G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)
Harvey wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:41877374.C732FDC2@aol.com...
> >
> >
> > JPS@no.komm wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <e-ednez3WvGxdxvcRVn-rg@golden.net>,
> >> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it
> >> >is
> >> >accomplished in various ways.
> >>
> >> Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only can
> >> you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
> >> think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
> >> film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).
> >
> >
> > The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.
> >
> > you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
> > Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
> > terms like "STUPID"?
> >
> > Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
> > another "cummulative" digital exposure.
> >
> > A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
> > extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
> > retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
> > as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.
>
> Hmmm.. and here's me thinking a CCD worked by having a photodiode discharge
> a capacitor; making cumulative multiple exposure at least possible even if
> not actually practical (yet).
"Yet" is a big word.
There is no end to what digital can't do "yet."
Harvey wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:41877374.C732FDC2@aol.com...
> >
> >
> > JPS@no.komm wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <e-ednez3WvGxdxvcRVn-rg@golden.net>,
> >> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it
> >> >is
> >> >accomplished in various ways.
> >>
> >> Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only can
> >> you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
> >> think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
> >> film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).
> >
> >
> > The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.
> >
> > you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
> > Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
> > terms like "STUPID"?
> >
> > Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
> > another "cummulative" digital exposure.
> >
> > A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
> > extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
> > retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
> > as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.
>
> Hmmm.. and here's me thinking a CCD worked by having a photodiode discharge
> a capacitor; making cumulative multiple exposure at least possible even if
> not actually practical (yet).
"Yet" is a big word.
There is no end to what digital can't do "yet."