Q. I've looked at the Panasonic Lumix DMC LX2 which has all the features i want, not sure about the image quality though and it looks a little big for my pocket. Also I've looked at the new canon ixsus 850 and canon powershot g7. Can you recommend others? I'm an amature photographer but need a camera that i can easily take when going on a night out.
A. Check out a Canon Powershot SD900, which is almost a direct comparison, or an SD800-IS, which is a little cheaper (fewer MP) and has image stabilization. My reason for suggesting these two cameras is because the Panasonic you are looking at does not have an optical viewfinder and you will end up going through batteries faster than you like if you have to use that thing all the time.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd800is%2Ccanon_sd900%2Cpanasonic_dmclx2&show=all
I would choose almost any camera with an optical viewfinder over one that only has an LCD viewfinder. Why?
1. You never have the option of turning off the LCD and these things eat batteries for lunch and spit them out. Why do away with the option of a viewfinder that has zero electrical drain?
2. It can be difficult to see the image on an LCD in bright sunlight, even if they are "new and improved."
3. You have to hold an LCD viewer out at some distance in front of your face. This is more conspicuous than I prefer to be all the time.
4. The need to hold a camera at arms length will introduce some shake. I like the idea of stabilizing a camera against my face when I am taking a picture. This is especially important with a longer zoom lens. No wonder "image stablization" or "vibration reduction" is necessary with these cameras. Not that there's anything WRONG with IS or VR, but it is really a requirement with LCD viewfinders and telephoto lenses.
5. Using the LCD to view photos after you've taken them slows down the camera quite a bit. You can't shut of the LCD monitor and still take pictures if you don't have an optical viewfinder.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd800is%2Ccanon_sd900%2Cpanasonic_dmclx2&show=all
I would choose almost any camera with an optical viewfinder over one that only has an LCD viewfinder. Why?
1. You never have the option of turning off the LCD and these things eat batteries for lunch and spit them out. Why do away with the option of a viewfinder that has zero electrical drain?
2. It can be difficult to see the image on an LCD in bright sunlight, even if they are "new and improved."
3. You have to hold an LCD viewer out at some distance in front of your face. This is more conspicuous than I prefer to be all the time.
4. The need to hold a camera at arms length will introduce some shake. I like the idea of stabilizing a camera against my face when I am taking a picture. This is especially important with a longer zoom lens. No wonder "image stablization" or "vibration reduction" is necessary with these cameras. Not that there's anything WRONG with IS or VR, but it is really a requirement with LCD viewfinders and telephoto lenses.
5. Using the LCD to view photos after you've taken them slows down the camera quite a bit. You can't shut of the LCD monitor and still take pictures if you don't have an optical viewfinder.
Is it possible to contact print an inverted image on an lcd monitor to a piece of photo paper?
Q. I am wondering if you could invert an image in photoshop, make it say 5x7, black out your screen tape a piece of photo paper on there,turn the monitor on for a second or whatever and produce a developable print.
A. Yes. There is no reason whatsoever that this shouldn't work and produce a low resolution somewhat out of focus print given the correct exposure time and an environment that prevents the paper from being significantly fogged during the process.
A few things to keep in mind. There is a piece of plastic between the actual displayed pixel on the monitor and the piece of paper you are applying. This will mean that the light will diffuse and scatter somewhat before it reaches the paper thus reducing the clarity of the print. Also your pixel count per square inch on your monitor will be low in comparison to what is considered acceptable in a high quality print. This will depend on your monitor but even the very best monitors do not come near the 240 dpi that is required for a high quality print. Lastly the monitor will not have the orange mask that light sensitive photographic paper needs to produce a proper color image. This could likely be emulated though by experimenting with different degrees of orange being added to the inverted image.
Regardless...cool idea and worth giving it a try. With the right image it might distress it in such a way it might be desirable in some respects.
A few things to keep in mind. There is a piece of plastic between the actual displayed pixel on the monitor and the piece of paper you are applying. This will mean that the light will diffuse and scatter somewhat before it reaches the paper thus reducing the clarity of the print. Also your pixel count per square inch on your monitor will be low in comparison to what is considered acceptable in a high quality print. This will depend on your monitor but even the very best monitors do not come near the 240 dpi that is required for a high quality print. Lastly the monitor will not have the orange mask that light sensitive photographic paper needs to produce a proper color image. This could likely be emulated though by experimenting with different degrees of orange being added to the inverted image.
Regardless...cool idea and worth giving it a try. With the right image it might distress it in such a way it might be desirable in some respects.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar