Lazy people and "smartphones" continue to erode P&S sales

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 24, 2011.

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I know his brother mortice, he was very stiff.
    Whisky-dave, Jan 26, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    that was his sister. His brother was pestle
    PeterN, Jan 26, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lots of people win playing the lottery.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2012
  4. Ah, so you get cash from some shop, paying with your card.
    (Or do you pay with a cheque?)

    Why do you reject diret debit mandates and bank transfers?
    Why do yo insist everywhere people use lots of cheques?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2012
  5. The copyright holder has a vested interest in their works
    being as widely known as possible.

    Since the book market is more than saturated with books,
    practically noone can know all books, or even all authors one
    would have liked to know in hindsight --- not even in a small
    niche. Thus the copyright holder's greatest impediment to
    sales is being unknown to many, often even most, of their
    possible target audience.

    But don't believe me. What do *I* know? Let's ask some who
    stake their living income on that ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2012
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2012
  7. Were you saying that to your mirror image, it might be true.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2012
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2012
  9. Maschine gun shooting's only good if you don't care much *what*
    point in time you hit exactly, but care only that you hit *lots*
    of points.
    Never mind battery usage ... a DSLR can have everything but
    the buttons off (and they don't draw power if not pressed), a
    pre-shooting system has to have everything but the card writing
    running at full tilt.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 2, 2012
  10. Not lots, but you've got a frame within 1/n of any actual point in
    time. So, depending on the speed of the event, and whether you can
    trigger reliably at some early moment of it (either manually or with
    tech of some sort), and how accurately you need to hit your point, it
    may be the easiest and cheapest solution.

    For example, my bowling ball mortar pictures were done that way. Using
    a fuse to set off the mortar didn't give us a very predicatable time,
    and I didn't have a sound trigger (still don't, but waiting for Trigger
    Trap from the Kickstarter project, due this spring), but 5 or 8 frames
    per second got us interesting shots.
    Would be a nice option to turn on -- but not yet compatible with the
    hardware platform, quite.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 2, 2012
  11. Of course. Slowing down high speed actions is a typical
    case. OTOH, a photo where the bullet just has left the (now
    exploding) apple probably wouldn't work, due to light and
    exact timing of the extremely short exposure.
    You could have used an (e.g. infrared) active electric eye, a
    passive electic eye (shadow of the ball) or even a
    very thin wire that's torn by the bowling ball, too.

    You want really high speed? Then you want low resolution[1].
    Readout speeds are limited by image quality.


    [1] Or sweeping over several (logical and/or physical) sensors.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 2, 2012
  12. Yes, 1/4000 sec. actually freezes the bowling ball, and my mechanical
    shutter can do that. For significantly higher speeds you end up using
    flash in the dark, and generally therefore only get one shot per trial.
    I'd think it might be worth rigging a laser trigger instead if you were
    doing it on film, so you wouldn't have to experiment to get the
    placement right. Never did this on film.
    Certainly, although the muzzle flash was *huge* (being enhanced with two
    baggies of gasoline :) ). And some of the best shots were far enough
    back that rigging a light beam without equipment appearing in the shot
    would have been hard. But a sound trigger plus delay would be a good
    choice too. (As I mentioned, I supported Trigger Trap on Kickstarter,
    and am looking forward to receiving one this spring. It can use any of
    these modes. Actually, it can probably trigger *on* the muzzle flash.)

    (Here's one from the first year of the bowling ball mortar shoots
    < 20080704 010-176>.
    Sorry the URL is so long, make sure it doesn't get broken or it won't work!
    Use the "up" link from there to find the rest of the shots from that
    No, of course not; I want high speed *at high resolution*; for catching
    fast events lazily for fun, not for making useful scientific studies of
    fast events :).

    Yeah, not feasible at sane cost, I understand. Moving data that fast is
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 2, 2012
  13. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Right, but as I said, taking one shot is even less likely to give you the
    right one for fast action because of reaction time. Will depend on
    predictabilty of course, which is not always guaranteed.

    Actually the processor is on to detect the button press. If you turn it off
    all together, pressing the button does nothing. And even when on you
    introduce lag when the system is in sleep mode before a shot can be taken.
    Not huge for a dslr these days, but significant for anyone capturing action

    Right, and yet pro's do demand high sequence rates these days, and even the
    cheapest P&S's have continuous still shooting modes (apart from movie mode).
    Once upon a time only pro's had high speed film winders and large capacity
    backs on their SLR's. You had to have a good reason to go to that expense,
    PLUS film cost!

    Trevor, Feb 3, 2012
  14. Nope.
    You have to differentiate between
    - repeatable actions: anything that can be shot again and again
    - semi-repeatable actions: Things that can be repeated, but
    only a very limited number of times, and not identically.
    E.g. Raising the flag at Ivo Jima
    - unrepeatable actions: The moment JFK was shot. The first goal
    in the superbowl 2012.

    And between
    - specific predictable action (where you have a 'countdown'
    to the decisive moment), e.g. a runner reaching the finish,
    a ball entering the goal after a longer flight, ...
    - generally predictable action (where you can sort of frame and
    preshoot), but cannot predict the exact moment. E.g. a water
    ballon, being filled, just starts to burst.
    - unpredictable action (no time to frame or too long a time
    to wait): someone robbing a store 6 years after the camera
    was attached. A specific lightning bolt.
    - well predictable actions that are too fast between the start of
    the 'countdown' and the event for a human to trigger: a bullet
    just leaving an apple. A foot kicking a ball --- at the moment
    where the ball is maximally deformed.

    If it can be triggered by an experienced human, if it can be
    triggered by any technical means (available to you) and is either
    repeatable or maths and physics can show you how much delay to
    use you're better off without machine gun shooting.

    If it's not triggerable, you have to make do with preshooting,
    or better, extremely high frequency shooting. You'll miss the
    deceive moment, but depending on the shooting frequency you'll
    be close. If that difference matters depends on you.

    Of course, if you want a sort-of movie ... maschinegun it is!
    If you've no chance to frame it and focus it ...

    Nope. I'll bet you that it's asleep. Even desktop computers on
    mains send their processor asleep nowaday till there's some work
    to be done --- why should a battery driven camera let it run?

    You don't need the processor to generate an interrupt. You might
    need it to handle the interrupt, but not to generate the interrupt
    that wakes it.

    So your laptop does nothing if you press a key and it's just
    in S3?
    It's absolutely negible. It doesn't need to boot again,
    after all. (and that's 0.25s in a 20D and again much faster
    in newer cameras, with 0.1s being average)
    It's vastly faster than the time between half-press and full
    press of the shutter, even if you press as fast as you can.

    When a halfway modern laptop handles 400 wakeups per second and is
    93% in C3 (deep sleep, every clock signal stopped) or even deeper
    (down to "everything but a static RAM inside the CPU at 0V") (and
    0.7-2% in C2) and is then idle 90% of the rest (with another 8%
    in the lowest frequency) ... you can imagine yourself how fast
    wakeups are. Not something you want to do 100,000 times per
    second. Starting up the PLLs and reloading the caches takes time.

    But not *much* time. 400 wakeups and 93% idle time means
    that wakeup must be (much) faster than 1/400 of 7%, or much
    faster than 1/5700s. 1/10,000s or 1/30.000s or faster.
    That's "significant for anyone capturing action shots"?
    That's much faster than the action shooter's reaction time
    variability, much faster than even the 300x200'ish high speed
    video shot-to-shot time available in digital prosumer
    I just see the landscape, the portrait, the architecture, the
    stilllife, the macro, and several other pros[1] clamoring for
    600 fps[2]

    There are some very few areas where 10, 11, 12, 13 fps
    are well usable --- remember, pros demand high resolution and
    high image quality! And that means usually at least a crop DSLR,
    usually a FF DSLR or medium format--- amongst them:
    - Studio where the second shot is just lit by the backlight
    flashes (to automate masking). They'd want 50 or even more
    fps, so subject movement (hair waving from the wind
    machine, for example) better frozen. However, reading
    *many* pixels *fast* means either low image quality or
    masses of digitizers (i.e. extremely expensive).
    - some type of wildlife (not all of them are happy to shoo
    the wildlife away by mirror and shutter maschine gun
    firing). Capturing the chameleon's tongue shooting out.
    - Expanding on the above: when the subject is non-cooperative
    and fast moving and has fleeting, irregular, too hard to
    predict moments you're trying to catch. Politicans
    showing their real face, for example.

    Pros might also want to capture events very close together:
    Pie approaching pop star, pie hitting in face, pie parts
    flying everywhere, body guards tackling pop star, pop star
    just about to hit the ground, pop star on ground while body
    guards draw weapons and start firing wildly into the masses
    But usually no AF then, and usually a 1-3 fps.
    Once upin a time most pros didn't use either, and still did
    marvelous work.


    [1] And that's "pros do demand", not "pro's", there's nothing
    belonging to "pro" that demands, there is no "pro is do
    demand" either. Sheesh, I'm supposed to be the non-native
    speaker here, making stupid mistakes ...
    [2] that's AFAIR available with some consumer/prosumer
    bridge cameras ... at very low resolution.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 6, 2012
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    i don't reject or insist anything. if someone gives me a check, i can
    deposit it using my phone. not everyone is going to wire money, or even
    set up to do that. why are *you* insisting it be done your way?
    Guest, Feb 8, 2012
  16. RichA

    Guest Guest

    i don't have an atm in my house.
    i prefer to leave the house because i want to, not because i have to.
    if i can deposit a check in my kitchen and save myself a trip (and the
    gas and wear and tear on the car), then that's a plus, not a minus.
    for you maybe.
    i don't insist on anything. if someone sends me a check then i need to
    deposit it. i'm certainly not going to mail it back and demand that
    they wire the funds, especially since not everyone is set up for direct
    bank transfers. i grab my smartphone and it's done. why is this so
    difficult to accept?
    Guest, Feb 8, 2012
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 22, 2012
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 22, 2012
  19. But not for the whole image at the same time --- it's a
    travelling slot and that means the ball will likely not be
    circular in the image. (It depends of course how visible
    that is and if that is good, bad or neutral for the image.)
    Yup. Though you can probably get close with some math.
    Nice. So we'll see some more interesting shots in autumn.

    Oh, it's feasible enough right now ... with analog methods. :)
    Moving data isn't the main problem. The A/D converters just
    need some time to reach quality, AFAIUI. Some time * xx million
    pixels = slow. No wonder most faster cameras have multiple
    A/D converters.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 22, 2012
  20. Tolerable, in any case. And it's not very warped (the link to it was in
    the previous message; here it is again
    And with more experience you'd get better at it -- as with most things.
    Makes using the same gun and ammo each time more important, for
    example. I hear that you can see the image by eye due to persistence of
    vision, but you'd probably be safely back from the impact area so you
    would be seeing it from quite a distance.
    We can hope. May take a while to learn how to productively employ the
    new trigger, which is now delayed until April.
    Mmmmmmm; strip cameras! They did some wild stuff for the Manhattan
    project, long long ago now. But then they had a real budget.
    If you want multiple photos, data rates are a problem, or you need a
    reall BIG ram disk.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 22, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.