Daily Equine Forum Visit Horse Saddle Shop Read Horse Saddle Shops Blog Horse Saddle Shop Twitter Horse Saddle Shop Facebook Image Map
Daily Equine Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics |Recent Messages | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Creative, fun and entertaining
 Saddle Shop Corral
 Camera Talk
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:59:02 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FLOOPER

PS: He also said to pretty much ignore DPI...it's more of a setting to tell a printer how many pixels to print per inch, and a way to optimize a photo for web display. Other than that, it's pretty meaningless and not a reflection of the qualilty of a file. The measure of the quality of the file is the number of pixels that make up the file (w X l), not the number of pixels per inch...that's a measure of display quality and printing quality.



See underlining. The number of pixels that make up the file, as far as I understand it, will dictate the quality of the photo if it's enlarged in photoshop. In other words, you can't enlarge it beyond a certain width/length (proportionate) without deterioration IF that enlargement takes the resulting DPI lower than --in my case-- 266dpi.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote though. ;-)
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  12:50:50 PM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think we're saying the same thing. DPI doesn't effect file quality, it effects print or display quality, which is what you're talking about. DPI is simply how many of the file's pixels are printed or displayed per linear inch. If you need more pixels per inch for quality, then clearly you will need more pixels in the original file.

Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/01/2008 :  05:12:01 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Well, I uploaded "Flooper House" to Printer, he said it definitely looks like it'll make a good enough print for that kind of output. (Did to me too!) I may have him make a color proof of it but I think all that will show is tint, if any, resident in the camera.

So it does appear that a little "pocketable" point-and-shoot will do the trick for THAT purpose, and also be small enough to carry. Yippeeeee!!!!

You have all been VERY helpful (!!!) in answering some of the questions I had. Quite some time ago I called Canon with the same questions, and I could tell the guy did not understand that my questions revolved around outputting a file for print in a publication vs. making a "print" in the normal sense. Also, way back when, I also posed the question to a "professional" who got so involved in techno-babble (preferring to display numerous technical terms), and the end result was... no answer.

I think it's safe to assume that Flooper's 8MP camera would be just fine in that, once brought to 266dpi, its physical size landed right at 9x12 which gives me the needed stretch for trim on the 9" side.

Both Flooper and Hook are WAY better at framing than I am, so it makes sense for my lesser framing skills to get a larger MP camera, just for the purpose of cropping alone. So back to Hook's SD950IS which sounds like it's right along the lines of Flooper's 1100 except larger MP to allow for the cropping that I strongly suspect I will need.

Dang, guys! A conclusion!

Only remaining question is... is it fairly safe to assume that the 12MP SD950IS would have at least as good of a lens as Flooper's 8MP SD1100IS? Both Canon. Or that other top brands (e.g., Olympus, Nikon) would likely have as good a lens? Because I still don't know how to check lens quality out other than reviews, and PG makes a very good point on how reliable those are sometimes. I understand the lens on a P&S will be smaller, but Flooper's sample photo looked as good as some of the state's professional stock photos which, I suspect, were shot with all sorts of expensive interchangeable equipment.

Whew!
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 08/01/2008 :  08:41:14 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I would think they would all have good quality lenses. When I was talking about lens quality, I was referring more to point and shoot vs digital SLR.

Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/01/2008 :  1:15:55 PM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, I'm sort of narrowing it down to a choice between the SD890IS and the SD950IS.

I did see a package where you can buy the 950 with various accessories (they all have some sorta package deal) but I was very surprised to see the 950's accessory package had two separate lenses that appear they can be used on this camera. I didn't happen to see an accessory package for the 890 with that, so I don't know if BOTH of them can have separate lenses attached or not, or if it's just the 950. Is that an important thing??

Also, the 950 has 12.1MP whereas the 890 has 10.0MP. The 12.1MP would be more forgiving in terms of cropping, but I'm trying to evaluate how important the difference is between the two. For all intents and purposes, the 8.0 doesn't allow me much in the way of cropping, as its physical size at 266dpi is pretty close to the finished size I'd need.

The other question mark is that while the 890 is at a lower MP (less cropping leeway), it has a 5X zoom vs. a 3.7X (almost 4X zoom). So I'm also wondering if that difference is something that would be a noticeable advantage on the 890. Zoom seems like it would be pretty important.

Too bad the higher zoom AND the higher MP aren't both in the same camera, lol. But unfortunately not.

The 950 has a titanium body, and I think the 890 has plastic, and if so I don't know how much weight to put on that.

They are the same size and weight, though.

One question is shutter lag. The specs don't show that, but they do show shutter speed. That seemed to be important, but I don't know how to read the two specs.

890 shutter speed says: 1/60-1/1600 sec, 15-1/1500 sec.
950 shutter speed says: 15-1/1600 sec.

(Those two number values do not look comparable to me.)

Can anyone address these differences in terms of how important they'd be practically? The separate lens capability (though the specs don't seem to refer to that), but also the higher MP on the 950 vs. more zoom on the 890, and anything you'd understand about the two oddly different shutter speed values?

I HOPE I'm not being a royal pain in the rear on this, but I truly have zero experience with any of the above. My dinosaur P&S doesn't do any of it.
Carol
Go to Top of Page

PaintGal
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
5300 Posts

Posted - 08/01/2008 :  6:22:49 PM  Show Profile Send PaintGal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't know if there is that much difference between the 2 zooms. I assume they are "optical" and not "digital" zooms. The digi zooms guess what is there and fill in where needed based on the guess. The digi zooms I've used are pretty much worthless if you want an in focus high quality pic.



Karen ~ Trails
&
Joe Paint Gelding
Paoli, IN


"My treasures do not sparkle or glitter, they shine in the sun and neigh in the night."



~~~~~~
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/01/2008 :  6:41:16 PM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think this must be optical zoom because I read something, somewhere, where the writer said they really liked it.

Can't figure out why they don't have the two best features in the same camera! LOL.
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2008 :  12:55:24 PM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, here's the update for anyone interested, into camera search.

First of all, Flooper's SD1100IS is sure well regarded! I haven't heard one, not ONE bad thing about it. I even saw one the other day, and it is a reeeally nice camera. (Couldn't hold it entirely, only part of it since the bottom was bolted onto a thing so no one could steal it). I need some cropping leeway, otherwise I'd just get that little 1100.

I found a store who had the 950. It's a beauty. That's its problem for me. It's TOO "sleek." There isn't even so much as a thumb indent in its smooth-as-silk Titanium body. I'm afraid that shooting with it one handed, I'd really run the risk of dropping it. However, I was actually considering doing the unthinkable -- and that's attaching (via glue or whatever) a tackier strip around part of it. (I know, I know, that's a sacrilidge.)

Well, I have a habit I developed a long time ago. I did it at this camera store. After looking at the 950 and playing with it (and there's a whole lot to love about it), I asked the salesperson, "Okay, what's this camera's stiffest competition"? (Truly, you really cut some corners doing that in product research, assuming, of course, you have a knowledgeable sales person).

She brought out Nikon P5100. Well, I gotta say, that little machine really has some great points. It's also 12.1MP, its zoom is only slightly less than the Canon SD950IS (3.5 vs. 3.7 optical zoom). HOWEVER! It has a slightly wider angle resident lens. It is absolutely a joy to hold. Irregular shape gives you something to grab onto. Rubberized placed grip also (way less likely to get dropped). It also has an optional sleeve you can buy which enables you to use at least two auxiliary lenses (telephoto and wide angle). And it accept an auxiliary flash.

I had inherited Canon brand loyalty from both Hook and Flooper, but there's sure a lot to like about that Nikon P5100. It has image stabilization as well, and red-eye control. Oh, I forgot. Way more user control settings than the 950. Closer to the G9 in some respects, but does not shoot in RAW. It is slightly bigger than the 950, but still very pocketable. About the same price. Its weakness (they all have a weakness) is that it can have trouble finding focus in low light. However, the people who have it have posted that they are willing to do workarounds, and one said that if it keeps searching, he has shot ANYWAY! And has yet to have a photo come out unfocused. The idea being that it's quite possible that the camera is looking for the "perfect" focus, whereas the shooter might be happy with less than the camera's requirement for "perfect," because those shots taken in spite of the searching came out quite well.

The person at the camera store said if I wanted to buy it, I could try it for 10 days and return it (that's assuming no software is opened and there ain't a scratch on it).

Specifics I still need to check out are...
shutter lag (time from depressing button to camera taking shot since there are two, at least, definitions I've seen for shutter lag). Also, what the camera does with colors. If it creates sharp, overly vivid colors, that's a drawback. (I think this Nikon does a super job from what I read). Ditto with in-camera sharpening. Some sample shots I've seen from P&Ss -- the un-edited photos are ridiculously over-sharpened.

So that's the update on what I've found out so far. I definitely wanted to pass on, in any event, that Flooper's choice of the SD 1100 apparently agrees with everything I've read about it.

Hook, I also hear rumor (now from two places) that Canon is discontinuing the G9. It's assumed to be a marketing move (keep changing something and X number of people will rush out and buy it) so a G10 may be appearing I guess. But those who like the G9 LOVE the G9, that's for sure. It has an extremely dedicated following.

There sure is a LOT to cameras, sheeeesh!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2008 :  07:30:59 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I guess we're done with "Camera Talk," at least as far as it's gone. However, I've done more extensive research, opening up another dimension. (First, and briefly, having delved into the Nikon P5100 more, it may be a lot slower than I thought and worse focusing in low light than I thought.)

More importantly, however, this may be general info of interest to Hook, Flooper or anyone else. In reading detailed analyses/reviews on various cameras, while most of it was beyond me in techno-terms, buried within one of them was a comment along the lines, "that's what happens when cramming 12mp pixels into a limited size sensor." It went on to say that fewer pixels are larger pixels. That may make them less subject to as many problems.

If there's anything to that, then as far as the pocketable point-and-shoots go (such as those we've been talking about), a "given" that sounds unavoidable in that size camera is an unavoidably small sensor. So if larger pixels are better (and I would have thought it to be the opposite), then the goal in anyone choosing a P&S would be to go with as small an MP as you can get away with, based on your desired print/publishing size (up to a point).

Now that is a twist I hadn't expected. It took hours to find that little comment as it was buried in a highly comprehensive, fairly technical review. I wish I had bookmarked it, because I'd sure like to re-read that part to see if I read it right.
Go to Top of Page

Hook
Trail Boss (Moderator)



Canada
6115 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2008 :  08:03:56 AM  Show Profile  Visit Hook's Homepage Send Hook a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So........................?

What one did you or are you going to buy?

Sure a learning experience for us all. Thanks for your research and letting us tag along.

Hook(ed)......on Horses

"The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes, certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things in life. " Author: Robert Louis Stevenson
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2008 :  4:07:35 PM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hook

So........................?

What one did you or are you going to buy?

Sure a learning experience for us all. Thanks for your research and letting us tag along.



Welllllllll,,, the dark horse reared its head. This was purely by chance, but on a photography forum, some guy asked about recommendations between 3 cameras, one of which was the Canon 10MP SD790IS. Now that's one I haven't even looked at because I thought it was without Image Stabilization. When I saw "IS," and read various replies that were very complimentary to the 790, I went over to Amazon to have a look at its specs. 10MP gives me SOME cropping room beyond the 8.0MP which would be fairly minimal, but it's less than the 12.0.

Well, long story short, I read the buyer's reviews on Amazon and that was the first time I didn't read ANY 1-star or 2-star reviews from John Doe on the street. There was one 3-star review, and all the rest were 4's and 5's (out of 5). 63 of them.

Intrigued, I found a review on a camera-reviewing website, and the guy had nothing but good to say about it. Just for the heck of it, I called Walmart and they happen to carry it. I talked to the guy and he said it was his most often-requested camera, can't keep them in stock. He had ONE. I asked him to hold it for me (which he didn't, but the manager said 4 more had come in). She confirmed it was constantly being asked for; way more than other phone inquiries.

She said there's a 30-day return policy on cameras (90 days on accessories including media cards) and I could try it for 30 days and if I didn't like it for some reason, bring it back. Refund, no problem, "Try it." She acted like that was just fine, have at it.

So I bought it. I have not so much as read beyond how to load the battery and put in the 2-gig "fast-write" SD card that I bought, but I've been playing with it. I have nothing to compare it to in terms of Image Quality (IQ). It's boxy, not rounded as the 950 (or super-rounded like the 870) so there's something flat to hang onto.

No view-finder, which reviewers said they didn't miss because the LCD screen is 3 inch -- (with that size LCD, the viewfinder has to go.) They said you could see the LCD even in bright sunlight, and I'm not sure I agree. There was bright sun out earlier, and I thought it was kind of hard to see.

Going to look at the manual tonight and see what I can figure out about it. Zoom appears to take good photos (optical). It doesn't tell you where you are within the optical but it stops at 3.0 and says 3.0, then if you insist on hitting zoom again, display changes color once your'e in digital zoom.
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2008 :  8:26:59 PM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Okay, here's some initial playing around. Here's a shot of my driveway. No settings, no color changes, just as it came out of the camera. Only change was it was re-sized.



Here's the exact same photo, except sharpened slightly in Photoshop.



Here's a landscape-orientation shot, no zoom. Sun came out so I wanted to see highlights/shadows.



Same shot, but zoomed 3x optical. (I don't notice the zoom amount unless I pick out some foliage farther down the driveway on the non-zoom, and then find same spot on the zoom. Then I notice it.




Kneejerk first impressions:

THE GOOD:

1. The color on this camera appears pretty natural. It was not very bright out when I shot the first one -- pretty cloudy and dreary day. Some foliage shots I've seen on some P&Ss turn out what my eye sees as pretty artificial greens.
2. This camera does NOT appear to "oversharpen" from within its own default settings. Some cameras appear to, so I like that about it.
3. Appears to have acceptably wide angle.

THE NOT SO GOOD:

3. It looks to me like the highlights are somewhat blown out (note the sun shining on wet leaves and sunny areas on the 2nd two driveway shots).
4. The focus doesn't overly impress me, but is this just a fact of life with very small P&S cameras?
____
Last, this flower was NOT shot in Macro, so no veins, etc. I just wanted to see what I'd get, just standing close and using zoom. (I THINK this is 3x Optical but if I cranked it up to use some of the digital zoom, then it includes that. In any event, it appears I can get fairly close up without macro and the subject will be in focus. So that's a handy thing.


Edited by - OnTheWay on 08/08/2008 07:03:16 AM
Go to Top of Page

Hook
Trail Boss (Moderator)



Canada
6115 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2008 :  07:53:40 AM  Show Profile  Visit Hook's Homepage Send Hook a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Looks like your search is over.

Every camera has problems getting the right exposure when the scene has such high light contrasts such as the shadows and spots of sunlight in your drive way.

The zoom feature looks pretty good too as does the close-up.

I would sure miss the optical view finder because of my experience with SLR cameras.


The key to digital photos is simple, take lots of pictures, did I say take lots and lots of pictures, experiment with different lighting, exposures and settings. Make it a point o take the Camera with you, take pictures everyday. You will find a new beauty in the world around you.

Every once in a while a great one turns up as you strive to find the settings that will bring the picture to life.

Good Luck and keep the pictures coming.

Hook(ed)......on Horses

"The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes, certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things in life. " Author: Robert Louis Stevenson
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2008 :  11:25:39 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hook

Looks like your search is over.

Every camera has problems getting the right exposure when the scene has such high light contrasts such as the shadows and spots of sunlight in your drive way.

The zoom feature looks pretty good too as does the close-up.

I would sure miss the optical view finder because of my experience with SLR cameras.


The key to digital photos is simple, take lots of pictures, did I say take lots and lots of pictures, experiment with different lighting, exposures and settings. Make it a point o take the Camera with you, take pictures everyday. You will find a new beauty in the world around you.

Every once in a while a great one turns up as you strive to find the settings that will bring the picture to life.

Good Luck and keep the pictures coming.



Search ain't over, lol. I need to spend some time in the user's manual (daunting in a way). I have no clue what the default settings were, but last night set it to "Superfine" (probably was on Normal or Fine) so I'll see if that makes any difference.

Low light appears to suck, though there's a setting for "Cloudy" so when the sun gets less strong I'll set it for that and see if better shot from that also.

What do you find in terms of compression? There's a setting for compression. Oddly enough, the photo Floop uploaded for me (full size 8MP) read as a file size as 6MP in Windows, and mine show 3MP or 4MP (forget which) and I have two more MP (10 in the SD790IS that I'm trying out). Do you happen to know if higher compression makes for worse Image Quality, or does it all come out in the wash? I'm suspecting having it set at higher compression might make for worse IQ, but don't know. Also don't know what my camera's default setting was. If I'm getting lesser file size with a 10MP than Flooper got with his 8MP, then for all I know, my IQ may have been better with my initial test shots with lower compression. However, the manual's icons for lower compression show a hill with steps, not a smooth hill. TOTALLY confused about compression!!!

Tomorrow I'm going riding with a friend in the nearby state park and you betchum I'm taking this camera with. There is some very pretty woods scenery throughout, and I'm hoping to get a good shot or two, ideally including her on her horse by some rock formations that are gorgeous. (Hoping to get something I can use as a front cover for the Sept. issue, even if not that fascinating of a shot, it would be scenic. JUST so I can see it printed on my stock paper AND see it on monitor for comparison.

I've been doing TONS of research, and as is my typical and very frustrating bent, I'm learning just enough to be having questions that exceed my ability to evaluate.

All P&Ss in this category (sub-compact to compact) seem to have the following problems:

1. Noise at ISO beyond 200 (some have noise beyond what they call "base ISO" which I am assuming is 80ISO because in sample galleries a lot of sample shots show 80ISO). HOWEVER, I'm now reading here and there that it may be that the noise you see on your computer monitor may not show up once printed.

2. Problems with low light photos (I assume that's related to the above).

3. Shutter lag.

4. Still trying to evaluate the merits of a higher MP camera (12) vs. restricting my cropping ability by going with an 8MP -- those all under the plaguing notion that "cramming too many pixels into a limited sensor size is just asking for noise."

Still not done with considering... SD950, Nikon P-5100 (though the latter has complaints about low light finding focus, but DOES allow for an auxiliary flash and I don't know if that attaches or you can aim it as you wish). Also, not entirely done considering the G9 and been looking at A650IS. Both pretty bulky. And have not yet given a fair test to the SD790IS.

One thing I DID read, however, that may be of use to y'all is that in the Canon "My Colors" you can set Contrast all the way down (your call re "all the way") and that you will get less blown highlights.
Carol

Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2008 :  2:00:22 PM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Okay, played around with Macro a bit. I had better light on the hand-held shot than I did on the tripod shot. I see clearer hairs on the bud stems on the tripod shot, but flower buds seem way more in focus on the hand-held shot. This camera picks its own focus points (a little square shoots up). I have to figure out if I can over-ride that.

On any test shots I am not (repeat NOT) looking for compliments, only comments, if any. And please let me know if test shots being posted are boring, because I'll stop. And I won't get my feelings hurt! ;-)

Macro Mode, HANDHELD, no editing except crop and sizing down for web.



Macro Mode, TRIPOD, no editing except crop and sizing down for web. (Sometimes it pays to be a pack rat -- found a really nice tripod with tons of levers and wheels. Heavy, sturdy thing.

Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 08/12/2008 :  09:43:20 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Note to Hook, Flooper or anyone else with a Canon point/shoot camera.

I've seen CHDK referred to a number of times and it shows up on my camera. I had no clue what it is/does yet, but I ran across a discussion where a guy wanted to override the aperture on his SD870. Someone else said you can do not only that, but other things by using CHDK. I haven't gotten that into it yet because even if I read the whole thing I won't understand what you will, but this appears to tie into some additional references I've read in the past to some program out there that works with CHDK that might even allow you to write in RAW format.

In any event, it appears that CHDK is worth looking into, and very possibly beyond what the rather limited users' manuals show. Here's a link on Wikia (whatever that is... I've heard that referred to also here and there). It discusses CHDK, and appears like it may have info that would be of interest.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief
Go to Top of Page

Hook
Trail Boss (Moderator)



Canada
6115 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2008 :  07:51:18 AM  Show Profile  Visit Hook's Homepage Send Hook a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by OnTheWay

Note to Hook, Flooper or anyone else with a Canon point/shoot camera.

I've seen CHDK referred to a number of times and it shows up on my camera. I had no clue what it is/does yet, but I ran across a discussion where a guy wanted to override the aperture on his SD870. Someone else said you can do not only that, but other things by using CHDK. I haven't gotten that into it yet because even if I read the whole thing I won't understand what you will, but this appears to tie into some additional references I've read in the past to some program out there that works with CHDK that might even allow you to write in RAW format.

In any event, it appears that CHDK is worth looking into, and very possibly beyond what the rather limited users' manuals show. Here's a link on Wikia (whatever that is... I've heard that referred to also here and there). It discusses CHDK, and appears like it may have info that would be of interest.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief



Thanks Carol;

I checked out the link and here is an excerpt for those interested.

My son is computer savvy enough that he uses it on his Canon 720 IS and really likes the result. Like the idea and I have saved the link in case I get the time and a real urge to experiment.

quote:
CHDK:
1. What is CHDK?
CHDK is not just one thing! The term CHDK refers to free software currently available for many (but not all) Canon PowerShot compact digital cameras that you can load onto your camera's memory card to give your camera greatly enhanced capabilities.
2. Am I likely to be interested in CHDK?
The enhanced capabilities that CHDK provides are most likely to be of interest to experienced photographers - if you believe that your Canon PowerShot camera already has more features than you will ever need, you probably won't be interested in CHDK.
3. Is CHDK safe to use?
Yes CHDK is safe. CHDK doesn't make any actual changes to your camera. If you delete the CHDK software from your memory card, or if you choose not to activate the CHDK software on the card (or remove and replace the batteries), then the camera will behave absolutely normally - nothing has been (or ever is) changed, so the warranty is not affected.
4. How does CHDK work?
CHDK makes use of the microprocessor that controls the camera (every digital camera contains a microprocessor) to act as a programmable computer that provides the extra capabilities.
5. What extra capabilities does CHDK provide?
The current set of extra capabilities fall into six categories:
a. Enhanced ways of recording images - you can capture still pictures in RAW format (as well as JPEG), and for video images you can have increased recording time and length (1 hour or 2 GB), and a greatly increased range of compression options.
b. Additional data displays on the LCD screen - histogram, battery life indicator, depth of field, and many more.
c. Additional photographic settings that are not available on the camera by itself - longer exposure times (up to 65 seconds), faster shutter speeds (1/25,000 sec, and faster in some cases), automatic bracketing of exposure, etc.




Hook(ed)......on Horses

"The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes, certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things in life. " Author: Robert Louis Stevenson
Go to Top of Page

tuffy2712
Trainer



646 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2008 :  7:50:19 PM  Show Profile Send tuffy2712 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Speaking of camera's I dropped mine.......for the first time, its a Kodak EasyShare C340 I can still take photos, but the screen is white and I can't see anything. Do you think its ruined? I thought about doing surgery on it!

Gypsy my mare
<><
Cowgirl UP!
Ride 2 live, live 2 ride

"And anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Act 2:21 NLT

Go to Top of Page

Hook
Trail Boss (Moderator)



Canada
6115 Posts

Posted - 09/06/2008 :  05:54:22 AM  Show Profile  Visit Hook's Homepage Send Hook a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tuffy2712

Speaking of camera's I dropped mine.......for the first time, its a Kodak EasyShare C340 I can still take photos, but the screen is white and I can't see anything. Do you think its ruined? I thought about doing surgery on it!



Hi Tuffy;

I found this link that says basically the wire connector to the screen may have been jarred loose by the fall.

quote:
What happened is the lcd ribbon has loosed up or came off altogether. Try this;turn camera on,squeeze case between your fingers,where sony logo is,if ribbon is just loose the lcd should come back on. If this doesn't work,take it to a local camera shop and have them fix it,it's a very simple fix.



http://www.fixya.com/support/t334029-camera_fixing

Hook(ed)......on Horses

"The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes, certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things in life. " Author: Robert Louis Stevenson

Edited by - Hook on 09/06/2008 09:34:32 AM
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Daily Equine Forum © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000