I bought myself a little (and when i say little, i meen little) digital camera. I just wanted it as a web cam at first, but its got so many features, its class for those unicycling pics!
The camera features indoor and outdoor options, CIF (poorer qualitey, but more pics!), Snapshot mode (so u can take AVI movies and pictures - very cool when used on rocks and jumps etc), it can take up to 200 good quality pics, or 400 poorer quality pics! It is also a webcam, and you get LOADS of software with it! If that isnt enough, its only 1.5 x 5 x 5cm and it only costs £40!!!
These cool cameras are available on-line from the likes of firebox.com and the gadgetshop, or other kool shops like that!
Please note - i’m not a sales person for SiPix, just this is a need 4 any kool unicyclist!
I’ve got one, I got it from Special Reserve. The only thing I’ve found is that it doesn’t work well with moving images and as one of the reasons I bought it was to take out with me when riding for some action shots I was a little disappointed. Also note the AAA battery is in use all the time when installed so you need to download your pics within the 3 or so days it lasts else you lose them. Other than that it is a great little (very little) camera.
I just got a Minolta Dimage X. It has video/audio option, plus it takes pics at 1600x1200. And it’s not much bigger than that one. It’s similar to a deck of cards on it’s side (except it would be a deck and a half high) I’m gonna get some action shots this weekend, or this week sometime, but look how clear the pictures are! I am really amazed.
For $780 cdn total, I got the camera, 8mb, 128mb cards, 2 rechargeable batteries (80 minutes to charge, 2 hours time with LCD, 110 hours without LCD)
I took some indoor video of my apartment and it was grainy. Outdoors is fine. It’s not video camera quality, but it beats stills only…and that’s what I wanted.
You can even see the detail in the dirt in this pic. That’s the 2nd best quality of image.
I’m gonna put up some vid clips very shortly, after I (get some clips) and play around with the video editing software—to put in soundtracks, ect…
yer, the action shots are (can be) dissapointing, and the battery is quickly used up, but if u up-load the pics, then take the battery out when its not in use. Also, it doesnt need the battery when using it as a webcam!
my friend has a fugi finepix sumut and his picture quality are superb bout £650
2400x1800 res with lots and lots of options
Video Setting thats 15fps, its ok not top quality. http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/album91 these backflip 1’s were taken on the camera, it takes tlike 5 in a row action shot with no blurry quality! highly recomend them!
It’s amazing how far digital cameras have come. There is a full range of cameras to fit your needs and budget. Certainly a cheap camera like this one has its limitations. At 640 x 480 (VGA) picture size, it’s really only good for the screen. For prints, you probably can’t even get regular sized photographic prints. But if you’re shooting for the screen, you’re fine.
It’s kind of like the 110 or disc cameras of a few years ago. Their tiny format was fine for casual snapshots.
its very large picture size (2240 x 1680) is great for high detail or large-format prints, but can get cumbersome real fast otherwise. The compressed JPEGs the camera stores average about 1.3 MB in size, so you need lots of storage space, and lots of CDs to archive everything you’ve shot.
But I can make big prints when I want. I haven’t tried 20 x 30 yet, but the 16 x 20 I ordered from Ofoto came out beautiful.
Sorry, I’m not going to upload one of the big fat images. It would be similar to the large one that was posted earlier. My camera is similar to Nathan Hoover’s, but with a bigger CCD. His satisfaction with his QV-3000 was one of the main reasons I got the QV-4000 when it came out last year.
People don’t get to see high-res versions of my pictures usually, because I post them on Ofoto to protect my ownership of them. You’d be amazed how many places they show up if you just post them for free. I occasionally charge a fee for their use in magazines, so Ofoto is my site of choice. Also they make great prints!
> People don’t get to see high-res versions of my pictures usually,
> because I post them on Ofoto to protect my ownership of them. You’d be
> amazed how many places they show up if you just post them for free. I
> occasionally charge a fee for their use in magazines, so Ofoto is my
> site of choice. Also they make great prints!
I can understand your reasoning, and this is why I am all the more
grateful to Nathan Hoover for publishing the big resolution versions
of his photos. It’s a glorious supply of great screen
backgrounds. Right now I’m looking at Bhutan scenery at 1600x1200.
I must confess I like film, medium and large format the best. I like
the way it forces me to concentrate on what I am photographing. It’s a
combination of cost and the way those big cameras work that force me
to work slow and careful. Then again, I don’t photograph anything
that moves fast.
I’m glad you like the photos and I will keep putting them up on a site that
allows full-res download until something happens to make me want to change.
I’ve had my photos “stolen” and used in several publications without credit,
but I don’t really care. It’s great to hear that you’re looking at Bhutan
right now.
Recently I tried out Webshots Desktop software which allows you to download
and build up Collections of images. It then cycles your background every 15
minutes or less often. It also can act as a screen saver, so your computer
can randomly cycle between the images you’ve collected as often as every 5
seconds. It’s really nice (and free), although if you buy the $20/year
“Webshots unlimited” membership, you get a few benefits. The way I use it is
to build up collections of my original images - then I just copy them to
each machine I use - works great. Check it out at www.webshots.com/samplers
—Nathan
PS My background is currently filming on the summit of Orizaba!
“Janne Himanka” <janne.himanka@spam.com.invalid> wrote in message news:87hegwo01u.fsf@ghadis.dsl.suomi.net…
> johnfoss <johnfoss.attkm@timelimit.unicyclist.com> writes:
>
> > People don’t get to see high-res versions of my pictures usually,
> > because I post them on Ofoto to protect my ownership of them. You’d be
> > amazed how many places they show up if you just post them for free. I
> > occasionally charge a fee for their use in magazines, so Ofoto is my
> > site of choice. Also they make great prints!
>
> I can understand your reasoning, and this is why I am all the more
> grateful to Nathan Hoover for publishing the big resolution versions
> of his photos. It’s a glorious supply of great screen
> backgrounds. Right now I’m looking at Bhutan scenery at 1600x1200.
>
> I must confess I like film, medium and large format the best. I like
> the way it forces me to concentrate on what I am photographing. It’s a
> combination of cost and the way those big cameras work that force me
> to work slow and careful. Then again, I don’t photograph anything
> that moves fast.
>
> Janne
if you go tp kazaa and type in brian mackenzie into the search, you wil see a 5 second video clip from my still camera…it’s a bike, but I wanted to see the result of ‘quicker action’ because the slow stuff (one wheeling) would be even clearer.
It’s not video camera quality for sure, but I put some music to it, and it’s actually OK…beats the hell out of stills!
This was the first action video attemp, I’m sure they will only get better!
