Re: Digital camera pix

["David Trimmell" <davidt-at-pond-dot-net> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Hi gary, 

Well I am truely impressed! I have produced several photos with film that
show the "banjo" effect well. But I haven't been overly impressed with
digital cameras (<$1K), how much did yours cost? Really good quality pixs
will set you back in the megabyte range per shot, so those 32 meg cards are
just getting you close to a roll of Kodak! I suspect that the "superior"
shots you got (got to have over a K into that Olympus, manual settings!?)
are from a nice crisp sample rate. As film is linear with exposure... 

Regards,

David Trimmell

At 03:37 PM 7/28/00 , you wrote:
>Original poster: "Lau, Gary" <Gary.Lau-at-compaq-dot-com> 
>
>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
>
>
>