That could well be - they both have more options/settings than I can comprehend without the manual in hand, and by then, the picture opportunity is long gone :-( In the olden days, one reading of this stuff and it was imprinted, but now-a-daze I have to get the book out to set the alarm clock.
Huh, I seem to be more confused than usual, I could have sworn there was a
10 meg version, maybe I'm thinking of the FZ50, is that the one that's effectively the same as the V-LUX?
However, considering the photos are going to be viewed on a computer screen, which is normally set to 96 dpi, even a 1 Mp camera will manage that job well. Otherwise, with a hi-pixel count, you're going to have to be throwing away pixels anyway to get the thing down to a viewable size. Now if you'r talking about printing pictures, especially enlarging them, the the higher Mpixel ratings can be a help, but come on; what good is a 3' x 4' photograph? I've only used high pixels once; when I wanted to get some individual faces out of a photograph and wanted to keep their detail. In addition, 6 megapixels doesn't necessarily mean there will be 6 megapixels in the photo; for that info you have to research and dig into the camera specs a little deeper. Multiple pixels can be defined/used in different ways semantically and synctacticly.
HTH
Pop`
You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
Hmm. I never even knew that the FZ50 was being sold under the Leica name. Both it and the FZ30 are very nice hardware for the price.
"Robatoy" wrote
Yabbut, the cowbell always comes before the big crash cymbal hit, or right after/before the 'rain tree' fades, and it takes two hours of studio time and an iChing consultation to make that decision.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear those in a mix ... in the rare event that you even notice.
That's my impression. All my 35mm gear has sat in the safe for years, I'm not about to lug around a bag of bodies and lenses and so on these days, but a one-piece design with a lense with that kind of range would be a different matter.
Oh, frigg... the 'RainTree'... I made a 'bass' version of a rain tree once out of a 6" SonoTube and big marbles...my kids and I had a huge laugh...
The attention to detail in a recording studio is such a waste of time these days. By the time they squeeze the s*it out of the dynamic range by trying to get some 'level' out of an MP3, detail, as we once knew it, is long gone. I hope you'll find the time to read this article which opened my eyes...with quite a bit of sadness.
Don't stop there. Printers will never equal the quality you get from a well made photo print or even a machine print at the 1 hour lab. We were right weren't we? At leas a few years ago.
My OM-2 sits mostly in the bag along with the lenses while my digital is in my shirt pocket and I've put together a few albums from my Canon printer. . .
Pushing more pixels into the same chip area just gives you more noise.
This guy does a lot of writing about DP and image sensors.
"Robatoy" wrote
Read it, but didn't need to ... lived it. Engineered a big commercial a few years back using a Ricky Martin production as the backing track ... I was instructed to rip the song off a CD his producer sent along for the purpose. If you've ever seen "music" (I use the term in the most loose sense) waveforms represented on computer software, you will appreciate the fact that, on the screen, and starting at zero to the end of the song, the waveform from this track looked precisely like a red tubafour extending from left to right ... now, that's compression!
It was pretty standard practice to compress mixes pretty hard for radio play when I first started engineering back in the dinosaur "vinyl" days. (those
57 Chevy dashboard speakers were so bad that we routinely, and "accidently", drove off with speakers from the local drive-in move theater as "upgrades")... and if you don't learn to compress for TV, you'll go broke quickly.
BUT, we had a sensibility to the music in those days that is arguably nonexistent today (just another example of the world going to s*it, Joe B. ... with all the cRap on the airwaves) and were considerate enough to do two masters, one for airplay, one for retail/the people ... that's much too complicated for today's ProTools mouse jockey's world of "let the pigs have the same swill".
You start with s*it, no matter how much sugar you use, you still got s*it.
.... can you say "iPOD ear buds"?
It sure doesn't look any worse. This is definitely a case of "if a little is good, a lot is better."
And a whole lot less wash water going into the environment.... water that had all kinda of nifty bromides and crap in it. Also, the making of film is hardly a green process. But I miss the way Kodachrome 25 used to lie to me.
. . . you give me such nice, bright colors I love to take photographs So, Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y
. . . nailed it.
It wasn't linear.
You just said it, Art: : "slightly strong in the red and yellow,"... a nice 'untruth'. Seductive.
You are right about Fuji, it lied also... but badly.
I also got great 16x20 in Cibachromes from those slides. Then I went to C prints and CPS 135.
But I could never find 120 roll film in Kodachrome; it was always Ectachrome. another slightly bluer/greener transparency film.
You can always add a little cowbell in Photoshop?
I need MORE COWBELL!
"David's Newsgroups" wrote
Yep ... the old sad, but all too true, live soundman's favorite joke:
Know what the musician, buried up to his nose in sand with only the top of his head sticking out, asks the soundman?
"Can I have some more sand, please"
Right, Barry?
As long as it's HIS sand.
I also forgot...
"In my monitor, I'd like everything louder than everything else."
And underexpose the sky and you got that wonderful blue--didn't _need_ no steenkeeng _polarizer_.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required