Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Heard this one last night:
Q: How do you know when someone has a smartphone? A: They show it to you -
Capture: Someone, Somewhere, In Summertime, in reply to JacksonP,
Generally you'd need a 300+ mm lens on a DSLR with a tripod to get that kind of shot. I'm assuming this is the same one I saw at the weekend?
Oh, and yes, it is that camera. It claimed 24x zoom at 14 megapixels, which put its technical spec within about 10% of a bunch of other cameras costing twice as much. Being my impecunious student self, I went for the price point. The only thing I didn't scrimp on (regrettably in hindsight) was the memory stick. It's a good stick, but I could have saved $50 if I'd only been prepared to wait a little, and buy that one from my favourite stick supplier online.
The tripod was a gift from my brother. I was a little shocked, I suggested it, but I was expecting some tinny little $20 thing and would have been perfectly happy. But he went nuts and got a really decent one. I'm sure my folks thought I was being antisocial when I couldn't pull myself away from it at their bach. But I've never had a good tripod.
I do not actually know how the camera gets the zoom it does with such a small lens. I think it's using the tricks you mentioned to me on the weekend, multiple shot interpolation, or something. It took around 6 seconds to capture and "process" the moon shots, followed by the commit time.
-
Capture: Someone, Somewhere, In Summertime, in reply to JacksonP,
That's the only way to get that kind of detail. I'm a bit amazed by what your camera can do. Generally you'd need a 300+ mm lens on a DSLR with a tripod to get that kind of shot. I'm assuming this is the same one I saw at the weekend? Nicely done.
Thanks, it took me about 3 hours to work out how to take good night shots, by which time the Pleiades had set, something I'd like to get a good shot of. The automatic scene recognition didn't cut it, it just figured "Night shot". The "Night scenery with tripod" mode wasn't even good enough, I took about 2 dozen moon shots that were blurry or overexposed before experimenting with the aperture/shutter settings. It also took me quite a while to cotton on to how to get shots of things that are overhead with the tripod. I completely forgot the legs of it are adjustable too.
Star shots have a completely different challenge, which I only solved after a few hours, by which time I was getting tired (it was past midnight and my neck was sore) - how do you aim/frame a digital camera at something too dim to show up on the screens? At first I just lined up and guessed, took the shot, inspected, adjusted, rinse, repeat. Takes a long time, but does get there. But in the end, the trick that worked was to use the EVF (old school viewfinder but digital - it's taken me some time to work out what the point of it is). Then you look at the object of interest with both eyes open. It takes a bit of getting used to, looking at both images, a black screen with a crosshair, and the night sky at infinity, but if you mentally make the main aim to look with the eye that is not at the viewfinder then you essentially see the crosshair up in the sky. Dead accurate (although of course this will not work for people who don't have binocular vision). The framing lines on the screen also superimpose. I expect I would never have discovered this trick during the day.
I have heard that some snipers use this technique too, keeping both eyes open, it helps to rapidly find someone in the scope. I sometimes use it when I'm using my monocular (pocket telescope), particularly when looking at things with no reference point, like aircraft in the sky, or birds flitting around in similar looking foliage, or boats that are miles away on featureless water. It never occurred to me that it might work in a digital scope. I change which eye I'm using to deliberately train ambidextrous vision (and give the scoping eye a rest). Interestingly, it's actually considerably easier on the eyes after a while, squinting is actually quite tiring.
Anyways, I'm pretty happy with what $300 worth of camera can do, once the right settings are found. Time to do some post-capture practice. What's the hive-mind's favourite freeware for Windows, for digital image manipulation?
-
Perfect night for stargazing, and practicing with the camera. First, a recognizable old favorite, pockmarked and proud. Highest aperture, the camera must have gone for high shutter speed, as the rest of the space behind is pitch black.
Next, Jupiter, below the horns of Taurus. The moons clearly visible at 24x. You'll have to blow the picture up to see these details though.
Last, Orion below, and Sirius above. I kind of like the light artefacts that came from the garage sensor light, despite the lost detail in the sky.
All taken from my front yard, tonight.
-
We need a bigger boat
-
Capture: Someone, Somewhere, In Summertime, in reply to Bruce Buckman,
Applause
-
Hard News: MegaBox: From f**k-all to zero, in reply to Damian Christie,
Better to try and get the model right where we are, rather than assume the main 'profitable' purpose is some form of CV-padding.
Sure, if there is a way, which there might not be. Maybe there's just not much oil in this well. I thought that it was worth noting that there are some other spin-offs from getting the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people, even if you can't get them to click on ads. Being able to get a good day job out of it is worth having, even if it's not a path to riches.
-
Hard News: MegaBox: From f**k-all to zero, in reply to Damian Christie,
Putting aside the question of whether one has a moral duty to watch ads, or at least to be polite enough not to mention when they don't, it's pretty clear it's not a particularly successful business model. So what is actually better? Why do people make sites with useful content in them when the returns via advertising are so pitiful?
I think this one already answered itself. The site, if it is done with an intention of profiting the organizer in any way, does it mostly by being a marketing exercise, and it is marketing itself, rather than advertising on behalf. It raises the profile, if successful, of the owners and major contributors. This can and certainly does spin off into other areas. Would David Farrar's statistics firm have anywhere near the success without him having tirelessly blogged for years? Would Russell have been such an obvious choice for a general news show if he hadn't been a general news blogger of high profile for almost as long as blogging existed? Would anyone in their right mind employ WhaleOil, but for the number of hits he attracts?
-
Capture: Art On The Street, in reply to Chris Waugh,
A fertility symbol that might actually work. If young people are hanging around the guy suggestively touching his penis, they might hook up with each other.
-
Hard News: The Waterview Bore, in reply to Russell Brown,
Looks like you've spotted the Queen Privet of Auckland there, too, which will soon be sending it's allergens along 5 major routes, and 2 cycleways.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 381 382 383 384 385 … 1066 Older→ First