Thought I'd Show It Off

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 9:43 pm

Hey all not that most of you will care but I recently bought a new Digicam. I decided to go with the HP Photosmart 945 since it offered everything I wanted and more plus for $450 CAD its a steal. ( Sorry pimps no hook ups on this one )

I also bought a Die Cast replica of my fave new car. Its a Black Audi TT Convertable. Here are some pics of it. PLease be patient as the images are 2608x1952. If your browser has the image enlarge feature please resize image back to original state to see the quality.

Also for all the geeks/Digi enthusiasts the images were shot at night with 60watt lighting no flash in macro mode about 15 inches away from the car.

http://members.rogers.com/forbitpimps/images/Hp9451.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/forbitpimps/images/Hp9452.jpg

Lemme know what you think.

payaso · Post by **payaso** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:08 am

Those are some sweet shots there doodman.... How many mega pixels is it?

I have the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F707 5.0 mega-pixels, and I'm lovin the shit out of it... My pop just picked up the new Sony 8.0 pixel, but that's way out of my league...lol

silla

sessiz · Post by **sessiz** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:40 am

Damn, I need a new camera.

This kodak I got is crap. Pics came out nice like stoli.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:42 am

Thanx mang! Its a 5.3MP I'm gonna try and take some pics of flowers and shit to reall see what this puppy can do.

8MP DEAAAAMMMMM. To rich for my blood.

crazydave · Post by **crazydave** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:02 am

Our camera is only 2.1 megapixels. I really didn't think the resolution made that big of a difference for posting web pictures, since they are only 72 ppi. I always figured the better resolution was good for print quality, like when printing large photos like 8x10s at something like 720 dpi, since the pictures I post on the web are less than a quarter of the size of the originals.

...but then I see Stoli's pic, and it's soo clear. I can see all the detail on the tire, the dimension in the TT sticker, and even Stoli's fingerprints.

So now I'm thinking I need a new camera, but I'm still curious if it's really the resolution making the difference. Could be a better lense, better lighting, etc.

Hey Stoli, can you do me a big ol' favor, and post some resized images that are 400 pixels wide, with the resolution set at 72 ppi, and maybe even optimize it 15-20 percent, so I can make a fair comparison?

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:06 am

LOL @ fingerprints.

Yes Dave I will post some tonight when I get home and get my Son off to bed.

In answer to your question both are right. Bigger the lens the better the pic plus this particular camera has new technology developed by HP called Adaptive Lighting Technology that enables digital cameras to produce photos that look more like what consumers see. It gives that 35MM look with spendning 3000$ on a digital SLR. Also the bigger the MP the better the resolution.

goto
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/ho ... 90101.html

to see full spec on the camera.

For anyone interested in gettign this cam 3 big cons

1) Pretty big to carry around
2) when recording video and you zoom in on something its audible
3) The TFT eye piece is slow to react.

Miva · Post by **Miva** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:18 pm

crazydave wrote:So now I'm thinking I need a new camera, but I'm still curious if it's really the resolution making the difference. Could be a better lense, better lighting, etc.

You can find a lot of information about digital cameras here: http://dpreview.com

Cheers
Miva

Post by **CaboWabo** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:41 pm

nice frickin camera stoli!
beats the hell outta your old one fo sho!

man, you might wanna re-shoot some of the old stuff, those pics is crispy

hue35 · Post by **hue35** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:39 pm

crazydave wrote:since the pictures I post on the web are less than a quarter of the size of the originals.

OK, dave... you just verified something I've been thinking about your pics for a while now (because I always wanna see your cars as clearly as possible)... The problem you are having with clarity is about the way you're focusing. I think you are getting in too close for your camera to focus.

So, instead of getting in close and filling the frame with the car, back up until the focus is sharp. Then, instead of shrinking the whole image to 400 pixels wide, crop in so the car fills the frame how you want... then shrink to 400 pixels wide. 2.1 megapixels is more than enough for online use... figure out the minimum distance from the subject your camera will focus, and keep at least that distance between the camera and the car.

Light will help your camera focus... a desk lamp works fine because you can direct the light pretty well. Look at the preview monitor, and move the light around to see what looks best. A regular incandescent bulb will throw the color off (a lot of cameras have a setting to compensate), but a Halogen bulb will throw it off less. I used a single halogen desk lamp for these and almost all of my other shots.

Also, shoot the car on a lighter surface... a dark surface is harder to shoot because the darkness will reflect into the car and darken it. A lighter surface will do the opposite, and you'll get more mileage out of a single (and simple) light source.

Use a tripod if you have one. If not, use a phone book or something to really support your hand and help keep it still.

Hopefully something in there will help avoid the expense of a new camera.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:48 pm

I would also suggest using macro shooting if you camera has it dave. That's how I take all my bit pics and anything within 15Inches. thats what its built for.

hue35 · Post by **hue35** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:00 pm

Stoli wrote:I would also suggest using macro shooting if you camera has it dave. That's how I take all my bit pics and anything within 15Inches. thats what its built for.

Yeah, that too. I assumed he was using a close-focus option if he had one... you know what they say about assuming things... something about being an asshole.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm

When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME

LOL

I just can;t wait to take some pics of Taylor ( my son ) with it. Also some nice sunsets and shit.

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:16 pm

i just got a canon g5, paid 600 for it, it rocks. i will be shootin bits sonn, their is a link to my galeries from AVN last week. these days you need at least 4 megapixels to get the good shots.

crazydave · Post by **crazydave** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:27 pm

hue35 wrote:
Stoli wrote:I would also suggest using macro shooting if you camera has it dave. That's how I take all my bit pics and anything within 15Inches. thats what its built for.
Yeah, that too. I assumed he was using a close-focus option if he had one... you know what they say about assuming things... something about being an asshole.

Thanks for the tips hue, I know I need them.

You know, I had guitars down pretty good, but I've never been able to get a decent picture of these little cars. I've been constantly experimenting, and it just keeps getting worse.

I do use the macro setting, and get about 6 inches away. In the macro setting it cuts light. If put a light near it to compensate, the yellow light makes it look like crap, so I have to get up close to hit it hard with the flash, 'cause I'm really just trying to get the colors accurate.

I knew lighting was my biggest issue, in order to move back, but I thought I needed a flood, I never considered a flourescent desk lamp, I'm gonna have to try that.

You might have noticed that I've been taking some pics in the sun, to help with the lighting issue, but the sunlight is too harsh and contrasting, and again i have to hit it hard with the flash to get the colors balanced, but now I'm wondering what would happen in the sun if I shut off the macro, and moved back.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:39 pm

Ok Dave, here is a shot of my son.

I shot the pics at full resolution using all 5.3 MP

resized one to 400 Wide also optimized it 25%
Left one original ( just cropped )

Theres not alot of difference in my opinion.

Heres the Bigger one Just shot cropped and up-loaded

http://members.rogers.com/forbitpimps/i ... 20Face.JPG

Heres the resized/optimized one.

http://members.rogers.com/forbitpimps/i ... ace400.JPG

I guess the bigger MP does make all the difference. To many things for me to factor in. Just glad I finally got an awesome camera.