71–80 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why simulate? Most modern cameras can be controlled through USB. Just actually take each one (except for ISO, which you can easily fake), encode the frames in a reasonable bitrate MP4, then have a lookup for the frame in the video. :D
This would require 18000 frames
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I love fiddling with analog cameras for a bit, or even experimenting with old lens on newer DSLRs. I have a Canon Rebel from 2011 and sometimes love to use my soviet Zenit Helios 44M lens in it. I do have the Zenit which came with this lens, but I have yet to develop its film.
I used to have an old rebel xti, how do you actually confirm focus shooting like this? as far as I remember there were no aids for manual focus like film slr ground glass or modern mirrorless live view focus peaking.
I did a bit of research, for better results you can try:
- focus peaking
- focus magnifier
- aperture priority (so that it would choose the shutter speed for you)
- and you still would need to confirm focus manually with you naked eyes
I like to capture shots with subjects in an ideal distance where I can have some interesting bookeh but still capture the subject. The bookeh on the Helios lens is beautiful!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why simulate? Most modern cameras can be controlled through USB. Just actually take each one (except for ISO, which you can easily fake), encode the frames in a reasonable bitrate MP4, then have a lookup for the frame in the video. :D
This would require 18000 frames
Also, there's around 4600 that are pure white, and something near that that are pure black, for the scene above (although more dynamic range would be very cool).
[1] 18000 * 0.5s shutter / 3600 = 2.5 hours for worst case shutter, /2 for average = 1.25 hours of exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would require 18000 frames
If you consider how long lower speed shutters will take and the aperture combinations, it would take a long time to take all the pictures and would stop being feasible.
Every photographer knows very well the exposure triangle: shutter speed, aperture and ISO, but in astronomy usually only aperture and focal ratio are considered. So I added a third dimension to illustrate the basic triad of astrophotography: telescope aperture, focal ratio and image resolution.
> image "noise" or "grain" that is introduced into a picture as you increase the ISO Not this absolute shit again. This is not how photography works or how physics actually work. Image noise does NOT come from high ISO, it comes from low exposure (not enough light hitting the sensor). ISO is just a multiplier between a number of photons and the brigthness of a pixel in your photo. The implementation of the multiplier…
> If you keep the exposure the same, then changing the ISO on a digital camera will NOT introduce any more noise So does this mean that changin the ISO directly on my camera, or in DarkTable/whatever at post-proc time is virtually the same?
That's just one more reason not to be afraid of auto ISO. The camera will choose something sane and you'll have ample room on both sides to get the image you wanted.
For me it's missing something to illustrate the relationship between shutter speed and motion blur. If the subject was a running fan instead of of lightbulb that would have been ideal.
From the website: If I ever find a good moving prop like a small fan, maybe I'll also re-shoot new previews to demonstrate how shutter speed affects moving objects. Now, I'm just not sure how would one simulate a running fan with a picture. While for a static image you can have separated foreground and background and then apply effects for simulation (I know iPhone HEIC images have this property), for moving images y…
> Now, I'm just not sure how would one simulate a running fan with a picture.
I don't think it's necessary for this app. This is simulating what the camera sees, not what our eyes can see.
I know that modern systems like aperture priority or full auto make things easier, but I maintain that the many photos I took with a fully manual film camera (Canon AE-1) were simply better than those taken with any subsequent DSLR. The simple act of calibrating the shutter speed, aperture size, and manual focus before and during shooting helps you slow down and think about composition and framing, making the end res…
One thing that is lost when using auto cameras is using focus & DOF as part of composition. With an auto-everything camera, the only part the user does is frame the shot. But composing requires thought about where you choose to place the focal plane, and the depth of field. Also lost with auto digital is pre-visualisation. No need for it as most people just bang off shots & look at the result. The delay of seeing fil…
That's why virtually all cameras have aperture-priority though, right?