Great Link!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I just discovered this today, so forgive me if you've seen it before.
Imaging Resources has a page where you can compare images from hundreds
of digital cameras side-by-side on the same page!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM
They cal it the Imaging Resource Comparometer?
Enjoy!
NB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:50:20 -0400, nellybly <nellybly@adelphia.net>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
uncap my header address to reply via email

Seems like a good idea well meant, and may be a starting point or
narrowing point. But I see a problem in that the shots are taken in
different lights, and with vastly different camera settings;
saturation, focal length, ISO, shutter speed etc.

I am assuming the cameras were used in Auto mode and set themselves as
they saw fit. (??)

To do this properly would be an enormous task, and probably is best
done with pictures of standardised pictures, rather than real life
images..

>I just discovered this today, so forgive me if you've seen it before.
>Imaging Resources has a page where you can compare images from hundreds
>of digital cameras side-by-side on the same page!
>http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM
>They cal it the Imaging Resource Comparometer?
>Enjoy!
>NB

*******************************************************
Sometimes in a workplace you find snot on the wall of
the toilet cubicles. You feel "What sort of twisted
child would do this?"....the internet seems full of
them. It's very sad

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Old Nick typed:

> On Fri, 07 May 2004 01:50:20 -0400, nellybly <nellybly@adelphia.net>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> uncap my header address to reply via email
>
> Seems like a good idea well meant, and may be a starting point or
> narrowing point. But I see a problem in that the shots are taken in
> different lights, and with vastly different camera settings;
> saturation, focal length, ISO, shutter speed etc.
>
> I am assuming the cameras were used in Auto mode and set themselves as
> they saw fit. (??)
>
> To do this properly would be an enormous task, and probably is best
> done with pictures of standardised pictures, rather than real life
> images..
>
You're partly right. But, remember that most of the people will shot their
pics in auto mode and so this link shows how different cameras can handle
real life situations. Not all of us (or you) are photo experts and i guess
this link tries to show auto-mode real-life shots.
It's just they doesn't have all cameras included. I've had Oly C-300, which
is missing, now i have Canon S1 IS which is also missing...damn...