better with a better camera
    and lens, but I wouldn't expect much. At any rate, try turning up contrast
    on the tv and see if that helps any. If you have a need to photograph higher
    resolution stuff off of some kind of monitor, you may want to look into
    doing so on a computer monitor (the higher the resolution and the bigger the
    monitor, the better).

    Jay
     
    Jay, Jul 7, 2003
    #5
  6. Jack White

    Jay Guest

    Not sure I agree with the prediction in that article about the 1.5 inch
    drive. The author states that the trend is away from flash cards and towards
    hard drive technology but in fact the IBM microdrive is almost extinct at
    this point. Main reason is that flash cards are much more reliable as there
    are no moving parts, no crashes etc. The article predicts that 1.5 inch
    microdrives will cost less than flash cards, but in fact one can buy a 1gb
    compact flash card for a little over $200 these days. Any competition will
    only drive prices further down.
     
    Jay, Jul 7, 2003
    #6
  7. Jack White

    Jack White Guest

    Lionel <> wrote in message news:<beasad$9ef$>...
    > On 6 Jul 2003 19:42:43 -0700, in
    > <>,
    > (Jack White) said:
    >
    > >Here are 2 pics of a test pattern being displayed on the tv in my
    > >bedroom, it's a Sony KV-20V80.
    > >The 6.75mhz circle shows NOTHING but mush in the pics, but that's NOT
    > >how it looks like in real life.

    >
    > Um.
    >
    > If you just want to grab good images from a TV screen, a camera is
    > probably about the worst possible way of doing it. You /can/ do it, but
    > you need a tripod for a sharp image, & longish exposure to prevent black
    > or shadowed bars. (My 10D takes great photos of TV & computer screens,
    > but it's massive overkill for what you're talking about!) If you want
    > high quality, you need to sync the shutter to the video frame rate.
    >
    > It's much cheaper & easier to buy a an average quality video capture
    > card for your PC. Every capture card I know of comes with software that
    > can grab good quality single frames for you, as well as capturing video.


    It really wasn't my intention to take a screen cap, it was my
    intention to actually take an image of the screen as close to as
    possible as it looks in real life.
    On a test pattern like this, a screencap will look totally different
    than a pic of the screen will look.
    That test pattern will look slightly different from tv to tv.
    Notice how incredibly different the same test pattern looks on this
    other tv I took a screencap of a while ago.
    The reason it looks so weird is because this tv only had a composite
    video input as its best input(while the others had S-video or
    Component) so all the weird stuff you see is called moire pattern.
    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...c6ccb1ddef8f0ef0ca3ed4c611304e/picture_1.jpeg
    Can a capture card show the differences this test pattern shows from 1
    television to the next the way a camera or camcorder will?
    I could capture a screencap off of that test pattern even without any
    capture equipment. All I'd have to do is open up paint, then display
    that test pattern on one of the puters in the house with a dvd drive,
    then hit print screen on the keyboard, then click on paste in paint,
    then save the screencap as a high rez bitmap.
    I did learn one thing though, you have to turn the video acceleration
    in the player you're using to NONE in order to take a screencap, if
    the acceleration is full, all you'll get is a black screen.
    Here's a screencap for demonstartion purposes.
    This was taken on the oldest machine on the network, the puter in my
    bedroom which is a Windows 98SE machine. On this machine, when you
    turn the video acceleration in the media player to none, then you
    can't view full screen video. That's why the video in this screencap
    is not full screen, this screencap is just for demo purposes anyway.
    It used to be a beautiful 1.37mb uncompressed bitmap, but I had to
    turn it into a jpeg that looks like garbage in order to reduce the
    filesize and to upload it to one of my online photo albums.
    You may have to copy and paste the url to see the pic because of the
    anti-hotlinking engines many sites use to save bandwidth.
    http://www.fujifilm.com.sg/storage/...da185308cce351247314e86c891f80/Screencap8.jpg
     
    Jack White, Jul 7, 2003
    #7
  8. Jack White

    John H. Guest

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:16:39 GMT, John H. <> wrote:

    > A 1 Megapixel still camera is not the resolution you may think it is. It
    > usually means .25 megapixels with 2 green, 1 red and 1 blue sub-pixel for
    > each. An analog TV screen may have over .3 megapixels (480*640). Use a
    > 3.1 megapixel camera or better (a true .77 megapixel) to allow for some
    > over-sampling for best picture.


    On second thought I'm not sure any digital camera can take a good picture
    of a TV that has a shadow mask or aperture grill. Your Sony may have
    600-700 RGB pixel triads across its horizontal width for a total of about
    ~2000 sub-pixels. You'd need at least a pair of horizontal "camera pixels"
    (one 2*2 pattern) for every one of the ~2000 vertical strips on the screen
    to pick up full color. That's 3k x 4k = a 12 megapixel camera. Although
    if the TV is showing a black and white image, a 3.1 megapixel camera should
    still be enough.
     
    John H., Jul 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Jack White

    Bishoop Guest

    | You may have to copy and paste the url to see the pic because of the
    | anti-hotlinking engines many sites use to save bandwidth.

    "anti-hotlinking engines" WHAT????
     
    Bishoop, Jul 7, 2003
    #9
  10. Jack White

    Lionel Guest

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:09:56 GMT, in
    <>, John H. <>
    said:

    >On second thought I'm not sure any digital camera can take a good picture
    >of a TV that has a shadow mask or aperture grill.


    Au contraire!

    I just made a quick demo for you:
    http://lo.ve.ly/test/
    The first image is a drastically reduced EOS 10D shot of one of the
    screens (at 1280x1024 resolution) on my workstation (a CRT - my main
    screen is an LCD). The second image is a 1:1 crop of the full resolution
    image. Yes, the moire from the shadow mask is very visible, but I wanted
    to show a worst case example. The image would've been much smoother if
    I'd zoomed out somewhat.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Jul 7, 2003
    #10
  11. Jack White

    John H. Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:19:37 +1000, Lionel <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:09:56 GMT, in
    > <>, John H. <>
    > said:
    >
    > >On second thought I'm not sure any digital camera can take a good picture
    > >of a TV that has a shadow mask or aperture grill.

    >
    > Au contraire!


    > I just made a quick demo for you:
    > http://lo.ve.ly/test/
    > The first image is a drastically reduced EOS 10D shot of one of the
    > screens (at 1280x1024 resolution) on my workstation (a CRT - my main
    > screen is an LCD). The second image is a 1:1 crop of the full resolution
    > image. Yes, the moire from the shadow mask is very visible, but I wanted
    > to show a worst case example. The image would've been much smoother if
    > I'd zoomed out somewhat.


    On third thought I think I was a *little* off with my 2nd thought. :-(
    Can't beat actually trying it and seeing the results.

    Maybe this makes more sense:

    An 'even match' between camera and display would be 4 camera "pixels" (2G,
    1R, 1B) for each display pixel (1R, 1G, 1B sub-pixel). For a 640x480 (TV)
    display that would be a 1280x960 camera (about 1.3 megapixels). For a
    1280x1024 display it would be a 2560x2048 camera (5.2 megapixels).

    But anything at or near an even match would probably cause the worst
    artifacts because of the complex way the camera's pixel grid lines up with
    the display's pixel grid (for example many red camera pixels could be
    looking at green or blue display pixels). Much better would be a 2x or
    better pixel advantage (with 4 camera pixels counted as 1) for either the
    camera OR display.

    Using for example a 1 MP camera to photograph a 1280x1024 display should
    produce an image (nearly) as good as the CAMERA is capable of because each
    camera pixel would see multiple display pixels.

    Using a 6.3 MP camera to photograph a 640x480 TV screen should produce an
    image (nearly) as good as the DISPLAY is capable of because each display
    pixel would be seen by multiple 4-pixel groups in the camera. That's
    over-sampling. A film camera would have the best over-sampling of all.
     
    John H., Jul 8, 2003
    #11
  12. Jack White

    Jack White Guest

    Lucas Tam <> wrote in message news:<Xns93B2602EC46Dnntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>...
    > (Jack White) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Actually I did take all the pics with the digital camera that were
    > > posted from more than 4 feet away, well over 4 feet away in some
    > > cases.

    >
    > In that case, did you use the digital zoom?


    I didn't use the digital zoom on any of the pics posted in this
    thread, the only pic I used a zoom on in this thread was the capture
    from the camcorder and that was with an optical zoom.
     
    Jack White, Jul 8, 2003
    #12
  13. (Jack White) writes:

    >I didn't use the digital zoom on any of the pics posted in this
    >thread, the only pic I used a zoom on in this thread was the capture
    >from the camcorder and that was with an optical zoom.


    However, it seems that this is a fixed-focus camera. Fixed-focus
    cameras have small-aperture lenses that are focused at some compromise
    distance that's designed to make everything from some near distance out to
    infinity "acceptably sharp". But almost nothing in the photos will
    actually be in good focus, so there's little incentive for the lens to
    provide really sharp images even for objects that *are* in the plane of
    best focus. So the lens in these cameras is basically junk.

    You should get a camera with a focusing lens, at the very least. You
    should be able to get a 2-3 megapixel camera with non-zoom focusing lens
    and close focusing ability for about $200.

    However, I expect you'll still have some problems. You're shooting a
    very difficult subject. A B&W CRT displaying a resolution test pattern
    has fine black & white lines on it, and you're likely to see some moire
    effects unless the camera has *several times as much* resolution as the
    test pattern, to fully resolve the pattern. Colour CRTs are worse yet,
    since there's fine detail in the test pattern *and* fine detail in the
    shadow mask-produced pattern of RGB phosphors on the screen. Resolving
    all that without artifacts across the whole screen may take higher
    resolution than any of the consumer cameras available.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jul 8, 2003
    #13
  14. Jack White

    Jack White Guest

    (Dave Martindale) wrote in message news:<befb27$ggh$>...
    > (Jack White) writes:
    >
    > >I didn't use the digital zoom on any of the pics posted in this
    > >thread, the only pic I used a zoom on in this thread was the capture
    > >from the camcorder and that was with an optical zoom.

    >
    > However, it seems that this is a fixed-focus camera. Fixed-focus
    > cameras have small-aperture lenses that are focused at some compromise
    > distance that's designed to make everything from some near distance out to
    > infinity "acceptably sharp". But almost nothing in the photos will
    > actually be in good focus, so there's little incentive for the lens to
    > provide really sharp images even for objects that *are* in the plane of
    > best focus. So the lens in these cameras is basically junk.
    >
    > You should get a camera with a focusing lens, at the very least. You
    > should be able to get a 2-3 megapixel camera with non-zoom focusing lens
    > and close focusing ability for about $200.
    >
    > However, I expect you'll still have some problems. You're shooting a
    > very difficult subject. A B&W CRT displaying a resolution test pattern
    > has fine black & white lines on it, and you're likely to see some moire
    > effects unless the camera has *several times as much* resolution as the
    > test pattern, to fully resolve the pattern. Colour CRTs are worse yet,
    > since there's fine detail in the test pattern *and* fine detail in the
    > shadow mask-produced pattern of RGB phosphors on the screen. Resolving
    > all that without artifacts across the whole screen may take higher
    > resolution than any of the consumer cameras available.
    >
    > Dave


    Actually they're not B&W tubes, it's just the test pattern that's B%W.
    It's a good thing that they look black and white though, because that
    means that there's no moire pattern present when either S-video or
    component connections are used.
    I didn't think they even made black and white tvs anymore, although I
    did see an add for a new black and white tv a few years ago for like
    $12.
     
    Jack White, Jul 9, 2003
    #14
  15. Jack White

    Jack White Guest

    Larry Caldwell <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > (Jay) writes:
    >
    > > At any rate, try turning up contrast
    > > on the tv and see if that helps any. If you have a need to photograph higher
    > > resolution stuff off of some kind of monitor, you may want to look into
    > > doing so on a computer monitor (the higher the resolution and the bigger the
    > > monitor, the better).

    >
    > Or just using a video capture card in a computer. I have an ATI Rage Pro
    > (sort of obsolete now) that has both composite and S-video inputs. It
    > will record whatever detail is in the signal to record. No camera
    > required.


    A capture card is not a replacement for a camera.
    A capture card would be TOTALLY useless for use in this situation at
    the link below for example.
    A camera is used to show the difference between these 2 HDTVs which a
    capture card would never show without a camera or camcorder.
    http://www.keohi.com/keohihdtv/brandspecific/toshiba/miscellaneous/540p_michaeltlv_jul02_pg1.html
     
    Jack White, Jul 10, 2003
    #15
  16. Jack White

    Lionel Guest

    On 10 Jul 2003 11:45:39 -0700, in
    <>,
    (Jack White) said:

    >A camera is used to show the difference between these 2 HDTVs which a
    >capture card would never show without a camera or camcorder.


    Ah. In that case, it sounds like you're going to need to buy or hire a
    reasonably good camera, & learn how to take clear photos of a screen. On
    the bright side, I notice that on that page they're only showing a small
    area of the screen. If you can live with doing the same, you can
    probably get by with a cheaper camera.
    Take a look at this: http://lo.ve.ly/test/CRW_7465.jpg
    That's a reduced size image, zoomed in on about a 1/4 of the screen with
    a Canon Powershot S30. If that's high enough quality, you should be able
    to find a Powershot S or G digital at a reasonable price.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Jul 10, 2003
    #16
  17. Jack White

    Jack White Guest

    Lionel <> wrote in message news:<bekdpu$q2f$>...
    > On 10 Jul 2003 11:45:39 -0700, in
    > <>,
    > (Jack White) said:
    >
    > >A camera is used to show the difference between these 2 HDTVs which a
    > >capture card would never show without a camera or camcorder.

    >
    > Ah. In that case, it sounds like you're going to need to buy or hire a
    > reasonably good camera, & learn how to take clear photos of a screen. On
    > the bright side, I notice that on that page they're only showing a small
    > area of the screen. If you can live with doing the same, you can
    > probably get by with a cheaper camera.
    > Take a look at this: http://lo.ve.ly/test/CRW_7465.jpg
    > That's a reduced size image, zoomed in on about a 1/4 of the screen with
    > a Canon Powershot S30. If that's high enough quality, you should be able
    > to find a Powershot S or G digital at a reasonable price.



    Thanks for the info, my old camera was so bad that it couldn't even do
    what you just suggested.
    It was an HP Photosmart 120 and it had absolutely NO macro capability
    whatsoever. It's minimum focusing distance was about 4 feet.
    My new camera has more than twice the resolution and a nice macro mode
    so I won't have that same problem again.
    I also like the backlit TFT active matrix lcd screen on my new camera,
    it's way better than my old camera's screen, it reminds me of the
    difference between the Sega Game Gear's screen and the Turbo Express'
    screen(although the Game Gear's screen was never as crappy as the
    Photosmart 120's).
    These young whippersnappers today probably don't even know what a
    Turbo Express or a Gamegear is and as far as they're concerned if it
    ain't a Gameboy Advance SP, then it sucks.
     
    Jack White, Jul 11, 2003
    #17
  18. Jack White

    John MCS Guest

    Hi Jack,

    you can use the free tools at go-here.net to create short links.

    regards,
    -
    John

    > BTW, the links may break up because of the long url so if you want to
    > see them, you may have to copy and paste the 2 broken pieces of the
    > link together in your url bar and then hit enter to see the pic.
     
    John MCS, Jul 11, 2003
    #18
  19. On 11 Jul 2003 12:13:11 -0700, (John MCS)
    wrote:

    >you can use the free tools at go-here.net to create short links.


    Or even use "<" and ">" around the url...most newsreaders support it.
    The advantages are that you can see the URL and not worry
    (security/privacy) where you might get sent to.

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    E-mail : ksmatharu # ieee . org [without the spaces and where #=@]
    Website: http://www.metalvortex.com/

    "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Jul 12, 2003
    #19
    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. Filipo

    What's Wrong with my Sony DSC U-30 Camera?

    Filipo, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    344
    Filipo
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. Hellenic Mensa
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    459
    John McWilliams
    Aug 30, 2004
  3. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    418
    Larry
    Oct 28, 2004
  4. Marc.

    What's wrong with this camera, please?

    Marc., Mar 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    382
    Marc.
    Apr 3, 2005
  5. Royluo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    713
    Royluo
    Jul 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page