From: avidgamefan (avidgamefan_at_antispamdomain.not)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 11:26:25 EST
Great info! I have a couple of comments, in case anyone's
interested.
--- In NikonCoolPix_.at._yahoogroups.com, Jim Betz <jimbetz_.at._j...> wrote:
....
> I don't know for sure but it is entirely possible that
> none of the camera manufacturers are actually making their
> own CCDs - this is probably farmed out to a sub-contractor.
> Who knows, some day we might even see digi-cams with the
> logo "Intel Inside" on them! *G*
I read somewhere that a lot of the manufacturers are using the same
chips. In particular, I read a comparison where the author showed
pictures that were made with two separate camera makes but using the
exact same (so far as he knew) Sony CCD, but were clearly
different. Most of the difference seemed to be in the post-
processing, in how the colors were interpreted. (It was probably on
www.dpreview.com. Good site, worth visiting.)
> 3) The physical size of a CCD - or I should say the density of
> the pixels on it - is directly related to the quality of the
> image.
....
I'm sure this is true in general. I had never thought about it
until I read something to this effect a few months ago. Having said
that, I have also read that different technology also affects the
noise level. For example CCD vs CMOS? Or Foveon's new chip, which
can capture more colors in a smaller area. I'm not sure if that
design helps the noise issue, or only the detail.
....
> Any image you print yourself from a digital camera will
> probably be worthless in less than a decade. The papers and
> inks we use don't even come close to the archival quality
> of a cheap 35mm print from WalMart.
...unless you walk your memory card or CD down to WalMart and have
them print it. (I know what you mean, though -- ink jet prints have
a short life span.)
Also, there are other online places where you can upload your pics
and have them printed with traditional tech.
...
> SAVE YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGES!!!
I think this is the #1 important thing. CD ROMs (and burners) are
cheap!
...
> produce much better image than 'our' cameras.
> The CCD size, by the way, is the primary reason why you
have
> never seen a digital camera that will use all of the lenses
you
> have from your very excellent 35mm camera.
Well, I have to say that I rather like the smaller and more
inexpensive lenses. :-) As a non-professional, there is a limit to
what I need in the quality as well, so perhaps that's a factor.
....
> Experience shows that although the newer cameras are better
> than the older ones they aren't 'hugely better'. The image
> you get out of a CoolPix 950/990 is essentially the same as
the
> one you get out of a 4500. Yes, you will probably be able to
> tell that the images from a 4500 are better than those from a
> 950 - but it certainly won't look more than twice as good!
I guess it's hard to say how many times as good, but is there a
rough estimate? 1.3? :-)
I have seen some 8x10 printouts from the 950, and they were on the
edge of being blurred/pixellated. I have had better 8x10's from my
880. So, I'm thinking that if you're on the edge of the resolution
limit, it might help to get more detail. However, at the sizes most
people print (4x6), the 950 would be fine. So, in general, I agree,
you can't get too caught up in the pixel-spec alone.
I tell you, the worst problem with my camera, IMO, has been the "hot
pixels". Once I got rid of those, I feel much better about my
resulting pics! A bright green dot in the middle can sometimes be
distracting.
Gary
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/I3w.vC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/tcIolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NikonCoolPix-unsubscribe_.at._yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 11:26:48 EST