Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[RED-DOG]

Eat your heart out, boys.

I had been saving these (I have 937 of them) for a special occasion, but you've riled me now.

Who wants to see the whole aeroplane, anyway?

PS - I found it VERY hard to get a snap of the complete aeroplane, & spent several hours attempting it. Think I took - genuinely - over 900 shots ("continous mode", so 10 at a time) & failed to even ONCE get a whole aeroplane in shot. I am so shite at this lark.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

But Tone mate, you're zoomed in so close that the entire aeroplane won't actually fit into the frame, no matter how well you compose it.

Zoom out so that the whole plane is well within the viewfinder.

[RED-DOG]

These are potentially great shots btw.

[tikay]

you're zoomed in so close that the entire aeroplane won't actually fit into the frame, no matter how well you compose it.

Zoom out so that the whole plane is well within the viewfinder.

Tried that, every single time I "lost" a part of the plane, in this case, the wingtip. Still, I got a bit of the roof of the Shell Garage underneath. Bonus, you don't see snaps like that every day.

PS - Cropping would lose the garage roof, but I'd need anti-cropping to stick the wingtip back on. Guess my camera does not have anti-crop?

Click to see full-size image.

[rex008]

Nice pics, and demonstrate nicely the quality difference between optical and digital zoom (unless I'm much mistaken).

Well yes Rex. I'm experimenting tbh.

Pic one is taken at my camera's full resolution of 6m and 12X optical before using digital zoom to get to around 24X.

Pic two virtually the same, but I reduced the resolution to 3m, leaving the camera 3m to play with, thereby (theoretically) avoiding too much interpolation.

Does that make sense?

Errrr. Probably . I just assumed you hadn't zoomed beyond optical range in the second one.

I mainly commented for the benefit of grandad, tbh. Picture paints a thousand words and all that. With digital zoom you get a nice close up shot, but there is a lot of grain and noise.

Are either of these cropped from the originals? You get a 6m picture with what, 3000x2000 ish, then post it on here at 600x400ish, you get another 5x zoom for free by cropping.

I'm lost now Rex. Posting on here reduces the entire image, it doesn't crop. (Nothing is free).


Apologies to the people who's eyes have glazed over.

Yes, indeedy. I'm basically saying if you reduce the size by cropping before you upload to imageshack (make a copy first, obv), you get some "free" zoom. The picture quality of a 3000x2000 and a 600x400 picture will be identical when they are both shown on screen at 600x400. It's not the same as using digital zoom as the camera still tries to end up with a 3000x2000 image with less than 3000x2000 sensor pixels, even if you know it'll eventually get shown at 600x400 on here.

By going from a 6mp shot to a 600x400 picture, you're effectively doing a "digital unzoom".

If you go back to your original 6mp shot of the multiple-finches photo above, crop fairly tightly to, say, 1 of the birds, and repost it, the quality is likely to be better than the single bird taken with digital zoom. Of course this doesn't work for printing out or displaying at bigger sizes elsewhere.

Wow, I've read that back and even my eyes are glazing over. Sorry.

[RED-DOG]

Nice pics, and demonstrate nicely the quality difference between optical and digital zoom (unless I'm much mistaken).

Well yes Rex. I'm experimenting tbh.

Pic one is taken at my camera's full resolution of 6m and 12X optical before using digital zoom to get to around 24X.

Pic two virtually the same, but I reduced the resolution to 3m, leaving the camera 3m to play with, thereby (theoretically) avoiding too much interpolation.

Does that make sense?

Errrr. Probably . I just assumed you hadn't zoomed beyond optical range in the second one.

I mainly commented for the benefit of grandad, tbh. Picture paints a thousand words and all that. With digital zoom you get a nice close up shot, but there is a lot of grain and noise.

Are either of these cropped from the originals? You get a 6m picture with what, 3000x2000 ish, then post it on here at 600x400ish, you get another 5x zoom for free by cropping.

I'm lost now Rex. Posting on here reduces the entire image, it doesn't crop. (Nothing is free).


Apologies to the people who's eyes have glazed over.

Yes, indeedy. I'm basically saying if you reduce the size by cropping before you upload to imageshack (make a copy first, obv), you get some "free" zoom. The picture quality of a 3000x2000 and a 600x400 picture will be identical when they are both shown on screen at 600x400. It's not the same as using digital zoom as the camera still tries to end up with a 3000x2000 image with less than 3000x2000 sensor pixels, even if you know it'll eventually get shown at 600x400 on here.

By going from a 6mp shot to a 600x400 picture, you're effectively doing a "digital unzoom".

If you go back to your original 6mp shot of the multiple-finches photo above, crop fairly tightly to, say, 1 of the birds, and repost it, the quality is likely to be better than the single bird taken with digital zoom. Of course this doesn't work for printing out or displaying at bigger sizes elsewhere.

Wow, I've read that back and even my eyes are glazing over. Sorry.

Yes. Got it now Rex. Thanks.

[david3103]

Tom, does you camera do rapid-fire shots? Maybe in sport-mode or just via the settings?
It does make action shots easier to capture.

Yes it does David, but only at a rate of 2 frames per second. A lot can happen in half a second. Usually there is a motionless bird in the first frame, and nothing at all in the second one. 

Do Argos still have an offer on the camera that Tikay bought?

[tikay]

Tom, does you camera do rapid-fire shots? Maybe in sport-mode or just via the settings?
It does make action shots easier to capture.

Yes it does David, but only at a rate of 2 frames per second. A lot can happen in half a second. Usually there is a motionless bird in the first frame, and nothing at all in the second one. 

Do Argos still have an offer on the camera that Tikay bought?

My photos are that good, huh?

No matter HOW good the camera is, I doubt you'll be able to take photos to my standard. Its a gift, see?

[RED-DOG]

And now, for my non-photographic readers, something slightly more interesting.

Click to see full-size image.

[david3103]

Tom, does you camera do rapid-fire shots? Maybe in sport-mode or just via the settings?
It does make action shots easier to capture.

Yes it does David, but only at a rate of 2 frames per second. A lot can happen in half a second. Usually there is a motionless bird in the first frame, and nothing at all in the second one. 

Do Argos still have an offer on the camera that Tikay bought?

My photos are that good, huh? Think operator, not equipment.

My suggestion was more along the lines of being able to take 5 shots per second would enable Tom to catch the birds in motion, and probably all of an aeroplane.

[RED-DOG]

Tom, does you camera do rapid-fire shots? Maybe in sport-mode or just via the settings?
It does make action shots easier to capture.

Yes it does David, but only at a rate of 2 frames per second. A lot can happen in half a second. Usually there is a motionless bird in the first frame, and nothing at all in the second one. 

Do Argos still have an offer on the camera that Tikay bought?

My photos are that good, huh? Think operator, not equipment.

My suggestion was more along the lines of being able to take 5 shots per second would enable Tom to catch the birds in motion, and probably all of an aeroplane.

I will eventually buy a new camera. I've narrowed it down to these three.
 


Sony Cyber-shot HX100V


Canon Powershot SX40 HS


Panasonic Lumix FZ150


I'm going to continue using my old camera for a while, it's fun trying to overcome it's shortcomings and I'm learning a lot in the process.

Also, it will give me time to save my pennies and for those cameras to come down in price.

[RED-DOG]

Last bird pics today, honest.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[david3103]

Quality work Sir.

<Insert applause smiley here>

iPad not good for forum posting

[tikay]

reet grand pics, is them!

[Karabiner]

reet grand pics, is them!

I far prefer quality pics of a pair of tits to a four-page discussion on the merits of optical zoom in 1/800 v digital in 3/320.

[RED-DOG]

reet grand pics, is them!

I far prefer quality pics of a pair of tits to a four-page discussion on the merits of optical zoom in 1/800 v digital in 3/320.

With out optical zoom, a tit would be nothing more than a distant mammary.