[ Did you mean to not cc the OH list? ]
>> 1. It should support 24 bit color JPEG2000 (both lossy and
>> lossless) compression. JPEG is basically obsolete and I can't help
>> but wonder why it is still the standard format for digital cameras
>> since the artifacts seriously degrade images -- actually worse
>> than lower resolution would be.
>
> Most people just take snapshots and don't care about quality.
Yes but ... there are still somewhat serious photographers. Those that
purchased cameras for > $100 in the 70s (when I was selling them)
included serious photographers. I guess that now serious photographers
would be those that use their computer to improve their photos.
>> 2. The so called RAW format should be Adobe DNG and/or "OpenRAW"
>> (which isn't actually a format).
>
> Is Adobe DNG an open standard?
Adobe has published it, as they did with PDF.
If it is anything like PDF I want nothing to do with it.
PostScript is good, but PDF is an unending source of problems. :-(
For still images what about png?
> Seems like it would be easy to give the user lots of choices of
> formats, including "write your own".
Doesn't seem like a good idea. A standard is needed.
There are plenty of standards to choose from.
If someone wants to create a new improved standard, they need
an Open Camera to test it on.
>> 4. Then there is the problem of remote control of the camera; it
>> appears that there are no standards here. A computer connected by
>> Ethernet, IEEE-1394, or USB (a camera would probably have only one
>> of these) should be able to display the live preview image, obtain
>> exposure and focus information, and control all aspects of the
>> camera that can be controlled on the camera.
>
> And infrared remote, which can be handy for some applications.
I presume that you mean without having to use a laptop.
A wire to a computer would be usable for studio shooting, but would
be problematic in the field. It is hard enough keeping the camera dry.
Maybe attach a PDA (Palm pilot or whatever) to the back of the camera?
I read a review of my camera by a photojournalist that mounted the
camera up on a wall (or something like that) at some event (press
conference?) and controlled it with the remote. The remote is like
a small TV/VCR remote. RF instead of infrared might have advantages.
Ideally you'd want a camera ID to allow controlling multiple cameras
without one camera responding to commands intended for a different camera.
Hmmm, manual shows a jack for a LANC cable. Local Application Control Bus.
There are three variables with a digital camera. Shutter, Aperture,
*AND* the ISO setting. So, you should be able to set any two of them
that you choose and if the third falls into the available range, then it
should work.
How do you change the sensitivity of the sensor? I'd think it was fixed.
As far as I can tell my camera doesn't allow changing the sensitivity.
> Does anyone make a high resolution display that is small enough to
> use on a camera? My video/still camera only captures 720x480, even
> in still mode, but even so the viewfinder resolution is a lot lower
> than that, so I can't tell how much detail I'm getting. I suppose
> with the 12 Mpixel (or whatever they're up to this week) sensors you
> can just assume you're getting a lot of detail, but I can't assume
> that with only 720x480. With video, even 1920x1080 isn't enough to
> assume you're getting the detail you want.
You can use the LCD for a high resolution preview.
I suppose with an OpenCamera you could program it to zoom in and then
scroll.
If the camera has a
focus meter, you don't need full resolution for the EVF.
I'm not talking about focus. I don't even know what a focus meter is.
Say you want a shot of small text and you want to make sure that the
text is readable. With only 720x480 or even 1920x1080 it might not be.
With 14 Mpixel that shouldn't be a problem. And I kinda doubt that
anyone makes a 14 Mpixel display.
Or, if the EVF
is removable, then those that want a high resolution (and large)
viewfinder can purchase one. Some people use the LCD and a hood and
eyepiece. They don't need any additional viewfinder.
I don't want a large screen in the field.
Large format backs have a Peltier cooler to cool the sensor chip to
reduce noise.
How do they prevent condensation? I suppose with large format, lugging
a giant battery around isn't a problem since everything is big and heavy
anyway.
> What I'd like to see is a good interface to allow the user to select
> what part of the screen they want to be in focus. And have a button
> to semi-lock the focus. The auto focus would still track the object
> if it moves slightly, but is prevented from jumping to another
> object that is closer/farther away.
Yes, I think that serious photographers would like to be able to use
auto focus like a range finder except when shooting actions shots. What
I would like is to have a center circle and you push the button if you
have power focus and it focuses and then you release the button and it
stops unless you turn it on full time.
That sounds good. It would conserve battery life as well.
Also should have depth of field preview. (push button, lens stops down)
> Similar interface for auto exposure.
??
All the world is not 18% gray and uniformally lit. I'm not a big fan
of average or center weighted average metering. It makes sense for
the snapshot crowd, but I miss the meter my Canon FTb had. There was
a rectangle (12% of area comes to mind, but it was along time ago so
that might be wrong) that was metered, the rest of the image was ignored.
Point the rectangle at something you thought would average out and
meter it. Reframe and shoot. Some cameras had a 1-3% circle instead.
With an OpenCamera and electronic sensor instead of film you could
program whatever type of metering you like.
The issue here is that with 35mm (24x36mm) that defraction limits
resolution at f/16. Smaller sensors need a large aperture to avoid
defraction. So, you have to use a ND filter to shoot in daylight.
I just looked at the manual and it doesn't say what the minimum
aperture is. bizzare. Works fine in daylight. But I doubt that
the lens is the limiting factor for resolution when the sensor
is only 720x480.
There are advantages to a small sensor. Mine has 1/3" CCD.
Resolution sucks. Low light performance sucks. BUT...
it has a 14x optical zoom (35x digital zoom). I recall 35mm
SLR zooms tend to only go up to 3x. 14x is *really* nice.
The digital zoom is nice when using the camera as a telescope.
Actually usable due to the optical stablization.
I leave the digital zoom off when recording, I can always
crop the image in the computer.
And, I didn't mention. Cameras are getting too complicated -- I like my F3.
You could deal with complicated in studio shooting, but in the
field you need good ergonomics. The fancy features don't help
if you forget about them or can't figure out how to get into
the right setup menu or whatever. Or if you can't find the
right button by feel.
Or if it just takes too long. The shot might disappear while
you're standing there futzing with menus.
_______________________________________________
Open-hardware mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-hardware
