yup, if you heard sound, it's got sound. i didn't graft sound on later.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Craig McCluskey wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:15:15 -0400 Gary Hurst
> wrote:
>
> > well, i mean, if you don't want to create any new images, then it's not
> > any sort of issue to you. i
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:15:15 -0400 Gary Hurst
wrote:
> well, i mean, if you don't want to create any new images, then it's not
> any sort of issue to you. i used to like making images. and then i
> stopped liking it. and now i like it again.
>
> i've tried to get into camcorders, but they are
well, i mean, if you don't want to create any new images, then it's not any
sort of issue to you. i used to like making images. and then i stopped
liking it. and now i like it again.
i've tried to get into camcorders, but they are a pain in the ass and just
aren't useful to me. the cheap camer
it functionally replaces instamatic in your life. the statement is neutral
on the argument of whether it is better (which it surely is) or worse than
instamatic or 8mm film movie cameras.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Mountain Man wrote:
> jabba wrote:
> > your $50 camera replaces both the
>
jabba wrote:
> but there is also a lot to be said for what the $50 pocket camera
> can do for you as well.
I did film for yearbook 35 years ago.
I did film when we had young kids.
Today - I really could care less to have pictures - of anything, so
the cheep china stuff is still lost on me.
mao
__
jabba wrote:
> your $50 camera replaces both the
> old instamatic
Instamatic is not even close nor near the ballpark - kompleetly different arena.
mao
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.o
i always have a bit of a soft spot for film, but if you want to work fast
and cheap, digital is the only way to go. your $50 camera replaces both the
old instamatic and the 8mm movie camera and fits in your pocket. i'm using
4 gig flash cards now. that's over 30 minutes of 640x480 video several
Mountain Man writes:
> Allan wrote:
>> That said, I think even moderately priced digital
>> cameras of today produce far better images than their similarly-priced
>> 35mm equivalents did a decade ago.
>
> Ah, the argument ensues.
> Digital versus analog - for photography, for musak, for anything.
Allan wrote:
> That said, I think even moderately priced digital
> cameras of today produce far better images than their similarly-priced
> 35mm equivalents did a decade ago.
Ah, the argument ensues.
Digital versus analog - for photography, for musak, for anything...
mao
_
Gary Hurst writes:
> i never really messed much with it. wanted to see what it could do without
> any sort of real effort on my part
>
> http://image74.webshots.com/174/0/66/7/2257066070089947248MRzkJW_fs.jpg
>
>
> i find that really impressive for a bottom end camera. you?
Well I wouldn't cal
Impressive.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Gary Hurst wrote:
> i never really messed much with it. wanted to see what it could do without
> any sort of real effort on my part
>
> http://image74.webshots.com/174/0/66/7/2257066070089947248MRzkJW_fs.jpg
>
>
> i find that really impressive for a b
i never really messed much with it. wanted to see what it could do without
any sort of real effort on my part
http://image74.webshots.com/174/0/66/7/2257066070089947248MRzkJW_fs.jpg
i find that really impressive for a bottom end camera. you?
-- next part --
An HTML atta
12 matches
Mail list logo
