Re: Digital camera pix

["Robin Copini" <rcopini-at-merlin-dot-net.au> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Hi Brian, Terry, All,

 I too have the same camera, however the 2.1 mpixel version, (grumble
grumble), it
takes excellent photos, see my site at


 http://www.geocities-dot-com/rcopini/

All of the pics on this site were taken with this camera.

 There are several versions of this camera available now including a psuedo SLR
version. I can highly recommend them to anyone who is considering buying
one, I have
recently acquired a 64 meg card which will giveme 132 images at 1600 X 1200
X 2.1
mpix (jpeg), or 8 X 8meg (each!) tiff pics. It is an excellent camera.

Best Regards

 Robin



Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: 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
> >