Nikon D70 samples (ISO 200 & 1000)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paolo Pizzi, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. Paolo Pizzi

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I noticed the portrait of the little girl is focused on her ear, not her
    eyes...

    -BK
     
    Barry Kelsall, Feb 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. That settles it, now i'm not buying one!
     
    Martin Francis, Feb 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Paolo Pizzi

    AArDvarK Guest

    Excellent iso 1000/800 shots indeed!
    Very happy with that, I was hoping
    someone would do that. Also very nice
    lens resolution too.

    Now on the mirror lock-up for
    photography ... I wonder if it could
    be provided in a firmware update ...
    or whether or not they will.

    Alex
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Paolo Pizzi

    Ed Ruf Guest

    So far the long rumored firmware update to enable raw on the 5400 hasn't
    happened.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Feb 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Paolo Pizzi

    Bob Guest


    I'd say those ISO 200 shots are quite soft. Maybe just as soft as the old
    D100. That blue sky looks like blue mud (boring picture of barn). I'd
    like to see the same pictures with a better lens. So far it's not an
    upgrade of whatever. Nothing new under the sun. Just the same old
    nikonsh*t in a new housing.

    I really hoped Nikon would give us a really good camera at last, but then
    the D2 arrived. One of the sexiest looking camera's around. My God, Have
    you seen those pictures from it? I gave up on them. Digital is not their
    kinda stuff, not yet.

    My hopes are now set on the new Fuji S3 (although I hate the F80 used for
    it)


    my 3 cents, bob
     
    Bob, Feb 12, 2004
    #6
  7. Paolo Pizzi

    AArDvarK Guest

    Speaking of which, someone such as a programmer
    should become a hobbyist at hacking camera os's,
    now that would be awesome!

    Alex
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Paolo Pizzi

    Alan Browne Guest


    ...well, if you're going to stick to hackneyed cliché rule based
    photography....
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Paolo Pizzi

    H. S. Guest


    Now if somehow you could get the interest of the Linux community into
    this .....

    More seriously, the cameras' OS are not open source, AFAIK. If they were
    that really would be great. I guess the basic problem lies in what
    architecture microprocessors they use. Any idea? Even after given that,
    each camera company, possibly each camera model, may have different
    communications between the main processor and its peripherals. It is
    quite a complex task to hack something about which you know nothing:
    hardware, peripherals, software, architecture. Correct if me I am wrong.

    ->HS
     
    H. S., Feb 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Paolo Pizzi

    Alan Browne Guest


    I would guess they use small scale RISC processors embedded with most
    camera specific electronics on a single chip. The liklihood that you
    could disassemble the code (from the chip or a firmware upgrade),
    determine the functionality, invoke the bootstrap so you can load your
    own code is ... slim. If you mung the bootstrap you will have a dead
    camera.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Paolo Pizzi

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Ed Ruf, Feb 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Paolo Pizzi

    Mike Engles Guest


    Hello

    The image of the woman at 1000iso is phenomenal.
    A real sense of texture, skin pores and fine hair detail.
    Remarkably low noise and almost no coloured artifacts on the background.

    Mike Engles
     
    Mike Engles, Feb 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Well, I'd say the "normal" setup would be something like an application
    specific DSP (such as Canon's DIGIC-II) that takes care of the image
    processing and one (or more) general purpose microcontroller(s) for the
    other functions (user interface, flash writing).

    I'm not sure that a camera would have an OS, since it really doesn't
    need to run a set of different applications, thus needing a scheduler. I
    would assume that the multi-tasking needs are handled by having more
    than one microcontroller, say one for the UI and one for memory management.

    I might of course be all wrong here, and most likely I'm not 100%
    correct, but I just thought to give my $0.02...
    I don't think that every model within a single company would have all
    that different firmware, specially not when it comes to communication
    with the peripherals, since they are propably very much the same in
    every camera, so it would not make sense to re-invent the wheel for
    every model. I would think that they reuse as much of the software as
    possible.
    It would indeed be a daunting task which would most likely cost you
    quite a number of cameras.. :)

    -JP
     
    Jukka-Pekka Suominen, Feb 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Paolo Pizzi

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    I'd really like someone to hack the Sony F707 firmware so that I can use
    "nightshot" with the full range of modes, apertures, and shutter speeds.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 13, 2004
    #14
  15. Paolo Pizzi

    Matt White Guest

    Given how camera companies' attitude to non-Windows/non-MacOS users seems
    to be "Begone, peasant. We don't want your money", it sadly isn't likely.
    Thank god for Lexar and Epson's adherence to standards, otherwise I'd
    probably still be fighting with my computer instead of using it. Err,
    Sorry. Didn't mean for this to turn into a rant. Anyway...

    It's an interesting idea, hacking one's camera for fun and profit. It
    would be difficult to do legally without somehow getting ahold of trade
    secrets without signing an NDA. Employee leak seems the only realistic way.

    As for reverse engineering of the camera itself, I have no idea what OS
    that cameras typically run on, but it's possible that many are a
    customized Tron variant. It's really common in embedded gadgets. That
    would give a prospective camera-hacker a start, but as there's a zillion
    different ways to customize Tron, it's still a longshot to go the
    camera-side reverse engineering route.

    Another possibility is reverse engineering of the computer-side software
    used to control some cameras from some manufacturers. The 10D comes to
    mind. As Canon's unlikely to design a totally different control language
    and control program for each model camera, there's a chance that it's
    standardized. It might be possible to send computer-side-style control
    commands internally on the camera. Maybe. Again, a longshot.

    Now, I'm just talking out of my posterior here. My coffee hasn't kicked in
    yet, and I haven't taken a CS class in years, so all this may not make
    sense. Any embedded developers in the house? Or Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Minolta
    engineers willing to post their cameras' source code anonymously? ;)

    - Matt
     
    Matt White, Feb 18, 2004
    #15
  16. There was an interesting exchange on DC Reviews 300D forum where some
    guy in fact kludged an interfact to the 300D. Apparently the DIGIC
    chip uses a 8086 instruction set and DOS. He was able to see c:/ and
    examine the boot routines etc. Thats all I remember but they were
    trying to decrippleize (wow) the 300D and found the what they assumed
    was the rest of the 10D code was still in the 300D ROM.
     
    Mike Latondresse, Feb 18, 2004
    #16
    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.