Digital camera/pictures too dark
- Thread starter tobyjug
- Start date
sparkling
Proper country now
GarfieldLeChat said:thing is for a ton your not going to get much in fact your not going to get anything at all really which will give you good shots... and you'll fast be limited by it's capabilties as yours improve...
go for say one of the ones advertised on gumtree for example and you get second hand but better bang for your bucks you want an optical zoom you want as amny mega pixels as you can afford with as good a ccd as it can get theccd is the sensor which replaces the film the biger this is the better quaility the shot will be the higher the mega pixel rate the less bitty (it's called grain)the sharper the content will be.
This makes some sense. What about Ebay are the bargains on there?
Am off to start beginners to photography thread and hope someone adds a glossary of terms for me.
sparkling
Proper country now
Corax said:Heres one:
Manual: Thing you should read before getting arsey because you can't adjust the brightness.
Yeh yeh, I'll behave now.
Silly Toby even I knew that you shouldn't point your camera towards the sun.
I expect all that brightness gave him a headache...I get tetchy with headaches. 
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30019&item=7525912395&rd=1
this isn't too bad for a ton
kodak point and shoots have lovely colours and the images aren't to shoddy either the one above is a 5 mp which is good too...
this is also not bad http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....24&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BID_Stores
don't be disuaded by the we have got 12 mp in our camera type hype most of these cameras have not got optical zooms and have not got bigger ccd's meaning that their 12 mp is the equiverlent to a normal cameras 2.2 mp due to the grain certain at best it's a 3 or 4 mp camera which means you aren't getting more but less bang for your buck...
this isn't too bad for a ton
kodak point and shoots have lovely colours and the images aren't to shoddy either the one above is a 5 mp which is good too...
this is also not bad http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....24&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BID_Stores
don't be disuaded by the we have got 12 mp in our camera type hype most of these cameras have not got optical zooms and have not got bigger ccd's meaning that their 12 mp is the equiverlent to a normal cameras 2.2 mp due to the grain certain at best it's a 3 or 4 mp camera which means you aren't getting more but less bang for your buck...
jeff_leigh
What happened to Dubversion ?
Corax said:
this is quite informative http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels read the section on sensors and sensor sizes too
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
kinda but the ccd also needs to increase... imagine it like this ccd equates to film size now in the olden days you used to get the 110 size film it produced crap shots and was tiny the amount of photo reactive film with which the lens could store the image onto was small thus the images were also small undetailed but becuae of negatives it was alway possible to blow up these images to larger sizes for print. 35 mm was the next size up the detail was better as there was a larger surface area with which to store the images...
ccd sensors are the same as film and whilst the 35mm ccd sensor isn't actually 35mm (it's about 30 mm) it's effective equiverlent is 35mm so it has the same recording power as 35 mm film. the ccd on a point and shoot is much smaller thing about 15mm sometimes smaller that's a lot less surface area to let light in...store the image.
if you increase the memory capacity of the data you can save (the mega pixel) then all you are doing is squeezing more info into a resricted space meaning it overblows the image (the contrast goes to fuckery and the colours look wierd) and it get grainier as the ccd hasn't been able to save any more image data than before even though the processing memory and storage is greater.
Standard high quality film is around 22 mp. a standard 6.5 mp camera shot in raw format can be blown up to this size mp with almost no loss of definitition giving you the film equiverlent, in digital. as long as you have a ccd sensor which can cope with this... other wise you'll get a roy lichenstine image or worse ... some thing which looks like it was taken on a web cam...
ccd sensors are the same as film and whilst the 35mm ccd sensor isn't actually 35mm (it's about 30 mm) it's effective equiverlent is 35mm so it has the same recording power as 35 mm film. the ccd on a point and shoot is much smaller thing about 15mm sometimes smaller that's a lot less surface area to let light in...store the image.
if you increase the memory capacity of the data you can save (the mega pixel) then all you are doing is squeezing more info into a resricted space meaning it overblows the image (the contrast goes to fuckery and the colours look wierd) and it get grainier as the ccd hasn't been able to save any more image data than before even though the processing memory and storage is greater.
Standard high quality film is around 22 mp. a standard 6.5 mp camera shot in raw format can be blown up to this size mp with almost no loss of definitition giving you the film equiverlent, in digital. as long as you have a ccd sensor which can cope with this... other wise you'll get a roy lichenstine image or worse ... some thing which looks like it was taken on a web cam...
Fuck me toby, even by your pig headed standards you've put in a star turn here.
You don't deserve the good advice you've been given and franky I think you should sod off and continue to fumble around with the damn thing untill you get so fed up with it that you throw it at a wall or something and save us the bother of your presence in this forum ever again.
You belligerent prat.
alef said:
:*shimmies*: good aren't I?Similar threads
