Re: Digital camera pix

[Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>]

Hi Gary,

	As digital cameras get better and better, they are starting to "act" more
like film cameras.  Instead of exposure to light causing a chemical
reaction on film, digital cameras discharge the capacitors of the pixels.
They have now gotten very good at it as you beautiful picture shows!  Older
digital cameras did not have a wonderful linear time exposure quality but
it appears they have figured that out now.  It appears the basic speed of
your camera is very fast and is immune to the confusion of a bright fast
light in a dim background.  It seems to grasp the fine details of dim
leaders as well as the intense arcs very well.  There may be fun fast
action events this camera could catch too.

BTW - Where did you get you camera and about how much do they cost?  Do you
like it for coiling pictures?  Would you generally recommend it?  I too am
looking for a nice digital for coiling and your picture says it all!

Cheers,

	Terry


At 01:27 PM 7/28/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi All:
>
>Today I began playing with my new toy, an Olympus C3000 3.3 megapixel
>digital camera.  This model seemed particularly well suited for arc pictures
>because one has the option of reverting to manual focus, aperture, and
>"shutter" speed, up to 16 full seconds.  The color and resolution of the
>images just blow me away, it's too bad that the best quality images are so
>large.  But I digress...
>
>I've noticed that arc pictures show the so-called banjo effect much more
>pronounced than do film-based pictures I've taken.  Does anyone know if this
>is simply a result of the better focus and resolution, or does the image
>sensor not truly integrate continuously over the exposure interval, instead
>taking discrete samples in time and adding them?
>
>A sample picture is on my web site at:
>http://people.ne.mediaone-dot-net/lau/tesla/super_banjo.jpg
><http://people.ne.mediaone-dot-net/lau/tesla/super_banjo.jpg>  (120KB)
>
>Regards, Gary Lau
>Waltham, MA USA
>