Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Henry Carmona, Oct 3, 2003.
Actually, i just thought this was a funny sale
Wow that's a freakish picture Henry, lol. The shutter speed (do digicams have those?) seems to be very fast as there's no blurring around the bull's legs.
Scott, digital cameras have shutters, at least some do. They open to expose the CCD or CMOS sensor just like film cameras. Mine can do anywhere from 30 seconds to 1/4000th of a second.
Keith, are you sure you're not thinking of the viewfinder mirror which flips out of the way on digital SLRs? Even though most digitial cameras have a "shutter speed" setting (and even an audio shutter sound), I'm pretty sure this is just an equivilent electronic setting for familiarity, much like the ISO settings on digital cameras.
Dan, perhaps not all do, but considering what all my camera does, I'm pretty sure it has a shutter, there's even instructions for shutter lock up in order to clean the sensor. I've got a Canon EOS-10D, which is fairly advanced compared to many digital cameras.
Being a Canon film SLR guy, I actually know the 10D quite well and will probably be acquiring one in the next couple of months. I generally assumed that there would be no need for a mechanical shutter on a digital SLR, but I called my dad since he has a 10D and confirmed it. I'm not sure WHY they have shutters, but you're right. Seems to me that the CCD could simply be powered for the neceesary equivilent "shutter speed", but maybe they aren't that responsive.
Dan, it uses a CMOS sensor instead of CCD, not that I know what the difference is but it's supposed to be better, and it can simulate different film speeds and does have the normal aperture and shutter speeds you find in film cameras. Probably what they do is charge up the CMOS so that it's constantly ready to receive light, then open the shutter, thus exposing the sensor just like you do film. Without doing something like that, you couldn't accurately simulate film and would lose some of the effects.
And so it becomes a thread about the camera used and not the picture itself. My goodness, r we all too nitpicking these days that we can't just enjoy what's in front of us?....must be the all too familiar astute senses we HTFers have developed looking into monitors, hearing subtles differences in cabling, etc.
Looked like the picture was taken at the largest aperture possible (the background is blurred so shallow depth of field). The exposure of the bull is nearly perfect. Focus on the bull's head is a bit off though. I think the focus point is actually on the nose, or just in front of it. There seems to be a fair bit of digital artifacts. I wonder if this picture was taken from a TV camera frame? Hard to tell without the original full-resolution picture, although it almost looks like I see de-interlacing artifacts.