Search results for 'sensor cleaning' - page 651
'The Coming Earthquake In Photography'
I found it a moderately interesting article,...but not as interesting as some of the excellent debate about it here. As far as I'm concerned, trying to see into the future is essentially a 'fools errand' because the future has the nack of tossing in a key factor at the last moment that completely...
Posted by George Lazarette on 23/04/2007 - 10:01
Lightroom User Review
I originally did this review when Lightroom was launched and posted it on www.rockforum.co.uk . Thought it may be of interest to others here :) Adobe Photoshop Lightroom> Introduction I recently downloaded a trial version of Photoshop Lightroom as I need a RAW development tool and image...
Posted by Tyr on 28/04/2007 - 17:12
Summer transportation
Please, I hope I haven't learnt an expensive lesson. :oops: If so, please pass on to others, so they can learn from my ignorance! I had my sensor cleaned yesterday by Pentax. Today my camera doesn't work. I left it in the car in my gadet bag, with my Nikon Coolpix point and shoot. Has the heat dama...
Posted by Larry Llewellyn on 09/05/2007 - 06:08
Summer transportation
reminds me of a BMW K100 I bout years ago. The old fella who sold it to me, warned me of a loud rattle (left side) on cold startups. He was certian of valve problems (the engine lies flat on it's side with a vent directly over top where the valves and fuel injectors are) or faulty fuel injection. B...
Posted by Don on 09/05/2007 - 12:42
Why do we put up with small viewfinders?
OK, the whole point of an SLR is to look at the actual image that the sensor will see through the lens. We compromise a bit on this by viewing with lens wide open for brightness, but most cameras have a dof preview, and basically WYSIWYG. So why since digital and aps-c size sensors have we put...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 13/05/2007 - 19:41
Why do we put up with small viewfinders?
Well, I was quite happy with the viewfinder on my P30T but I havent seen a digital that comes close. Is it really so hard to put a bit of magnification in to compensate for the small sensor/mirror size? The pentax finders are certainly among the better ones, although I looked through a Nikon D...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 13/05/2007 - 20:03
Why do we put up with small viewfinders?
its all down to basic optics the more you magnify an image, the dimmer it gets. The image starts off the same size as the sensor, therefore if you want to have an image the same size as you would get from a 35mm camera, you have to crank up the magnification. The various camera manufacturers h...
Posted by Mongoose on 13/05/2007 - 21:47
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
So - I think a lot about ISO and noise and camera design relating to those things because I take shots in low light. Now as I understand it, the iso settings simply change the gain of the amplifier on the output of the CCD before it goes to the A/D converter. that means that at all settings ot...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 09:53
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
This could solve all our low light problems... I'd like to see some actual real info on what it does different. theres a fundamental limitation in terms of the number of photons hitting each pixel, and higher pixel counts and thus smaller pixels make that worse. also using bayer filter arrange...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 12:33
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
its easier to make a low res sensor more sensitive, because you can have bigger pixels, but i'm not clear that this new technology (whatever it is) will apply to hi res sensors. OK so I'm talking to myself here, but i realised that they are claiming smaller pixel size as well as higher sensitivity, ...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 13:27
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
individual photons have an energy, which corresponds to wavelength i think. certainly its difficult to observe wavelike behaviour in a single quanta, but I think the concept of a wavelength of an individual photon has some validity. if not then colour and wavelength must be built up through in...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 16:01
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
This allows more accurate conversion of the data, it is processed as 22-bit from the analogue signal and then compressed down to 12-bit to save a lot of space. The 22-bit to 12-bit conversion still gives a big tonal improvement from a straight 12-bit ADC. exactly, but the resolution of the full 22bi...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 16:06
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
the ultimate sensor would count individual photons digitally, with no saturation point For some more physics, I think i'm right in saying that this isn't possible. At a quantum level in the photo-electric effect -the basis of a CCD-, every conducting material has a saturation current - a point at wh...
Posted by Mr. Ist on 23/05/2007 - 18:34
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
and photons having only a rest mass, that mass should be constant.. i think not. my understanding is that photons have no mass at rest, since anything with at rest mass must have infinite mass at light speed and thus photons mass at lightspeed (which is the only speed you ever see them at!) is zero ...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 18:56
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
For some more physics, I think i'm right in saying that this isn't possible. At a quantum level in the photo-electric effect -the basis of a CCD-, every conducting material has a saturation current - a point at which no matter how many photons hit the target, the photocurrent can't increase further....
Posted by thomastherhymer on 23/05/2007 - 18:59
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
actually talking about the photon's rest mass is misleading since a photon can never come to rest, they have to be doing the speed of light all the time and in all frames of reference (and no, c is not a variable, but PLEASE don't make me go into relativity, that I really will have to go look up) ...
Posted by Mongoose on 23/05/2007 - 19:32
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
except for the last post they don't seem to have understood that ISO setting in a digital camera is achieved by changing the amplifier gain on the CCD output. but I don't have time to sign up to another forum to discuss it with them! my original point was that by reading the CCD at lowest ampl...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 24/05/2007 - 15:38
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
Matt, yes we have discussed at least part of this before. i was taking a new (for me anyway) angle on it so you are saying that they've already done away with the variable amplifier! which means that the ISO setting on the K10D is ALREADY done in software! which is 99% of what i am advocati...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 24/05/2007 - 15:58
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
does the auto ISO on the K10D work in smaller steps than the usual 200 400 etc? if so then i guess its going to be close with multi segnment metering to doing it quite well anyway... that detail being in the upper part of the histogram is just bad design seems to me, surely that should be mappe...
Posted by Mongoose on 24/05/2007 - 18:08
are ISO settings a nonsense on digital?
[quote:19779f03e5]Yes, NeatImage is a good product (and take note who did the *ist-D profiles for them :P ) Silkypix Studio, though, will eek out a good deal more out of the *ist-D, and give you noise reduction directly from RAW too ;) I haven't used NeatImage for a long while... Matt I tried ou...
Posted by thomastherhymer on 25/05/2007 - 15:53
