Digital Imaging Thread IV

HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
edited August 2012 in Bryce Discussion


Please use this thread for casual discussions regarding digital imaging and related topics. Including, but not limited to, still and video imaging as well as cameras, cinematography, concepts, equipment, HDRI, lighting, photo-realistic rendering, render post-processing, software, techniques, timelapse, and tutorials.

By participating in this thread, you agree to abide by the following:

1) All posts must comply with the DAZ Forum TOS. Graphics attached to a post should adhere to the Gallery Conduct guidelines. You may view the DAZ Forum TOS Guidelines here:

2) Posts, threads, and images MUST NOT contain ANY nudity, violence, or profanity as currently there are no flags available so that others may filter these things out.

3) Please keep your posts civil. This means no personal attacks, name calling, or derogatory remarks. Let's keep this thread a friendly place for discussion, inspiration, and learning.

4) Please refrain from any "my dog is smarter than your dog" types of comments. Everything made my man is the product of many compromises from design through implementation. People have differing priorities in regards to the choices they make. What works best for you may not be the best choice for someone else.

Please see this DAZ thread regarding known forum issues:

Please Note: Updated 1 Aug 2012: Photos at 1024x768 are now posting on this forum.

Posted: 25 May 2012 01:07 PM
Richard Haseltine - Administrator

Although the information on image posting indicates that sizes up to 2,000 pixels square are allowed, at the moment the resizing code is broken (the images should be resized to 800 pixels square for display in threads). As a result we need you to make sure that any images posted are, for now, no more than 800 pixels square - you can of course post a link to an off-site full-size image and treat the local image as a glorified thumbnail if you like. We apologise for this, and hope it will be fixed anon.

Link to the old DAZ forums:

Post edited by Hokulea on


  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    To get the ball rolling...
    I found some interesting *free* software from MS Research that I am experimenting with...

    Geodesic High-Dynamic-Range Photography Tool
    A simple tool for combining photos into a single HDR photo.

    Cliplets: Juxtaposing Still and Dynamic Imagery
    A type of imagery that sits between stills and video, including imagery such as video textures and "cinemagraphs". The app provides a simple, yet expressive way to mix static and dynamic elements from a video clip.

    Image Composite Editor - ICE
    An advanced panoramic image stitcher. Given a set of overlapping photographs of a scene shot from a single camera location, the application creates a high-resolution panorama that seamlessly combines the original images. ICE can also automatically stitch a panorama directly from video.

  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited July 2012

    Here are a couple of photos I took over New Year's 2012 in Las Vegas using my then new Canon G12. These are jpg's as output by the camera with only minor cropping and resizing. The G12 is the first camera I have used with image stabilization. It makes a huge difference when it comes to hand-held shooting in low light. It's certainly no DSLR but it is small enough to be relatively concealable. I doubt I could have gotten in the door with a full size DSLR.

    I believe I shot these images in Program mode with Automatic White Balance. Both are handheld using the camera strap for stability.

    Planet Hollywood

    Canon PowerShot G12
    1/2 sec.
    Focal length: 30mm (equivalent 140mm)

    Vegas New Year 2012

    Canon PowerShot G12
    1/5 sec.
    Focal length: 6mm (equivalent 28mm)
    On camera flash, slow-synchro

    800 x 659 - 297K
    800 x 592 - 177K
    Post edited by Hokulea on
  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Last week, onOne Software released "Perfect Effects 3 Free".

    Description taken from the onOne website:

    Perfect Effects 3 Free, the next generation of PhotoTools 2.6 Free. Choose from over two-dozen effects to enhance and stylize your images, including effects to create the popular HDR and retro looks. Instantly add any effect with a single click or combine them to create a look of your own.

    Perfect Effects 3 Free is based on the popular Perfect Effects and can be used as a standalone or directly with Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom or Apple Aperture.

    When you download Perfect Effects 3 Free, you'll also get Perfect Layers so you can experience the power of layers without Photoshop.

    Extend the image editing power of Lightroom & Aperture
    Combine the best parts of multiple photos
    Retouch portraits and landscapes

    Note: I am in no way affiliated with onOne Software. Just passing along info re. free image editing software.

    576 x 431 - 80K
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hank, great to see you went ahead with the thread and that DAZ have allowed it back to it's original home!

    I was waiting ages for someone to start it: Bjorn can't stand the website, the stubborn Boekenwuurm has disappeared, Dan has disappeared, Horo is a Peasant, and Peter is often busy. I thought it would never return!

    Can I just ask that you add "Cinematography" to the list of allowed topics? At least three of us have interest in the cinematography side of things. Dan, Peter (I think), and myself all have at least some interest in the Cinematography aspect of things, so it would be unrealistic not to discuss it. Anyway, no worries here on the other stuff, there'll be no more brand debating from me, I got fed up of it last time - really fed-up of it.

    HUMOUR/ As long as people remember that Miu is the most bestist camera there is, there'll be no more arguments. /HUMOUR

    Anyway, thanks for the opening links, I checked those out when you originally posted them but haven't checked the new one yet. I wasn't even aware Microsoft produce HDRI software. Maybe they'll start competing with Adobe's products, an indication of things to come.

    Regards your photos from Vegas, that looks like an enjoyable place to be. Mind you, I always thought Planet Hollywood was a family place, I didn't think they had table dancers and that sort of thing!

  • edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    Bjorn can't stand the website, the stubborn Boekenwuurm has disappeared, Dan has disappeared, Horo is a Peasant, and Peter is often busy. I thought it would never return!

    No, I LOVE the website. I HATE the new forum software which remains broken how many months with no sign of improvement and not even any information now???
    I suspect those that are MIA just share my opinion that the site "was" great but now the software is just too messed up to bother with.

    A few recent shots...

    All tractors great and small
    Ancient boat launch
    Mystic Clouds
    Freighter in the forest

    1024 x 640 - 221K
    1024 x 640 - 219K
    1024 x 640 - 86K
    1920 x 1200 - 347K
    1024 x 640 - 205K
  • HoroHoro Posts: 5,784
    edited December 1969

    Robinia husks backlit.

    800 x 532 - 113K
  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Thanks Len for getting this thread back on the Bryce Talk forum so people can find it.

    The table dancers are in the Miracle Mile Shops at PH. That's where I got lost for a couple of hours trying to find the elevators so I could get back to the suite I was staying at. It was 3am and I had been celebrating New Year's so my navigation was impaired along with most other higher brain functions.

    "Family Oriented" takes on a whole different meaning in Vegas. At the Miracle Mile Shops, there is even a place called "Stripper 101" where "Students are encouraged to lose their inhibitions while having fun learning sexy strip club moves with boas, chairs and of course, poles (no nudity). Ladies only ages 18+." What can I say, it's Vegas.

    @BjornLO - Considering how many problems DAZ is having transitioning to their new website it will likely be some time before they get around to fixing the forums. What a nightmare it must be for DAZ employees.

    Regarding "Best Cameras" see this post by Ken Rockwell. He has some interesting links too.

    I'm am struggling to learn how to edit my photos in Photoshop. I managed to qualify for academic pricing which was still more than I could really afford. I also bought the smallest Wacom Bamboo tablet which is barely adequate but better than nothing. Trying to get the pressure sensitivity dialed in is driving me nuts.

    My Canon G12, like all digital cameras, has a few hot pixels. I have a pretty good idea where they show up and can easily edit them out in Photoshop. Found a free app that removes hot pixels from RAW files but haven't tried it yet.

    Pixel Fixer - Remove hot pixels from RAW files

    Hot pixels (sometimes called stuck pixels) appear as brightly coloured spots in your images. They are

    often more noticeable with slow shutter speeds or high ISO settings. Given the location of these hot

    pixels, Pixel Fixer can automatically remove them from the RAW data in one or more RAW files. Dead

    pixels (pixels that always appear black) can also be removed by Pixel Fixer.

    Extra criteria such as minimum pixel value, ISO or shutter speed can be specified for each hot pixel so

    that Pixel Fixer will only try to map it out in certain conditions. You can also specify a range of

    dates or shutter releases, so that the hot pixel will only be mapped out of photographs that were taken

    within a given timeframe.

    Note: Since the hot pixels are only removed from the RAW data it is necessary to create new JPEG/TIFF

    files from the corrected raw file to get images that are free from hot pixels.

    Here are some other free tools. They are a bit dated but may still be useful:

    Free Digital Camera Enhancer -

    HotPixels Eliminator -

    BlackFrame NR -

  • edited December 1969

    Hokulea said:
    @BjornLO - Considering how many problems DAZ is having transitioning to their new website it will likely be some time before they get around to fixing the forums. What a nightmare it must be for DAZ employees.

    Well I'd be a bit more sympathetic if this was not a self-inflicted wound which festers only due to their desire to keep it so. I buy large (costly) software applications all the time for work. I always put in an acceptance test / proof of concept (test deployment) and we test stuff. When it does not work we do not deploy it. If issues arise after we deploy it which impact our ability to do business we do not allow them to carry on for weeks. Worst case was 2 days. While I have worked at larger companies, I have for the past 5+ years worked for a small one with around 1000 computers and an IT staff of only 12. Our methodolgy is not due to some brilliance on my part it is part of every computer department I know if. There are variations called ITIL, MOF and others... they relate to risk assement, change control, problem management and so on. They are the basis for any reasonable companies computer operations. Either Daz does not follow this methodolgy or the persons administering it need a VERY stern talking to maybe some training. Honestly why they do not just drop this software and roll it back escapes me.

    Hokulea said:
    see this post by Ken Rockwell

    CAUTION, Ken Rockwell is a complete tool. He is perhaps the worst, least reliable source of information on cameras on the internet. He has written dozens of reviews on stuff he has only seen pictures of. He has written about his alien abduction, and other crackpot theories. So many good reviewers out there on cameras. Try DPReview, Steve's Digi-Cam and Thom Hogan instead of Ken Rockwell.

    My Canon G12, like all digital cameras, has a few hot pixels.
    I would not say all digital cameras have them. I have owned over a dozen and only 1 had hot pixels. I sent it in and they replaced the sensor (Nikon d90 less then 90 days old). My Minolta 7d, Nikon d700, Canon 500d, and various pocket cameras have not had any at least none I could detect.

  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969


    Sorry I didn't reply sooner. Had to replace the PSU in my PC.

    I agree. I am mystified that DAZ put their new website up with so many issues unresolved. Even a week or two of testing would have revealed how screwed up it is. Doesn't make any sense and no doubt their revenue stream has suffered because of it.

    I agree with you regarding Ken Rockwell as well. However I do believe the particular link I posted is valid. It doesn't matter how much you spend on a camera system or what its specs are if you can't see photographically. I remember a few decades ago a woman won the Pulitzer for best photo using a Kodak Instamatic with a plastic lens.

    The "old school" adage was "f/8 and be there" attributed to Weegee in the 50's I believe. While the f stop is for the most part irrevelant in this age of digital photography the being there part still applies. Weegee captured some amazing images using a 4x5 Speed Graphic camera with wire filament flash. Another of my favorite photographers is Henri Cartier-Bresson who coined the phrase "the decisive moment". For much of his career he used a 35mm Leica camera with only a 50 mm lens with which he worked wonders.

    My point, as well as Ken Rockwell's, is simply that the equipment you use doesn't matter. What does is your mind's eye and your imagination. Learn the limitations of whatever system you are using and maximize its potential as well as your own. That's how you make great photographs. Plus being in the right place at the right time with the right light.

    Every digital camera has hot pixels. Most of the time they are mapped out by in camera processing and may not be noticeable unless you use long exposures and high magnification, but it is simply the nature of digital sensors. See these links:

    Nonetheless, my G12 is showing hot pixels in short exposures when it shouldn't so I plan on returning it to Canon under warranty.

    Here are a few photos I took using my G12 in macro mode handheld. When I shot film I always shot macro on a tripod but with image stabilization I'm getting good results without one. These are full frame jpeg's with miminal post processing in Photoshop, mostly resizing for this forum.

    768 x 1024 - 1014K
    768 x 1024 - 962K
    768 x 1024 - 958K
    1024 x 768 - 1M
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I like the first three, but don't like that effect on the last two, looks a bit overdone with the HDRI or whatever it is you used.

    Well that's looking pretty creamy, peasant!

    Thanks for the edit.

    I think you're doing the right thing in returning the camera for repair, I wouldn't put up with dead pixels on the sensor either, no way. I mean when it's on the screen that's bad enough, but at least it doesn't effect the image. That's not the case when it's on the actual sensor though, and it's an absolute no if you use it for video. Whenever I buy a camera or monitor, anything like that, it's the first thing I check, can't be bothered with software that fixes it. I don't pay for faulty gear, it goes back - simple as that.

    As for the reviewers; I think they all talk bull to an extent, even DPReview do sometimes.

    As far as I'm concerned, reviews are just a handy little pointer, something to give me a rough idea. Once I find something that interests me, I look into it using plain old common sense. If a notable amount of people starts praising something then I'll take a look, see if it's warranted, and usually it is. Likewise, if a lot of people start dismissing with a passion, something a reviewer said, then the chances are that the reviewer was talking bollocks (which they often do).

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    BTW, nice pics Hank, looking sharp for handheld macro!

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,254
    edited December 1969

    Handheld Macro... some great shots here from everyone, here's one of my recent favourites taken while out for a walk two weeks ago. :-)

    800 x 580 - 140K
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    That's a neat looking shot, love the cold tones and the black against black, very nice!

  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Wow! Nice one Dave. Like the tones and texture.

    Here are a couple of photos of a 20 month old whom I was babysitting while his momma was working. Never had much experience with kids before. As a matter of fact, his was the first diapers I've ever dealt with. Of course I did put them on backwards at first. He was a lot of fun and I really bonded with the little guy. Unfortunately, he and his mom recently moved away. Photographing him was challenging as he was rarely still for very long.

    838 x 1024 - 768K
    819 x 1024 - 1M
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    No disrespect to the subject of the photo, but I have to say I love the background in that top photo.

    The warm tone on green, just the right amount of defocus, and the tilt all looks really good. I don't think it would have been quite as good if it wasn't tilted, so whether it be fluke or intentional, I think it came out well.

  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Thanks Len,

    The color photo was taken at Hart Prairie on the West flank of the San Francisco Peaks at an elevation of about 2,800 m.


    The meadow is inclined so that's why the background is tilted. Normally I use the electronic level on the LCD of my G12 as a reference, but I'm not sure if I did in this case as the little guy was running around most of the time. I was running with him and had the LCD flipped out and up while I held the camera at knee level. Trying to keep an eye on him, the background, and the LCD screen all at the same time was difficult.

    You may notice that the foreground on the left side is darker than the right. That's because I forgot to remove the Lensmate filter adapter when I used the on camera flash. It partially blocks the flash when the lens is zoomed wide. The adapter allows me to mount 52mm filters to the G12 lens. I have a fairly good collection of filters in that size, including a Cokin mount, since that's the same size my old Nikkor lenses use.

    I'll be without a camera for at least the next 10 days as I sent my camera off to get repaired under warranty today. There's no telling if I'll get the same camera back or if it will be a new camera or refurbished one. Can only hope for the best.

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited August 2012

    San Francisco Peaks looks very picturesque!

    As for the camera, they have no right to take something you purchased brand new, and while under warranty, replace it with a frenkenstein of refurbished components salvaged from other returns. Proview tried pulling that bullshit on me around 6-8 years ago, and got the biggest earful I'm guessing ever to grace their customer services department.

    Before I discovered the beauty of Amazon, I used to buy a lot of my stuff from PC World. I bought a brand new Proview branded monitor, and within three months, it started squealing so Proview arranged to pick it up for repair. Less than a week later I got a brand new box delivered to my door. I thought wow, they sent me a new monitor instead of repairing it!

    Then of course I opened the box and discovered that it was some frankenstein effort made up of other peoples returns. It was a CRT and the front panel was a different colour to the back panel because the front was stained with nicotene. I rang "Proview" and asked them what the hell they think they're playing at, and they told me "It's what they do now, it's better than waiting for a repair".

    I pointed out to the dumb ass that it might be what "they" do now, but isn't what they do with my equipment, stuff I'd paid for brand new. Talking to the dick on the end of the line was pointless, so I slapped it back in the box and returned it to PC World where I bought it. I told them what had happened, and that they either need to get my monitor back, or get their hand in the till for a refund. It got quite heated actually, and in the end they did indeed hand over a refund because I was ready for every piece of bullshit they tried feeding me.

    If you're not bothered about paying for a new camera and ending up with bits'n'pieces of other peoples returns, then it shouldn't be a problem. But if you are bothered, I'd make it clear to Canon you either want a repair of your own camera or you want a brand new one, because the fact is, they have to oblige if it's under warranty. You did not sign a contract agreeing to them sending you other peoples cast-offs when you bought it, which is effectively what those frankenstein efforts are.

    This is just bullshit they pull on customers for convenience because they get away with it most times. Its like taking your car into a garage and them giving you someone else's of the same model just because it's quicker than waiting for the repair. Bloody well ought to be illegal (and for all I know, probably is). I don't see how swapping peoples stuff without them knowing is legal, and that was the basis of how I got a refund from those twats at PC World.

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited August 2012

    There's lots of picturesque places around here. Unfortunately, I rarely have time to enjoy them.

    It's just plain wrong to return anything under warranty and have it be replaced or repaired with used parts.

    Part of the return procedure is to acknowledge the terms of Canon's warranty. The relevant paragraph states:

    "Product returned to a Canon USA repair facility and proven to be defective upon inspection will, in Canon's sole discretion and at no charge, be (a) repaired utilizing new, remanufactured, repaired and/or recycled parts; (b) exchanged for a new Product or; (c) exchanged for a refurbished Product, as determined by the Canon USA repair facility."

    That's why I was leery about sending it in. Won't know until whatever 'tis is returned by Canon. I can only hope for the best. I take good care of my equipment. My G12 didn't have a scratch on it and is cleaned regularly. I use an LCD screen protector and have a UV filter on the lens so it still looks brand new even though I've had it 7 months.

    They may just replace the sensor. I can only wait and see at this point.

    Post edited by Hokulea on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Makes no difference, because like I said, when you bought "new" with a 12 month warranty there was no contract signed by you saying that you'll accept "second hand" parts in exchange for parts of your "new" camera. When you bought that camera you chose to pay the price for a new camera and you have the right to keep that priviledge throughout the 12 months of the warranty.

    It's by no means unique to Canon either, they're pretty much all at it. Anyway, seeing as the G12 has been replaced by the G1X, you might get lucky and get a new one due to them getting rid of old stock. Probably more efficient to give you some new old stock than mess around replacing a sensor.

    Anyway, I notice you mentioned 52mm so I want to show you this neat piece of kit, I've been wanting to show it for a while actually.

    I was looking into making one of those liquid prisms people make for their home projectors, only I was gonna make it smaller and fix it to the camera to get an anamorphic image. While I was reading up on it I came across this really neat attachment that gives anamorphic bokeh by simply screwing a filter onto the front of the lens, so, no clumsy adapters to make or expensive anamorphic lenses and adapters to buy.

    I thought it was a joke when I first saw it and read that it was done using a simple screw-on filter. The vertical bokeh you get from it actually looks more anamorphic than sticking an anamorphic lens on the front of the camera - it's awesome.

    The Canon 50mm 1.8 has a 52mm thread, so that's perfect, because the smallest thread size it comes in is 52mm, same used on the G12 adapter as well, so you could use it even on your pocket camera. So imagine this, for around $120 you get anamorphic bokeh in your pocket. Not only is that amazing in itself, but so is the price for the look you get from it.

    They did this test to see if people could tell the difference between an anamorphic lens and the filter:

    You'd think the really stretched bokeh was from the anamorphic lens, but nope, this one was all done on the filter:

    To say I'm getting one would be an understatement, too bloody right I am, just as soon as I have my 1.8 (hopefully within a month) and have saved the cash again. I think the price of $120 is very fair for what you get out of it, and for the convenience of the size compared to those massive anamorphic rigs. This really does mean you can get anamorphic bokeh even from a pocket camera if you wanted.


  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I'll be happy to get my camera back with the problems fixed. If I get really lucky maybe they'll send me a 650D/T4i or a 5D Mk III :)

    I had no idea what "anamorphic" meant so I looked it up. Nice effect for shooting video with a DSLR. The prices for anamorphic lenses like the Iscoramas are crazy! A filter that mimics the effect for $120 makes a lot more sense. Being able to use rack focus is a big plus too. Looking forward to seeing the results you get with it.


  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hokulea said:
    I'll be happy to get my camera back with the problems fixed. If I get really lucky maybe they'll send me a 650D/T4i or a 5D Mk III :)
    Yeah, they might even send you a 1D-X if you're nice to them, but good luck with it anyway, I hope you get what you'd prefer from it.

    Hokulea said:
    I had no idea what "anamorphic" meant so I looked it up. Nice effect for shooting video with a DSLR. The prices for anamorphic lenses like the Iscoramas are crazy! A filter that mimics the effect for $120 makes a lot more sense. Being able to use rack focus is a big plus too. Looking forward to seeing the results you get with it.


    Yup, nice effect, and the reason I want it is because it's a missing element from the "Cinema Look" and it's something that can't be faked in post-work (I wish it could). Horizontal Flares can be faked to an extent, but not the Vertical Bokeh. Actually though, my perverse wandering mind is just as interested in using it for stills as for video. I think it would be cool to have 18-Megapixel images shot through a prime with vertical bokeh!

    Means I'd have three types of bokeh for stills: Standard Prime, Vertical, or if I twist it 90 degrees, Horizontal.

    It's not all good though, because while it wont really effect stills resolution, it wont help with video resolution like a real anamorphic lens does because it doesn't actually squeeze the image meaning you can't gain extra detail by vertically squashing it to the right aspect ratio.

    Here's what I mean, this is a 550D with twice the resolution my 550D has, just because of the real anamorphic lens:

    So that's what I'd really like, only here's how he made it and I can't afford to take risks like that yet (which is a bummer):

    But yup, can't wait to get the filter, not totally ideal, but the price and size make up for it (for now at least).

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Looks like Peasant Dan has been busy:

  • BeamerpedBeamerped Posts: 12
    edited December 1969

    Len, I'm flattered. You remind me of The Police the way you watch Every Breath I Take. :cheese: I'm going to a local community college this fall for its Cinematography A.S., and needed to submit a demo reel. Basically I hashed together my personal projects from the past year. Anyways, I got around to getting that 500T stock transferred in 16:9; some of it is in this reel, but most of it you've seen already. The 500T shots are

    1. Car argument
    2. Treehouse
    3. Axe swing
    4. Basketball

    I was also testing how my new Peleng 8mm fisheye would look on 16mm. I knew crop factor would make the focal length look equivalent to about a 35mm lens on full frame, but the real test was if I could get away with the distortion of it. Not perfect by any means, but as an alternative to the stock lens (17-69mm), which isn't wide enough for interiors, it works wonders. In addition to the 85B filter for daylight-tungsten conversion, I warmed up those shots a bit in post (maybe a bit too much).

  • edited December 1969

    Having a bad day? Bet his was worse.

    1920 x 1200 - 216K
  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    At least the plane isn't on fire.

    Finally got my G12 back from Canon. It's the same one I sent them, at least as far as the serial number goes. They remapped the sensor and replaced the top of the camera with all the controls. They didn't charge me anything even though the reason the top had to be replaced was due to me spilling Red Bull on it. So, I'm happy they fixed my camera and it appears to be working fine.

    I've been playing around with an IR filter and will post some photos soon. Here's a panorama of the Vegas skyline from the Palms. It's stitched in Ps CS4 from 5 images. I shot the series handheld in P mode and auto ISO. Shutter speeds ranged from 1/10 to 1/20 sec and the ISO varied from 1000 to 1600. Should have used manual settings but at the time I was too inebriated.

    Sorry, had to re-size to a 2,000 pixel width for the forum.

    2000 x 460 - 2M
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited September 2012

    Do not flatter yourself, peasant!

    I only spotted it because I noticed your comment on a Canon Anamorphic video, and thought to myself, I wonder what Peasant Dan is doing during the silence?

    Great stuff, the footage definitely has a more professional feel to it thanks to the rig you made. I also like where you decide to start and stop the movement. Anyway, best of luck with the College course, sounds very cool, especially as you'll likely get to use fancy rigs and stuff.

    I'm having a bad day, but I doubt his was worse ;-)
    BTW, I thought it was a model plane at first glance, due to the size of the ripples!

    Glad to hear you got your camera back in satisfactory shape, just don't use it as a beer mat in the future :-P
    Nice pano!

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 1,316
    edited December 1969

    Len, where are all the bestist pics and bestist videos from your bestist camera?

    :prodwithastick: :mrgreen:

  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I'm keeping both my camera and myself far away from Redbull these days. Haven't seen any hotpixels after Canon fixed it. Here are a couple of recent photos. The mountain view is with an IR filter. The other is at West Fork in Oak Creek canyon near Sedona. I'm trying to improve my black and white conversions. Been using Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CS4. Unfortunately the CS4 version doesn't support my G12 RAW files so I have to convert to dng before I open them in Camera Raw. Wish there was a way to post video here.

    2000 x 792 - 2M
    2000 x 1500 - 4M
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    You'd be my guest if only there was something to show!

    The only camera that gets any action is the Sony HX5v (always has been), and that's my mothers now. Of course, after years of waiting for the right sort of camera to come out, none came, so I bought a DSLR. Of course, as soon as I buy a DSLR, there's a whole bunch of small cameras with fully manual video being released, and to rub it in even further, they even have large sensors!

    - RX100 comes out.
    - RX1 comes out giving a full-frame sensor in your pocket (although I could never afford that one anyway).
    - Even the tiny NEX gets a tiny lens to go with it.

    All of them Sony, and any one of them would have been suitable.

    Anyway, I notice "PJF the Snowman: Adventures of an Icicle" is a long time coming old chap!
    You really need to get filming it in Lumix HD and get it out there for the rest of us to see :prodwithastick:

    If it does well, you might get a distribution deal and find it included with this lovely collection - :mrgreen:

    Nice looking shots for sure, it's stunning place!

    Sorry to hear about the RAW conversion issues, but that's what happens when you support companies like Adobe. Other programs, although ten times cheaper, get their RAW importers updated routinely, for free, and you get to keep your money too ;-)

    Anyway, this is the last round of posting I'm doing for a while so you'll have to excuse any apparent ignorance by me not replying.

  • HokuleaHokulea Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I don't have much time to post here either. Took my dad to the ER at hospital last Friday after he was found semi-conscious behind the wheel of his car. Friday night at the ER was interesting. Spent close to 12 hrs there. Helped the ER Doc do a lumbar puncture (spinal tap) then helped move dad on and off the CT scan apparatus. Went without sleep for 24 hrs then spent the next 2 days and nights at dad's bedside as his private nurse. Got my EMT cert over 30 years ago and haven't had any experience re the medical field since then.

    The day before dad was due to be released from the hospital, the water supply line to the house broke under the driveway. Since then I've been digging trenches with a shovel while perusing the local plumbing codes and permit requirements, as well as pricing materials and tool rentals. I'm living on bottled water and haven't had a shower in almost a week.

    After dad got out of the hospital, mom went to the ER with pneumonia. My sister's VW caught on fire as she was driving it and the starter went out on my car. At times my PC refuses to boot which means I need to reinstall the OS sometime soon. I also recently lost my job and the Dept of Ed is hounding me about my student loan. Oh, I forgot to mention my dad has dementia and no short term memory whatsoever so we go round in circles most of the time.

    I'm actually coping quite well under these circumstances without resorting to booze or drugs. Though I don't even dare contemplate what else might go wrong at this point. I have enough to deal with as it is. After all this madness passes I may take up skydiving.

    This image was taken at Oak Creek canyon near Sedona AZ a few weeks ago. Not quite satisfied with the B&W tonality but I'm learning. My film of choice for many years was Kodak's Tri-X which I developed in the bathroom when I couldn't rent a darkroom. I exposed Tri-X at ISO's ranging from 100 to 3200 and could get near grainless 8 x 10 prints most of the time. Still a ways off from similar results as far as tonality goes with digital.

    2000 x 1500 - 4M
Sign In or Register to comment.