TedJ
Contributor
alcina:
If you do you'll never get anything in this technology world.
Camera Suggestions
- Thread starter MaresMan1
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
If you do you'll never get anything in this technology world.
DesertEagle
Contributor
Sorry about that earlier post. It was meant to be a reply to the F700 question. I thought I had replied in that thread...
TedJ
Contributor
You did and thanks, we're just rambling off the original subject!
DawgPaddle
Contributor
Thanks TedJ,
Really I'm curious if my TRV900 is a decent platform for underwater filming. I don't want to invest the money in buying a waterproof shell for it if I'll only get marginal results (not including my own poor photography). In a nutshell, and all things being equal, would I be wasting money on a shell for this particular camera. I've dove with BillB a few times and he's brought along his camera and I've wanted to do the same. I'll ask him this same question the next time we dive together.
Thanks again,
Really I'm curious if my TRV900 is a decent platform for underwater filming. I don't want to invest the money in buying a waterproof shell for it if I'll only get marginal results (not including my own poor photography). In a nutshell, and all things being equal, would I be wasting money on a shell for this particular camera. I've dove with BillB a few times and he's brought along his camera and I've wanted to do the same. I'll ask him this same question the next time we dive together.
Thanks again,
TCooperWFI
Contributor
Gilligan,
If starting over, what would you change about your current setup?
TC
If starting over, what would you change about your current setup?
TC
Eli
Guest
Film has better dynamic range but digital is much easier to store.
I have several large cardboard boxes full of photos, negatives and slides taken during the 25 years my wife and I have been married. All of our memories are in those boxes. We keep them in our basement, because they take up alot of room. The final straw for me was when I went to look for some old photos, only to find that one of our cats had decided to use the box as a litter box. The cat felt my images were crap and decided to add to the collection!
Since then I have gone totally digital, both above and below water. The images fit on my computers hard drive, and are backed up on CD's. The only space they take up is in the virtual world.
The only advantage to film is its superior dynamic range. Each silver halide grain is a different size, and has a different sensitivity to light . Thus ASA 100 film is actually a range of sensitivies which average ASA 100. Thus film is more forgiving of incorrect exposure, and can resolve more subtle differences in shades than digital. In digital cameras (except the Fuji F700) every pixel is the same size and sensitivity. Pixels are all or nothing, on or off, and so give more contrasty images. Thus you can lose detail in a very dark or light subject. An example of this is the following digital image. All detail in the white flowers are lost. With film you would have seen the detail in the white flowers. (It was an overcast day with indirect lighting, auto exposure metering. Another image which was underexposed 1 F stop lost the detail in the dark columns)
http://www.pbase.com/image/19646946
But this disadvantage is temporary.In a few years we will have digital cameras with dynamic range as good as film cameras, and then there will be no reason to use film at all, IMHO.
I have several large cardboard boxes full of photos, negatives and slides taken during the 25 years my wife and I have been married. All of our memories are in those boxes. We keep them in our basement, because they take up alot of room. The final straw for me was when I went to look for some old photos, only to find that one of our cats had decided to use the box as a litter box. The cat felt my images were crap and decided to add to the collection!
Since then I have gone totally digital, both above and below water. The images fit on my computers hard drive, and are backed up on CD's. The only space they take up is in the virtual world.
The only advantage to film is its superior dynamic range. Each silver halide grain is a different size, and has a different sensitivity to light . Thus ASA 100 film is actually a range of sensitivies which average ASA 100. Thus film is more forgiving of incorrect exposure, and can resolve more subtle differences in shades than digital. In digital cameras (except the Fuji F700) every pixel is the same size and sensitivity. Pixels are all or nothing, on or off, and so give more contrasty images. Thus you can lose detail in a very dark or light subject. An example of this is the following digital image. All detail in the white flowers are lost. With film you would have seen the detail in the white flowers. (It was an overcast day with indirect lighting, auto exposure metering. Another image which was underexposed 1 F stop lost the detail in the dark columns)
http://www.pbase.com/image/19646946
But this disadvantage is temporary.In a few years we will have digital cameras with dynamic range as good as film cameras, and then there will be no reason to use film at all, IMHO.
DawgPaddle
Contributor
Genesis:
Thanks Genesis! Now I'm thinking I'm going to go for it and very soon start my own underwater video library.
I went online and found it straight away.
Thanks again
Captain CaveMan
Contributor
I have the f700 and its great. im looking to get the housing for uw. its a good thing i looked it up i wasnt sure if i should buy it but im going ot order it soon.
Similar threads
