i think i've just found my new camera

hehe, some may remember that i bought a new camera not too long ago, last august, i think it was. it was a kodak Z885. that's a decent little camera at 8 megapixel and 5x zoom for under $250. it took decent photos and no real complaints for what it was and what i wanted it for, but i broke it. i carried it around on my belt in a pouch and it no longer works. i'll be sending it back to kodak.

so, not having a working camera again, i thought i'd look around and one of the 'top 10 camera reviews' put me onto a panasonic, their 'Lumix - FZ8'. it got a very good rating and i even went to the store looking for it. i'm glad now they didnt have it in stock. i found another panasonic that just REALLY fits the bill!

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-el...l%20camera

this puppy is impressive... 18x optical zoom at 8 megapixel, so QUITE a bit more optical zoom on this one. it also carries a larger price tag, listed at $349 suggested retail. but i have found one place that has it at $319 and on average retails for $333. so, a bit more pricey and not quite as compact, but a LOT more features and quality!

the kodak wouldnt shoot in RAW. it did good pics in jpeg, but wouldnt do RAW. the panasonic does. and i wont go into a full review here; you can find those yourself. in fact, here's the dpreview page for that: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp

so, i'm in lust mode here this really does look impressive

Quote
Kraellin wrote: it does auto-bracketing, 3 frames, for doing HRDI imaging!

Nice!!!

Hdr is teh nu radical. I was looking at some apps and examples online the other day, man, Dali would be proud at how just amping up the detail and contrast like that can warp a picture and make it seem new again without moving one item in the dang frame. I can't wait til the movie people really get into it, it'd make for some awesome morphing fx and whatnot. I dun even know anything about it, and if it's 2X the normal price it's worth it, that's how convinced I am, and I = cheap ha-ha.

jffe

Quote
jffe wrote: I was looking at some apps and examples online the other day,

I was watching the special features portion of the Terminator 3 DVD. On one part it showed them filming and, in the frame, a guy was walking beside the actor with a mirror ball on a stick. It had a mirrored surface on one side and a dull surface on the other. At times the stick guy would face the ball one way and at others he would face it the other. I wonder if the ball was being photographed for rendering the scene in HDRI.

Quote
Carl wrote: They worked for me

Now I see. I had to turn on java. I never remember that. It's shows dancing butterflies so I guess it will eventually work. It had better be worth it or someone's going to pay.

Quote
ronviers wrote: It had better be worth it or someone's going to pay.

Hey Craig put the link up, it was him

As I'm no expert on cameras and having read some reviews and getting lost in the techno speak, it sound like you 2 like the panasonic

ron, the camera is the panasonic lumix dmc-fz18k (that's the black model. 's' for silver'). if those pages dont work well, try this one. it shld be past the fancy swf or java or whatever they're using, pages: http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-el....DMC-FZ18K .

oh, and it's not an slr. it's what they call an slr look-alike. the dmc-fz8 was the one that originally interested me. it's also an slr look-alike and actually has extra lenses you can buy, which is quite unusual for a non-slr. the fz18 doesnt have extra lenses, that i could find.

i did a number of side by side comparisons with the fz18 and some others. this one really stood out. you can make your own comparisons on dpreview and other sites.

for an under $400 camera ($299 stripped down at one online store), it would be pretty hard to beat if it lives up to the manufacturer's hype and specs. one of the things that the fz8 fell down on was dark light situations. the fz18 is supposed to be much better, again according to the manufacturer. so, read the reviews.

as for bracketing, a lot of digitals will do this now. bracketing is simply 3 shots taken automatically, one at a standard exposure, one a half step above that and one a half step below normal. hdri software takes those 3 exposure shots and combines the highs and lows with the normal to produce that distinctive hdri effect. that's why you need a bracketed shot. it can be done with one image but is rarely as good as using 3. heck, i can almost simulate hdri imaging with FF. you isolate the highs, isolote the lows, add some high pass here and there and you've almost got it.

and ron, i dont know for sure about every camera and auto-bracketing, but it's supposed to expose one over, one under and one normal; how much i suppose, would depend on each brand and make... ok, i looked at it again. here's what it says:

Quote
Auto Bracketing (AE) +/- 1/3 EV ~ 1EV step, 3 frames

i'm guessing all that means 1/3 of a step up, 1/3 down and one normal... or am i reading that wrong? i'm not sure what 'ev' is... exposure value? i hate it when no one explains their abbreviations.

oh, and i think the ball on the stick is a cue device for the special effects folks. pointed one way it means cue this and another cue that. in the terminator i would guess that might mean cue the bad guy in terminator guise and the other way cue him in another mode... maybe? hehe. not sure; just a guess. but, i do know the stick and ball arrangement is a common device used where you're using a lot of cgi to show the actors where the special effects are going to take place so that the actor can respond realistically.

at any rate, i'm impressed with this thing. 18x optical with 8.1 megapixel for under $300 and then add in all the other features? that's pretty impressive!

the one thing i'd like to see, though, that i'm not sure of is, i'd like a manual zoom, not the electric. the electrics eat too much battery. and with a leica lens you'd think that would be easy.

Quote
ronviers wrote: You need a lot more than that for HDRI.

well, i'm not expert. i'll have to check the retouchpro forums. they've got a sub-forum on hdri now. what i remember was 1/2 step up, 1/2 down and one normal was kind of the standard for hdri. so, you may be right on the 1/3. i'll have to ask over there and see.

and lol on the render farms re terminator 3d

uhm, when you say 'here', what are you speaking of?

ok, here's a more detailed tutorial: http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3038/ho...mages.html

and check out this gallery of images using hdri: http://hdrcreme.com/ amazing stuff! not too surprising that it's catching on so fast.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: he's not even close to a half exposure up or down. lol. he's shooting way above and way below

I think of an HDRI image as an encyclopedia of a scene. You have to decide what volume or which articles you want to display.

Btw, you can get two stops inside a raw.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: check out this gallery of images using hdri: http://hdrcreme.com/ amazing stuff!

The amazing thing to me is that none of those images has even received four stars – that is a tough crowd.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: not sure what you mean there.

If you get a chance you may enjoy the articles on raw from Ron Bigelow.

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Until you are shooting raw you may not want to read them all so to answer the stops question you can just skip to the second one.

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw2/raw2.htm

I highly recommend all of his articles.

well, i'll just have to wait for my answer, ron. i dont have the time to read that whole thing. i skipped through it a bit, but didnt find the answer. so, i'll just have to take your word for it now. i do know that i want a camera that shoots in RAW, though

ah! ok, carl. i understand now. you might try the dpreview site to see what we're talking about then

Quote
ronviers wrote: What size are the jpgs that your current, albeit broken, 8MP camera takes? I'm guessing somewhere around 3MB. Why aren't they 8MP? It's because, in-camera, the 12bit raw data is converted to an 8bit jpg. During this conversion much of the information collected by your camera's sensor is discarded.

yes, roughly 3 meg (about 1.5 to 5.5, so about 3 average). and yes, i understand that this is a conversion and that data are lost.

ok, i understand about tone mapping and that the raw processors are going to want to do that.

what i dont understand, is your original statement of "Btw, you can get two stops inside a raw.". you mean within the camera or within the photoshop acr? how i read that is that you are somehow, within the camera shooting raw, getting two exposure settings on the same image. and i dont understand that.

Quote
ronviers wrote: What I meant is that it is usually safe to move the exposure slider (inside the raw converter) plus or minus one stop with a properly exposed image without significant clipping.

ah! ok; now i'm with ya

Quote
ronviers wrote: I just wanted to add that it’s almost always better(even if it looks wonky) to move the valuable parts of the scene, the parts you want to hold detail, to the high side of the histogram then back it back down in the converter - more of the cameras processing power is dedicated to the right side of the histogram.

oh; never heard that before either. interesting.

thank you

hehe, none of the above on both questions. havent sent the kodak back yet and havent gotten the fz18, either. though, i did stop in at office depot to see if they carried the fz18. they dont.

i've been toying with the idea of getting a true compact. i saw one in Staples that was shock resistant, waterproof, had no mechanical zoom (the part that broke on the kodak) and was little larger than a credit card, though thicker. for just carrying with you everywhere, the idea of being that rugged has a certain appeal. i dont recall the specs or brand or model number but i do recall it only had a 3x optical zoom. obviously i'd be sacrificing a lot of camera if i got this one, but i'd be gaining a lot of durability. i wore the kodak on my belt in a pouch and took it everywhere. apparently, it didnt like that. so, ruggedness is a consideration here.

lol. but i really like the fz18. heck, i really like the dslr's, too. so, i'm still debating all this in my head

no offense on your choice of the canon there, but for the same price you could have gotten the fz18 the 12 megapix is nice, but only 3x optical for that price?

yeah, i love doing online buying, but online returns....::shiver:: not looking forward to that.

i could probably find out who makes the panasonic sensor, but you're probably right. a lot of those types of things are made by one, used by all. leica has a pretty good lock on the lenses for a lot of the digitals.

but no, i've decided i'm not going with dslr, for the most part. glass is expensive and i just dont like the idea of toting a bad with accessories around any more. though, the one exception would be if i had a studio and then i'd rig up the digital to a computer for instant reviews while shooting. that could be sweet

and lol on the pros...i can think of a LOT better ways to spend $62,000! sheesh!

also, a question for you, ron... i'd like a camera without the electric zoom. i'd rather have one with a manual ring, like on the old film slr's, that you zoom in and out with. do you know of any?

well, i found one that looked to have a manual zoom ring. it was also a panasonic. the dx50 or something like that.

oh well, i've pretty much talked myself into a drool on the fz18, so little point in looking at more

Quote
Kraellin wrote: and i'm almost disappointed that it works

I know just what you mean, the new camera would have renewed your enthusiasm and just in time for the new season – all that summer light just around the corner. On the bright side, you get to continue taking photos and the cameras will keep getting better.

Good job on isolating the problem. It's one for the books.

Though this article might interest you two on URL=http://http://www.graphics.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=611]hdr[/URL]

Thats got some interesting stuff - I'll keep an eye on the site - I had to laugh at blue screen Star trek - bugger it's to big to attach