 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007blur photo?
Hello everybody, how would you call a photo, that was taken with a low exposure time (something around 1/10s) and is therefore not clear? Is it a: - wiggly picture - blur picture - shaken picture ? Thanks. V.K. > how would you call a photo, that was taken with a low exposure time "What would you call a photo that was taken with a long exposure time" (Four changes, counting the capitalization at the start.) > (something around 1/10s) and is therefore not clear? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - shaken picture > ? It's a blurred picture, or specifically a picture with motion blur (or a motion-blurred picture).  SignatureMark Brader | "Europe contains a great many cathedrals, which were Toronto | caused by the Middle Ages, which means they are very old, msb@vex.net | so you have to take color slide photographs of them." | -- Dave Barry >> Is it a: >> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's a blurred picture, or specifically a picture with motion blur > (or a motion-blurred picture). This prompts me, a non-expert photographer, to ask a related question. Why is it that nearly all photos taken with my mobile phone look like crap? Possible explanations that occur to me are - too long an exposure time (seems unlikely); - 2 megapixels just isn't good enough; - delirium tremens; - too small a lens; - fogged-up lens because of all the times I've accidentally stuck my thumb over it. There has to be a simple explanation. The pictures I took as a child with a 1950s box camera weren't great works of art, but at least you could recognise the faces. How long must I wait before phones with cameras catch up with 1950s technology? SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>> Is it a: >>> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > could recognise the faces. How long must I wait before phones with > cameras catch up with 1950s technology? I think all of the above reasons contribute, but the main culprit is probably the small, cheap, plastic lens. Stupot peter@ozebelgDieSpammers.org had it: > >> Is it a: > >> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > could recognise the faces. How long must I wait before phones with > cameras catch up with 1950s technology? Cheap lens. SignatureDavid ===== >>> Is it a: >>> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > - too long an exposure time (seems unlikely); > - 2 megapixels just isn't good enough; 2 megapixels is adequate. Nearly all the digital photos we've taken over the last 5 years are 1.3 megapixels because that's all my camera's got. OldBloke's new camera's got 5 megapixels but his pictures aren't necessarily better than mine (because he still hasn't RTFM, and also keeps putting his thumb over the flash). SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> This prompts me, a non-expert photographer, to ask a related question. >> Why is it that nearly all photos taken with my mobile phone look like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > necessarily better than mine (because he still hasn't RTFM, and also keeps > putting his thumb over the flash). Physical size of the camera makes a difference too. It is much easier to hold a larger camera still. With a tiny camera, the smallest movement translates to a large angular movement. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> Is it a: >>> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >could recognise the faces. How long must I wait before phones with >cameras catch up with 1950s technology? A one to two megapixel camera, even with a very good lens, produces an image that is fairly sharp at 120 x 160 px or even up to 320 x 240 px. That's thumbnail size, and good enough for phone-to-phone use. You're comparing the print output of the 50s with what is intended for LCD output on another phone. With even a small print you're distributing those pixels over a significantly larger area. A better lens wouldn't make any difference. The low resolution chips are part of the problem, but the rest of the problem is size. People want small, lightweight phones, and CCDs and CMOS image sensors that produce respectable results are too bulky to fit in small, lightweight phones. I'd guess that by the middle of 2007 mobile phone cameras that can produce good, sharp images suitable for printing at up to 3" x 5" or 4" x 6" will be generally available. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>> Is it a: >>>> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > produce good, sharp images suitable for printing at up to 3" x 5" or > 4" x 6" will be generally available. I got a cheap (under $70) 3 megapixel digital camera, and was very happy with it, especially fro the ease with downloading (or up-) to the computer. The problem happened in the printing. For internet and computer use, 76 px (or something like that) is considered adequate, but that is much too low a resolution for printing. Now on the market for a better camera, in the range of $200, with capacity of 6 or 7 MP, I asked the young man at Best Buy about the pixel density and he can't guarantee a thing. They are, after all, pushing the photo printers, while I need the info for my computer. Maybe you, Tony, or others, can help me clean up my language or expectations? Anyway, until I know ahead of time, the camera companies and stores won't get my money. > "Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> I'd guess that by the middle of 2007 mobile phone cameras that can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and computer use, 76 px (or something like that) is considered > adequate, but that is much too low a resolution for printing. [Note: my employer makes digital cameras, but I don't work on them and probably know less about them than many of you.] How big are you printing? At 4x6, a 3 megapixel camera should be 362 dpi (or 354 dpi--I forget which "million" they use). At 5x7, it would be 300 dpi, and at 8x10 it would be 198 dpi. > Now on the market for a better camera, in the range of $200, with > capacity of 6 or 7 MP, I asked the young man at Best Buy about the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expectations? Anyway, until I know ahead of time, the camera > companies and stores won't get my money. Assuming binary millions (and assuming I'm doing the math right), I'd expect the resolution, in dots per inch, to be 3x5 4x6 5x7 8x10 10x13 --- --- --- ---- ----- 1.3 301 238 197 130 102 2 373 295 244 161 127 3 457 362 299 198 155 4 528 418 346 228 179 5 591 467 387 256 200 6 647 512 423 280 219 7 699 553 457 302 237 8 747 591 489 323 254 9 793 627 519 343 269 10 836 660 547 362 284 If they're decimal millions, things don't change much: 3x5 4x6 5x7 8x10 10x13 --- --- --- ---- ----- 1.3 294 232 192 127 100 2 365 288 239 158 124 3 447 353 292 193 151 4 516 408 338 223 175 5 577 456 377 250 196 6 632 500 414 273 214 7 683 540 447 295 232 8 730 577 478 316 248 9 774 612 507 335 263 10 816 645 534 353 277 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ durk183@sbc.com had it: > Now on the market for a better camera, in the range of $200, with > capacity of 6 or 7 MP, I asked the young man at Best Buy about the pixel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Anyway, until I know ahead of time, the camera companies and stores > won't get my money. I bought Dad one of these for his 80th birthday: http://tinyurl.com/ye6koj At least I think that's the model - it's called IXUS 60 in the UK. We have three such cameras here of earlier models - a Canon IXUS, a Casio and a Pentax all of which look very similar. The Canon seems to be the favourite and this model came out top of a few reviews I read. The main thing with a camera is to get a good lens. 6 megapixels may be OTT for most home uses, but with the price of memory cards and hard discs so low, there's no reason to buy a lower spec. SignatureDavid ===== >durk183@sbc.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://tinyurl.com/ye6koj That page scares me. Amazon is not the source to use to buy cameras online. The outlets listed on the right (Tiger Direct, 17th Street Photo, Adorama) all have very poor reputations. The Canon PowerShot cameras do have a good rep, though. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > >durk183@sbc.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The Canon PowerShot cameras do have a good rep, though. Strange. Amazon is the very best source to buy cameras (or any electronic items) online in the UK. Their customer service is excellent, they have a near perfect reputation and they are just about always the cheapest. I bought a camera for Son a couple of years ago which became faulty after less than a week. I filled in the forms on the web site and a new model appeared the following day, with instructions on how to return the faulty one at no cost, all explained by personalised emails explaining what was going on and apologising for the problem. SignatureDavid ===== >tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >explained by personalised emails explaining what was going on and >apologising for the problem. I think we're all used to pondial differences by now. I do read the rec.photo.digital group, and buying a camera from Amazon is not a recommended thing to do here in the US. Ritz Photo and 42nd Street Photo seem to be the two best-regarded sources. Some of the online sources call you and push accessories. I've read posts about orders being cancelled or delayed if accessories aren't added to the order. I don't think you can find a source that someone hasn't had a problem with, or a supposedly bad source where someone else has had nothing but wonderful experiences. It gets down to "You are more likely to have a good (or bad) experience with...". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >durk183@sbc.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://tinyurl.com/ye6koj I just bought one of those for The Memsahib for Xmas, a fine little camera. My only complaint about it is there is a little 3-position slide-switch top right on the back which determines which of 3 modes the camera is in (Take pics, Take Movie, and Display Pics). This switch is too easily disturbed and for somebody who wants just a simple point-and-shoot it can be very confusing. When they thought they were taking pictures but in fact wre merely turning the move recording function on an off. I generated many gigabytes of moving pictures of the ground around my feet before I figured out wotinell was going wrong. But having finaly sussed out how to use that feature, it is a lot of fun - I may even have to get into video-editing. Incidentaly, for every movie file it generates (the file name ends in .WAV) it also generates a smaller file whose filename ends in .THM Any idea what that's all about? My own camera is a Canon 5D which is a whole 'nother ball game - not only in terms of portability (lugability) and quality of the end result, but also $$$. My latest foray was a call to photograph a very exotic fellow-countryman from Uganda - actualy a bird - who suddenly appeared in a local backyard many thousands of miles from where he's supposed to be. http://www.pajarowatershed.com/Crane/ Turns out (after some sleuthing) that this particular specimen was born and bred a native USAan and had escaped from a local aviary. And he's still at large and surviving despite our weather here which is much colder than his native clime. Jitze couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: > Incidentaly, for every movie file it generates (the file > name ends in .WAV) it also generates a smaller file whose > filename ends in .THM Any idea what that's all about? I think it's a tag file, equivalent to the EXIF data inside a still photo. There's probably nowhere to put this data in a movie file. > My own camera is a Canon 5D which is a whole 'nother > ball game - not only in terms of portability (lugability) and quality > of the end result, but also $$$. Being a long-term Canon SLR user (firstly A1 and then EOS 10 which I still have) I plunged in to the digital fray with the 350D (Rebel XT, I think, in the US). I am starting to feel the need to think about the 5D though. > My latest foray was a call to > photograph a very exotic fellow-countryman from Uganda [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > aviary. And he's still at large and surviving despite our > weather here which is much colder than his native clime. Cor. We saw a pair of them at an exotic bird show in a theme park in Spain last month. http://s102.photobucket.com/albums/m103/omrud/crane/ SignatureDavid ===== > couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: >> Incidentaly, for every movie file it generates (the file >> name ends in .WAV) it also generates a smaller file whose >> filename ends in .THM Any idea what that's all about? > > I think it's a tag file, equivalent to the EXIF data inside a still > photo. There's probably nowhere to put this data in a movie file. It is a Canon G3 Digital Camera Thumbnail file. Ref.: http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=THM SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I think, in the US). I am starting to feel the need to think about >the 5D though. I can heartily recommend - but be warned that you are now on a slippery slope where you will also want to equip it with an "L" class lense which is yet another major blow to the wallet. I thought having a full-frame receptor would be nice (so that a wide-angle lense would still be wide-angle) but there was a side-benefit of this which was even more valuable... Yes there are 12 million pixels, but because these are spread over a full 24by36 mm area, each individual pixel in the receptor is bigger, - so receives more light energgy, and thus way better s/n ratio.So I can now take a severely underexposed (portion of) a picture and brighten it way up before noise artifacts creep in. Or I can shoot at e.g. 1000 ASA and still not have any noticeable degradation. Also - having such a big image means I can crop out a small portion of interest and still have it more than acceptable for 4by6 or 8by10 printing (i.e digital zoom) e.g. that first picture of that crane (portrait) is in fact just a 100% crop out of a much bigger picture. The lens in that case was a tele which was not "L" class, so it isn't as sharp as I'd like. Had I used my L quality lens, it would have been tack sharp edge-to-edge. I'd suggest you go ahead though - it's only money... Oh - and I still have my first Canon SLR - an Ftb - the kind where you line up the needle in the viewfinder to set the exposure... Before that was a Zeiss-Ikon which took 120 roll-film, but eventualy the bellows wore out. It looked like this http://www.ixbt.com/digimage/mustek4800/ZeissIkonBob510.jpg but had a Zeiss lens rather than the Voigtlander one shown in this pic. Jitze couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: > >Being a long-term Canon SLR user (firstly A1 and then EOS 10 which I > >still have) I plunged in to the digital fray with the 350D (Rebel XT, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on a slippery slope where you will also want to equip it with an > "L" class lense which is yet another major blow to the wallet. ... > I'd suggest you go ahead though - it's only money... See, the thing is, I seem to have agreed to pay somebody to wreck our en-suite bathroom and then fix it up again. For reasons I don't understand, this costs about as much as four new 5Ds. > Oh - and I still have my first Canon SLR - an Ftb - > the kind where you line up the needle in the viewfinder [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but had a Zeiss lens rather than the Voigtlander one shown in > this pic. I traded in my A1 to buy the EOS 10, but I have my father's and grandfather's 120 film cameras similar to the one you show, which I used as a child. I also had a TLR when I was about 10 but I don't know what happened to that. My first SLR was Russian - a Zenit with no meter. So I also have an Weston Euro Master exposure meter which I had to use every time I took a photo - it went all over the USA with me in the 70s. http://www.westonmaster.com/models.htm This is my workhorse lens, but it's rather heavy on the EOS 350d body which is quite light. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_35~135_4~56 _usm.html http://tinyurl.com/yl3nnd SignatureDavid ===== >I traded in my A1 to buy the EOS 10, but I have my father's and >grandfather's 120 film cameras similar to the one you show, which I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >_usm.html >http://tinyurl.com/yl3nnd We store our Christmas tree ornaments in a closet under the stairs. One of those deep closets where the ceiling slopes down to only a foot or so high in the back. The things stored in the back tend to never see the light of day. Rearranging things recently to put the ornaments back in storage, I came across my old camera bags. The "newer" contains my two 35mm SLR bodies and my assorted lenses. The older bag contains my range finder cameras and light meter. Stuck in both were several point-and-shoot cameras and my one-time favorite Minox miniature camera. Stored elsewhere are boxes of 35mm negative strips. I'll leave it to my heirs to dispose of all this stuff. I never use them anymore, but I can't toss them (except for the point-and-shoots which all had green stuff spreading out from the battery compartments). I think I still have a groove in my shoulder from carrying a heavy camera bag on trips. Everything I use now for image capturing can be carried in a shirt pocket. All the "negatives" are viewable images on a CD. My keyboard is my darkroom. The only carry-over item that is still used today is my tripod. It was used on Christmas when I recorded a few hours of wrapping ripping by tiny hands. The two hours of video has been reduced to a half-hour highlight movie on a DVD. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Dear all. Thanks a lot for the detailed information you gave. V.K. >I just bought one of those for The Memsahib for Xmas, a fine >little camera. My only complaint about it is there is a little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >somebody who wants just a simple point-and-shoot it can >be very confusing. That's why I suggest handling a camera before you buy it. >Incidentaly, for every movie file it generates (the file >name ends in .WAV) it also generates a smaller file whose >filename ends in .THM Any idea what that's all about? The .thm files are the thumbnails...one per clip. You can convert them to .jpgs if you want to view them as individual images. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>I just bought one of those for The Memsahib for Xmas, a fine >>little camera. My only complaint about it is there is a little [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The .thm files are the thumbnails...one per clip. You can convert >them to .jpgs if you want to view them as individual images. Bingo! Yep - I just changed the filename to end in .jpg and there it was, a 160-by-120 thumnail which also included the EXIF info. Jitze >I got a cheap (under $70) 3 megapixel digital camera, and was very happy >with it, especially fro the ease with downloading (or up-) to the >computer. The problem happened in the printing. For internet and >computer use, 76 px (or something like that) is considered adequate, but >that is much too low a resolution for printing. There's debate about the subject, but most will tell you that anything over 72 is more than a monitor will display. I set images at 100 for web use. The recommended ppi for print output is 300. I usually print 4" x 6" prints, and a 3 megapixel camera will allow that. >Now on the market for a better camera, in the range of $200, with >capacity of 6 or 7 MP, I asked the young man at Best Buy about the pixel >density and he can't guarantee a thing. I have a Nikon and a Canon digital camera, and my daughter has a Sony and a Nikon. My Canon is 3.1 megapixels, and my Nikon is 5.1 megapixels. I like both brands, and you'll find models available of both in the $200/$275 range. You really can't go wrong with either. Don't worry too much about the megapixel thing. If you're going to spend around $200, you'll be in the right range. The Nikon Coolpix "L" series start at $129 (6.2 megapixels) and go up to $199 (7.2 megapixels). Find one that feels comfortable in your grip. They are making cameras so small and slim that your fingers are too big to mash the right buttons on some. >They are, after all, pushing >the photo printers, while I need the info for my computer. Maybe you, >Tony, or others, can help me clean up my language or expectations? >Anyway, until I know ahead of time, the camera companies and stores >won't get my money. I like Epson printers with Canon as my second choice. You might lurk in the digital camera newsgroup (rec.photo.digital), but the problem there is that the posters are so damned opinionated about their own favorite brand and model. I also recommend using Steve's reviews at http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html for information about any camera you're interested in. I've had good luck with Best Buy in buying cameras, but I'll only purchase online from Ritz Camera. (No sales tax, no shipping charges, and no grey-market cameras). Stay away from the seemingly-good deals on the net. Places like Tiger Direct have low prices, but ship reconditioned products, grey-market products, and have poor customer service. Check out online sources at http://shop.resellerratings.com/TY-1/BEFID-449/category/Cameras+and+Photography SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>I got a cheap (under $70) 3 megapixel digital camera, and was very >>happy [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > products, and have poor customer service. Check out online sources at > http://shop.resellerratings.com/TY-1/BEFID-449/category/Cameras+and+Photography Thanks for the suggestions, Tony. The Peter Moylan entity posted thusly: >>> Is it a: >>> - wiggly picture [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >could recognise the faces. How long must I wait before phones with >cameras catch up with 1950s technology? Cheap lens, as others have said, but also the algorithm for converting the charges on the CMOS sensor may not be up to snuff. It's a huge part of picture quality. Verbal Kint filted: >how would you call a photo, that was taken with a low exposure time >(something around 1/10s) and is therefore not clear? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >- shaken picture >? Fuzzy, blurred, or out of focus.... One tenth of a second is what I'd call a *long* (not low) exposure time, or a "slow shutter speed"...it doesn't necessarily produce an unclear photo; if you're using a tripod and taking a picture of a rock formation, you can keep the shutter open until you overexpose the film and it still won't make it any fuzzier...even a tripod isn't strictly necessary, as I proved when I took night-time shots of Niagara Falls with a handheld four-second exposure....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > Verbal Kint filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > night-time shots of Niagara Falls with a handheld four-second > exposure....r Yeah, but breathtaking pictures aren't usually possible unless they are accompanied by heart-stopping moments. > how would you call a photo, that was taken with a low exposure time > (something around 1/10s) and is therefore not clear? How I would call a photo is simple, "Here photo, come here little photo." What I would call a time exposed photo, "Motion focus challenged." However, if you shoot a photo within a perfectly static environment, this photo would be crystal clear, unless you move the camera, yes? Relative, yes? Contrasting, if a photo is taken in an absence of light, this too would be a crystal clear photo. Then again, select cosmic type rays could embed an image, yes? Cosmic, yes? Of course, we should consider a pure white light environment, such as Heaven, or so claimed, yes? Spiritual, yes? Personally, I would settle for "blurred" but would not buy that pornography. Taha >> how would you call a photo, that was taken with a low exposure time >> (something around 1/10s) and is therefore not clear? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > this too would be a crystal clear photo. Then again, select > cosmic type rays could embed an image, yes? Cosmic, yes? I have a feeling you don't know what you are talking about. > Of course, we should consider a pure white light environment, > such as Heaven, or so claimed, yes? Spiritual, yes? Are these statements or questions? > Personally, I would settle for "blurred" but would not > buy that pornography. > > Taha Gawd. Stupot Verbal Kint asked > how would you call a photo, that was taken with a low exposure time > (something around 1/10s) and is therefore not clear? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - blur picture > - shaken picture There are three answers to this question, depending upon exactly what you have in mind:- 1. If the blurring is caused by inadvertent camera-shake, I would call it simply a "blurred photograph". Alternatively, I might call it "out of focus", "camera-shake", or "incompetent" photography. 2. If the camera is held steady, for example by being mounted on a tripod, but the main subject of the photograph moves, then you might have a "speed-blur" or "motion-still" photograph. For example, you might want a photograph of a racehorse in motion over a jump. A fast shutter speed gives high definition but little sensation of motion or speed. A shutter speed of 1/10th second gives a bit more excitement, with some impression of speed. A complementary technique at around 1/10th second is often used for photographing grand prix racing cars: the camera is swung around to track the transverse motion of the car. With an expert in this style of photography, this technique gives reasonably high definition for the car itself, but the blurred background gives the excitement and the impression of speed. This again is a "speed-blur" or "motion-still" photograph. 3. We often see examples of photographs taken at dusk with an exposure time of perhaps 30 seconds or so, showing a long string of receding red tail-lights in one direction, and approaching headlights in the other direction, on a motorway. This type of deliberate blurring I would call "motion-blur" photography. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > Hello everybody, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > - blur picture > - shaken picture It can only be a blur picture if damon albarn is in it. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.