| Gallery, Projects and General > How do I?? |
| Cameras and Software |
| (1/6) > >> |
| JD:
Gentlemen, I have a couple of projects running around in my head which I want to share with you. I have looked through the forum and have read threads on Posting still and video content, but what camera/software do you use to make this happen. Cheers John W |
| awemawson:
It's probably not ideal, but for still pictures I take them on my iPhone, down load to my PC, open them using 'Paint' under Windows 7, resize them to 640x480 pixels , often need to rotate them as well depending how I was holding the iPhone, then save them using a name that acts as a caption to the picture when attached to a post. By not using a photo hosting service, but putting them up as attachments, it means that as long as the forum survives, so do the pictures. There are several threads in the projects section where the pictures no longer show, as the server where ever the pictures were hosted is no longer running. For the few videos I've done, currently I have no editing facility, so what ever gets shot gets uploaded to Youtube and a link embedded in the posting. |
| TLGriff:
John, I use a Sony Handicam (CX-100) for my YouTube videos and edit them with Windows Live Movie Maker. The camera is more than adequate in the HD mode, but the software leaves a lot to be desired. It gets the job done, but it's cumbersome to use and limited in capability. I've been looking into new Video editing software and the reviews seem to favor CyberLink Power Director. I haven't tried it yet, but the price is right at about $50. For stills I just use a Cannon pocket cam and Photoshop if editing is required. Tom |
| dsquire:
--- Quote from: JD on November 10, 2013, 08:56:09 AM ---Gentlemen, I have a couple of projects running around in my head which I want to share with you. I have looked through the forum and have read threads on Posting still and video content, but what camera/software do you use to make this happen. Cheers John W --- End quote --- John Andrew makes some very good points in his post above. :thumbup: I am going to point you to what I consider good examples of responsible posting that is easy to read, shows good picture size and detail and will remain on the forum as long as it exists. http://madmodder.net/index.php/topic,8261.msg101914.html#msg101914 This is a series of 4 posts by awemawson (Andrew). "Attaching" a photo places the photo or photo's at the end of a post. This keeps the photos current with the text and easy to follow along. If Andrew had chosen to make this all 1 post then there would be 1 long post of text followed by 7 thumbnails. In order to read and follow the photo's there would be quite a bit of scrolling up and down. By limiting to 1 or 2 photos per post IMHO it is a better read. The other option is one of the photo hosting services which are supposedly free but if not regularly maintained they can go by the wayside. Feel free to ask any further questions and we will be glad to help. I'm looking forward to seeing your projects. :D :) Cheers :beer: Don |
| vtsteam:
To answer the questions in particular, I use a regular compact camera for both movies and stills, It is a Fuji Finepix F31fd. I prefer not to use flash when photographing anything and Fuji Finepix has always been way ahead of the pack in terms of the quality and light sensitivity of its photo receptors. And at a very reasonable price -- I think I bought my camera for $150. I don't give a fig for the supposed resolution of a camera -- which all manufacturers fight over. More crappy pixels doesn't make a photo better. A lesser number of good ones does. What do I mean by good ones? My camera will shoot a dinner party in candlelight, with no flash, and the resulting image will look like a Rembrandt, rather than a sand painting of the inside of a tunnel populated by ghosts. Its resolution is far above that required by the 640 x480, or 800 x600 typical useful photo printed on this forum, and more than enough for an 8-1/2" x 11" high resolution photo print. Large numbers of pixels are a pain in the neck in fact, unless you are a professional doing commercial poster sized high resolution printing for an art show. There's little more annoying online experience than waiting an age to download email and finally finding out that a relative has mailed me a boilerplate "having a great time" message with thirty 12 megapixel photos of their recent visit to the zoo. I have only a DSL connection here in rural Vermont. And since to display them my computer must internally reduce them to less than a tenth that size to completely fill a screen anyway, what a waste of bandwidth, storage capacity and time. I also don't pay any attention to the supposed zoom ratio of a camera. Most manufacturers post their zoom ratio as a combination of digital zoom and optical zoom. To me optical zoom is the only one that counts. Digital zoom just means that a microprocessor in your camera has multiplied the number of pixels it received from the photocell by some number, and then smoothed things out. Maybe. Thus a low priced low capacity photocell, combined with a limited mechanical zoom mechanism, both producing a limited quality image , can have that poor image scaled up to an amazing number of pixels -- thus satisfying the advertising thirst for "high" resolutions, and "high" zoom ratios available. Fuji, for some reason decided to go against the grain, and manufacture their own high quality, high sensitivity cells, provide believable numbers for actual resolution, and optical zoom and use high quality optics in reasonably priced compact cameras. Their light sensitivity was always at the head of the pack. I've owned 3 Fuji cameras over the years, and they have taken superb photos in all conditions. They also take great movies, and with a 1 gig card, my present camera will record up to a half hour at 640 x 480, with low light capability -- and that's plenty for posting on forums like these. In fact I have to reduce size with software at that, or it would take me forever to upload. DSL upload speeds are typically about one tenth of download speeds. My camera is no longer available -- though possibly obtainable through a refurbisher. But the compact Finepix F-series line is what I've stuck with, and haven't been disappointed so far. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |