Roger_Barnett
Participating member
- Location
- Seattle, in the PNWet
Attention Buzz blokes: Your video pic here
- Thread starter Colin
- Start date
Roger_Barnett
Participating member
- Location
- Seattle, in the PNWet
[ QUOTE ]
Some big poplars!
[/ QUOTE ]
All nice shots but I'm going with this one coz we can see your face.
The sunlight caught that first pic really well, almost looked like you were a steel worker with an oxy torch.
Really nice pics Roger, what sort of camera do you use???
as the quality, sharpness and depth is fantastic. Even the pic I chose had shadow cast and it was extremely good.
Come on, brag some, and hey, you were the final entry!
Sorry guys if you missed out /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gifbut on with the show it is. /forum/images/graemlins/santa.gif
Some big poplars!
[/ QUOTE ]
All nice shots but I'm going with this one coz we can see your face.
The sunlight caught that first pic really well, almost looked like you were a steel worker with an oxy torch.
Really nice pics Roger, what sort of camera do you use???
as the quality, sharpness and depth is fantastic. Even the pic I chose had shadow cast and it was extremely good.
Come on, brag some, and hey, you were the final entry!
Sorry guys if you missed out /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gifbut on with the show it is. /forum/images/graemlins/santa.gif
Here's the link to the vid
http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=37463&an=0&page=0#37463
http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=37463&an=0&page=0#37463
[ QUOTE ]
what sort of camera do you use???
as the quality, sharpness and depth is fantastic. Even the pic I chose had shadow cast and it was extremely good.
Come on, brag some, and hey, you were the final entry!
[/ QUOTE ]
That information is all contained within the image itself (about 3% of the image size is devoted to it; would be more if the images were of a quality factor more suitable for 'web display instead of printing).
I'd have submitted some pics but didn't have any 1/2 MB or more in size... hahaha!
what sort of camera do you use???
as the quality, sharpness and depth is fantastic. Even the pic I chose had shadow cast and it was extremely good.
Come on, brag some, and hey, you were the final entry!
[/ QUOTE ]
That information is all contained within the image itself (about 3% of the image size is devoted to it; would be more if the images were of a quality factor more suitable for 'web display instead of printing).
I'd have submitted some pics but didn't have any 1/2 MB or more in size... hahaha!
Roger_Barnett
Participating member
- Location
- Seattle, in the PNWet
ekka, some of those were shot with my 4 mp Canon G2, the later ones with the 8 mp Pro 1, which sports an L lens, meaning it is similar in optical and build quality to Canon's awesome 35 mm L lenses, of which I own 4, worth about $9000 when new. You'll soon be seeing more shots taken with them, as I'm about to get the 1D Mark 2, which is capable of shooting and storing 69 mp of data per second, and is far and away the state of the art for sports and action digi cameras.
Glens, you never fail to get your digs in, do ya? Personally, I prefer to view large files, even on a computer monitor, as they just plain look better, and more fine detail is evident. As well, I like to be able to see exif data, as I can see who is shooting with what camera, and what settings were used. Feel free, as you often do, to resize em.
Here's a link to some new online pics, that I'm just building, in slide show form:
http://photobucket.com/albums/c78/rbtree...&interval=5
Glens, you never fail to get your digs in, do ya? Personally, I prefer to view large files, even on a computer monitor, as they just plain look better, and more fine detail is evident. As well, I like to be able to see exif data, as I can see who is shooting with what camera, and what settings were used. Feel free, as you often do, to resize em.
Here's a link to some new online pics, that I'm just building, in slide show form:
http://photobucket.com/albums/c78/rbtree...&interval=5
[ QUOTE ]
Feel free, as you often do, to resize em.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's if I can afford the time to get them here to resize, hahaha!
I was at a friend's house last night with my laptop to fetch the source code for the new X.org release. Got much of it at close to 500 KB/s, but forgot to fetch Ekka's video, dammit.
So when you're viewing the large images on your monitor, are they shrunk to fit the screen or do you pan around in them? If you're panning them, then I can agree that being able to see the nice detail is good. If you're not seeing them in their native resolution, then why is it necessary to handle all the extra data?
Also, are you aware that when you embed several even reasonably-sized images in one of your posts that it tends to tie up the circuitry for extended periods while the page gets loaded? This would all be a moot point if users who were limited to dialup represented maybe a couple of percentage points, but it's still rather close to 50/50 nationwide.
Glen
Feel free, as you often do, to resize em.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's if I can afford the time to get them here to resize, hahaha!
I was at a friend's house last night with my laptop to fetch the source code for the new X.org release. Got much of it at close to 500 KB/s, but forgot to fetch Ekka's video, dammit.
So when you're viewing the large images on your monitor, are they shrunk to fit the screen or do you pan around in them? If you're panning them, then I can agree that being able to see the nice detail is good. If you're not seeing them in their native resolution, then why is it necessary to handle all the extra data?
Also, are you aware that when you embed several even reasonably-sized images in one of your posts that it tends to tie up the circuitry for extended periods while the page gets loaded? This would all be a moot point if users who were limited to dialup represented maybe a couple of percentage points, but it's still rather close to 50/50 nationwide.
Glen
