Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   Home Theaters and Photography (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   Official Digi Cam Pic Thread! (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33755999)

Zero May 27, 2004 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasef
And people say the menues on Olympus cams are confusing... :bleh:
This isn't typical of Canon's excellent and intuitive menus (this is downright ass-backwards).

Jasef May 29, 2004 04:35 PM

Ok, so I was jsut out and took a long exposure night shot :D



The jpg compression messed up the leafs against the sky a bit. Looks like Im living in a jungle :p

--=Pudding=-- May 29, 2004 08:50 PM

I need a website
 
Uuugh, I hate not being able to host pictars. I just got back from my second day of the Fanime (anime) convention here in San Jose, CA and I took some pictars. It was funnnn:) , and I want to share them.:( :(

flyhigh May 29, 2004 09:33 PM

Re: I need a website
 
Quote:

Originally posted by --=Pudding=--
Uuugh, I hate not being able to host pictars. I just got back from my second day of the Fanime (anime) convention here in San Jose, CA and I took some pictars. It was funnnn:) , and I want to share them.:( :(
Free hosts with no sign ups:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...eadid=33760994

Villainess May 30, 2004 12:40 AM

I took some pics with a friends Sony Cybershot camera....




hobs0n May 30, 2004 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasef
Ok, so I was jsut out and took a long exposure night shot :D

The jpg compression messed up the leafs against the sky a bit. Looks like Im living in a jungle :p

Gottsunda IS a jungle :bleh:

Xander May 30, 2004 04:14 PM

Okay, here is an example of what my real problem is.

Take a look at this picture of my desk.

My house is TOTALLY lit by halogen bulbs, which make spots of very bright light, and leave most of the scene dim-ish.

I took this picture, adjusting the settings to get as close as possible an image to what I 'see' when I look at the room.

Notice on the right of the image, under the halogen bulb, the picture is VERY bright and clear - setting any higher a shutter speed borders on making this section very overexposed.

Yet, on the left - around the closet - noise like crazy! It's just too dark, there!

So, that's the question. What would be the ideal settings to get the light NOT over-exposed, but reduce the noise in the 'dark' section.

hobs0n May 30, 2004 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xander
Okay, here is an example of what my real problem is.

Take a look at this picture of my desk.

My house is TOTALLY lit by halogen bulbs, which make spots of very bright light, and leave most of the scene dim-ish.

I took this picture, adjusting the settings to get as close as possible an image to what I 'see' when I look at the room.

Notice on the right of the image, under the halogen bulb, the picture is VERY bright and clear - setting any higher a shutter speed borders on making this section very overexposed.

Yet, on the left - around the closet - noise like crazy! It's just too dark, there!

So, that's the question. What would be the ideal settings to get the light NOT over-exposed, but reduce the noise in the 'dark' section.

OMG thats a nice desktop.. Very stylish :) That brickwall looks fake tho? If it isnt, remove all the cover, naked brickwalls are very nice IMO :)

MaxSt May 30, 2004 05:12 PM


Zero May 30, 2004 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xander
Okay, here is an example of what my real problem is.

Take a look at this picture of my desk.

My house is TOTALLY lit by halogen bulbs, which make spots of very bright light, and leave most of the scene dim-ish.

I took this picture, adjusting the settings to get as close as possible an image to what I 'see' when I look at the room.

Notice on the right of the image, under the halogen bulb, the picture is VERY bright and clear - setting any higher a shutter speed borders on making this section very overexposed.

Yet, on the left - around the closet - noise like crazy! It's just too dark, there!

So, that's the question. What would be the ideal settings to get the light NOT over-exposed, but reduce the noise in the 'dark' section.

Ideally, you wouldn't want to capture a scene with this range of lighting. You need to pick which part you want to expose and which part you don't. What settings did you use exactly? Was it low or high ISO? I see you used center-weighted metering. In this pic, the center is approximately the yellow wall which is better lit than the rest of the frame. Centre-weighted metering here would result in exposure balance for the bright colour of the wall, underexposing the darker elements.

In this scenario, I'd probably rely on the camera's AI for evaluative metering or failing that, spot meter it on an area of medium brightness within the frame such as reflected door on the table. If your camera takes filters (and I doubt it does), a polarizing filter might reduce the amount of glare and reflection from the brightly lit areas. Also consider playing with the EV settings (maybe -1/3 and use a longer shutter) or clean and level the image in PS or Neat Image/Noise NInja.

Would a different digicam help you take similar pictures? Yes and no. Better AI might help expose the frame more consistently and better sensors might yield less noise. Ultimately, better lighting is your best solution (say flash or diffused lamp light) but it can't capture the "natural" atmosphere of the scene.

Out of curiosity, why DO you take pics of your house in the dark? :D

Zero May 30, 2004 05:29 PM

BTW here is a Neat Image filtered (very roughyl, havent learned all the settings yet) version of your posted pic. There's less noise but also some added softness in general. Also, the image's histogram shows that it's definitely underexposed. You can certainly play with the aperture/shutter values to achieve more consistent pixel distribution. And if you find that the highlights are too bright, just make sure you expose the image to its brightest point without blowing out the whites and correct the final result in PS using the levels tool.

T07N May 30, 2004 05:47 PM



CANON S410

Xander May 30, 2004 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hobs0n
OMG thats a nice desktop.. Very stylish :) That brickwall looks fake tho? If it isnt, remove all the cover, naked brickwalls are very nice IMO :)
Thanks.

Actually, we wanted that look. We had a local artist do the walls - took him a week, but it looks INCREDIBLE. Oh, it's totally faux - that's all built up on top of regular drywall.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
Ideally, you wouldn't want to capture a scene with this range of lighting. You need to pick which part you want to expose and which part you don't. What settings did you use exactly? Was it low or high ISO?
ISO 100 - 50 was just too dark.

As to 'this range of lighting' - well, as I said, house is lit ENTIRELY will halogen bulbs. ANYWHERE you take a picture has 'this range of lighting'.
Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
I see you used center-weighted metering. In this pic, the center is approximately the yellow wall which is better lit than the rest of the frame. Centre-weighted metering here would result in exposure balance for the bright colour of the wall, underexposing the darker elements.

In this scenario, I'd probably rely on the camera's AI for evaluative metering

Interesting - one of the settings I haven't even LOOKED at in a while! I may try that and see what goes on.
Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
If your camera takes filters (and I doubt it does), a polarizing filter might reduce the amount of glare and reflection from the brightly lit areas.
It does, actually. But, I don't have any yet. I was thinking of picking up a kit from eBay with filters, lenses, etc. Say, like this one. Concerns about it? I notice it only has a 2x telephoto lens (up to 3x is available for my camera) and a 0.5x wide angle lens (up to 0.45x is available for my camera). Course, it's also REALLY CHEAP, and I could certainly use the tripods and carrying case if nothing else. Thoughts?

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
Out of curiosity, why DO you take pics of your house in the dark?
Well, because I *like* the effect halogen bulbs put out - that spotlight effect is rather cool. Daylight lighting of the house (all that diffuse lighting) just looks....well, boring, really. :cool:

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
BTW here is a Neat Image filtered (very roughyl, havent learned all the settings yet) version of your posted pic
Not familiar with that filter? Third-party free downloadable? Or, just buried someone in the menus I've missed?

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
Also, the image's histogram shows that it's definitely underexposed
I don't think you'd need a histogram to show that - it is very CLEARLY underexposed in most the image. The problem is that the spots of light are *bordering* on over-exposed, although they make up a very small part of the image. It's just too much of a range of lighting, I fear.

Anyway, as I said, I fiddled with the settings some to take a picture as close as possible to how it looks...obviously, sans the 'noise'. I'd be interested in taking a look at that PS filter, there - might help some.

Zero May 30, 2004 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xander
ISO 100 - 50 was just too dark.

As to 'this range of lighting' - well, as I said, house is lit ENTIRELY will halogen bulbs. ANYWHERE you take a picture has 'this range of lighting'.



Did you try a longer shutter value (1sec and above) for ISO50? As for the range of lighting. I meant pictures in general, not just your house :)

Quote:

It does, actually. But, I don't have any yet. I was thinking of picking up a kit from eBay with filters, lenses, etc. Say, like this one. Concerns about it? I notice it only has a 2x telephoto lens (up to 3x is available for my camera) and a 0.5x wide angle lens (up to 0.45x is available for my camera). Course, it's also REALLY CHEAP, and I could certainly use the tripods and carrying case if nothing else. Thoughts?
Some details like manufacturer name by might help you find out the quality of the kit before purchasing it. I don't think it looks terribly high quality at that price though. Check dpreview's forums for some feedback regarding add-ons for your camera. For some reason, I totally forgot the A60 had a bayonet mount...

Quote:

Well, because I *like* the effect halogen bulbs put out - that spotlight effect is rather cool. Daylight lighting of the house (all that diffuse lighting) just looks....well, boring, really. :cool:


Yeah I know what you mean, that lighting though aesthetically interesting and moody, is pretty tough for most digicams to shoot.

Quote:

Not familiar with that filter? Third-party free downloadable? Or, just buried someone in the menus I've missed?

I don't think you'd need a histogram to show that - it is very CLEARLY underexposed in most the image. The problem is that the spots of light are *bordering* on over-exposed, although they make up a very small part of the image. It's just too much of a range of lighting, I fear.

Anyway, as I said, I fiddled with the settings some to take a picture as close as possible to how it looks...obviously, sans the 'noise'. I'd be interested in taking a look at that PS filter, there - might help some.

Like I said, you can push the highlight's exposure a bit more before clipping occurs in the histogram, which means you can get a bit more exposure out of the dark areas as well. Just try to get it right under blowing out and then reduce the highlights in PS.

Neat Image is a third party application, outside of PS. You can find it at http://www.neatimage.com/ There's a lot of settings to play with and I can assure you my half-assed atempt is only the minimum in terms of quality in noise reduction. Hope this helps!

Xander May 30, 2004 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero
Did you try a longer shutter value (1sec and above) for ISO50? As for the range of lighting. I meant pictures in general, not just your house :)
Did not try longer shutter values - no tripod, so I was bracing against the wall and such for the shots. Didn't want to risk 1+ sec shutter values.

As to 'other' pictures...well, yeah. I was just commenting on the house, since that's the application in question.

Quote:

Some details like manufacturer name by might help you find out the quality of the kit before purchasing it. I don't think it looks terribly high quality at that price though. Check dpreview's forums for some feedback regarding add-ons for your camera. For some reason, I totally forgot the A60 had a bayonet mount...
Manufacturer appears to be 'Digital Optics'. The seller regularly sells these kits - he has a dozen of them listed right now - and has a ton of positive feedback (~3000), so...

As to 'not terribly high quality', well, no, I'm sure it's not professional grade. But, then, my CAMERA is only a $150 camera at the moment, so...(hell, you can get it BRAND NEW at Newegg for only $180!)

The question would be, rather, "is this a good value for the cost". Someday I'd like to get a more professional camera and kit setup - I doubt DSLR - but something in the 'prosumer' line from Canon. But, for the time being.....

Quote:

Like I said, you can push the highlight's exposure a bit more before clipping occurs in the histogram, which means you can get a bit more exposure out of the dark areas as well. Just try to get it right under blowing out and then reduce the highlights in PS.
Hmm...well, I'll try to keep that in mind. No histogram available from the camera, of course, so I'll just try and wing it.[/b][/quote]

Quote:

Neat Image is a third party application, outside of PS. You can find it at http://www.neatimage.com/ There's a lot of settings to play with and I can assure you my half-assed atempt is only the minimum in terms of quality in noise reduction. Hope this helps!
Indeed, and priced well (free), too!

Thanks, I'll take a look!

the chase May 30, 2004 09:08 PM

Ottawa Highway


Zero May 30, 2004 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xander
Did not try longer shutter values - no tripod, so I was bracing against the wall and such for the shots. Didn't want to risk 1+ sec shutter values.

Manufacturer appears to be 'Digital Optics'. The seller regularly sells these kits - he has a dozen of them listed right now - and has a ton of positive feedback (~3000), so...

As to 'not terribly high quality', well, no, I'm sure it's not professional grade. But, then, my CAMERA is only a $150 camera at the moment, so...(hell, you can get it BRAND NEW at Newegg for only $180!)

The question would be, rather, "is this a good value for the cost". Someday I'd like to get a more professional camera and kit setup - I doubt DSLR - but something in the 'prosumer' line from Canon. But, for the time being.....

What I meant by not terribly high quality is that lenses of unknown quality can often create more optical problems than you'd like. Granted your setup isn't demanding of the most expensive and optically perfect attachments, but why spend money on something that'll just give you a headache?

I've never even heard of a brand called Digital Optics and descriptions like "fully multicoated, every element" concern me (multicoating is only on the outside elements and should never be applied more than this). My suspicion is that you're getting very low quality optics, which will cause problems like vignetting, poor light transmission, and distortion making the lenses pretty much useless.

I'd recommend buying a lens adapter (official Canon 52mm or bugeyedigital.com 52/37mm ~$15-20), MAYBE a polarizing filter (I'm not 100% sure how much this will help your indoor shot quality, make sure it's got good light transmission and multicoating), but DEFINITELY buy a tripod - even a tabletop one for $10. It's great for dark indoor shots with the extra stability and you're unlikely to run out of surfaces to put it on.

As for add-on lenses, depending on which lens adapter you buy, you can choose various lenses. If you purchase the 52mm adapter, you can use more expensive but optically superior lenses than with the 37mm adapter. Bear in mind also that the Canon 37mm 2.4x telephoto lens is ~$100USD, a Tiffen 37mm 2x is about $65USD and 37mm filters are *sometimes* cheaper than 52mm ones.

Edit: Forgot to mention that 52mm lenses are pretty standard fare for prosumer Canon add-ons (eg G series), so if you choose a 52mm adapter and 52mm lens for your A60, you can probbaly re-use it later on a higher grade prosumer.

rayzian May 30, 2004 09:41 PM

I'm kinda late with these, meh.






KageMonkey May 30, 2004 09:44 PM

rayzian, where did you take the last picture? Who are those 2 people in the picture?

ComFox May 30, 2004 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the chase
Ottawa Highway


Isn't that where the 416 meets the 417? BTW Bayshore is the strangest mall I have ever been in, you should take some pictures of that place. 1 row, 3 stories tall, just very odd.

Hyrax May 30, 2004 11:00 PM

Pics
 

---My Uncle's Kitty

---Nasty Mosquito :(

---Some place in North Jersey

---Michigan

---Crazy bird

Hyrax May 30, 2004 11:03 PM


---My Kitty RIP Feb '04 Taken the day she died :(
Morristown
---Edit: don't know why this doesnt want to show up :confused: so I turned it into a link.
---Retreat mansion in Morristown, NJ.

---Trees at that north Jersey place.

---My Porsche:drool: It's RC and all the lights work.

hobs0n May 31, 2004 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xander
Thanks.

Actually, we wanted that look. We had a local artist do the walls - took him a week, but it looks INCREDIBLE. Oh, it's totally faux - that's all built up on top of regular drywall.

Apply some offset bumpmapping and that will look much more realistic :D

Xander May 31, 2004 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hobs0n
Apply some offset bumpmapping and that will look much more realistic :D
You haven't seen it in person, it's QUITE textured. The plaster is a good 1/4" off the brick, and the brick faces another 1/8" - 1/4" off the mortar depth. And, of course, quite textured themselves.

It looks quite good.

hobs0n May 31, 2004 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xander
You haven't seen it in person, it's QUITE textured. The plaster is a good 1/4" off the brick, and the brick faces another 1/8" - 1/4" off the mortar depth. And, of course, quite textured themselves.

It looks quite good.

Hmm maybe the picture doesnt do it justice but that looks very fake to me.. The bricks are way too uneven and plastic looking. You know there are bricks that are really thin for the purpose of making fake brickwalls. Seems like a better idea.

Anyway, kewl initiative by you :)

greydune May 31, 2004 01:01 PM

Some pics I've taken over time with my camera.











Shapeshifter May 31, 2004 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the chase
Ottawa Highway

OTTAWA!


40 mins away :drool:

rayzian May 31, 2004 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KageMonkey
rayzian, where did you take the last picture? Who are those 2 people in the picture?
It was some park here in Toronto, don't remember which one, but I know it was damn windy that day. That's my older brother and his girlfriend, and the grey fuzz on the right is my glove. :bleh:

T07N May 31, 2004 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greydune
Some pics I've taken over time with my camera.

YUM! WRX!!! More PIX!!!

Jandar May 31, 2004 11:03 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright 1998-2011 Rage3D.com