13.8 Megapixel camera...
 

Damn..it's hard to keep up nowadays. Are any other companies ahead of this?


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...#goto_itemInfo

wtf
each picture will take up a harddrive :helpme

Damn that's a pretty big jump!

expensive camera

That camera is no good unless you are shooting for print and then probably only for small catalogue items like jewelery.

Absolute over kill for the net.

That's what I was thinking. I have a little 2 MegaPixel camera, and I never even use that setting.

But damn, memory and storage space just keep getting better too. The new 1GB secure digital cards come out this month.. 2GB next year... 16GB in '05 or '06. Those are the ones that are 1 1/4" x 7/8" x 1/8"

No shit. You'd have to have a truckload of hardware. Damn.

>Right now<, >For the money<, nothing beats the new Canon Digital EOS Rebel.

http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/index.html

partly true.

for web work the challenge is the get the maximum perceived image quality into the smallest file size.

and charly as you must know, a high quality digital SLR image downsampled to say 100kb for the web will usually look better than the same subject shot with a consumer digicam downsampled to 100kb.

the one very interesting thing about the kodak 14n is it's high density range (being able to capture detail from the very darkest to the very lightest part of the subject)

as soon as kodak gets the firmware straightened out for this camera i will probably buy one and shoot with it.

and the reason will be to get superior 100kb web images.

the next big stride in web imagery will be quality color and density range. the monitors in use today can deliver a much higher density range than just a couple years ago, and shortly digital images will look like velvia transparencies, and better.

were just waiting for the right hardware, but it's coming.
within 18 months you will see amazingly high quality images in fairly low file size on the web.

Of all the reviews I've seen, that camera has really really bad chromatic abberation issues. They might've fixed it in the latest firmware, I'm not sure.

Hahaha someone take a pic & post it here!

The only reason to buy that camera if everything you do is online, is look how big my dick is. People talk about all this technology coming out, avg surfers are on webtv or old pent 2 computers with faded monitors lol. Most are still on dial ups for christ sake.

I think that's obivously what it's made for. :winkwink:

there is one with 11 mio pixels for just a little over $1000, forgot the name though

Disagree, I'm still looking for a digital camera that will produce the 35mm film-like quality I used to get with my Nikon F4 with Kodak portra film.

I use a Nikon D100 right now, and in many ways its nice/superior, but still cannot achieve the beautiful effects on models I got with Kodak Portra 35mm film, like the photo below. This is straight from the negative, no airbrushing or color changes made. Sorry to say with Digital I still cannot achieve this level.http://www.alexamodel.com/102.jpg

I disagree I have seen amazing stuff shot with the d100. I was talking to a guy who has been shooting for 25 yrs he does all the hooters stuff has shot from National geographic to playboy and then every adult mag you can imagine. He says 70 % of his clients want digital and he shoots it all with a d100.

damn that camera is insane.... great pic FTV

when is the last time you looked at a web server log file?

less then 0.5% are on webtv and most use the latest version of IE which would indicate they are running something better then a PII.

and dial-up users would appreciate a better downsample as you could get a truer image in the same size package.

and just think how much more they will appreciate it when they clean their screen , get out of the lazy-boy, or upgrade to 1998.

Agreed.

Today's more sophisticated surfer (the sort that actually buys memberships, not cruises TGP galleries) demands image quality.

And that requires an efficient method of compressing the image to get maximum quality out of relatively small file size.

The very beautiful image above of a film scan is actually a larger file size than this bigger image with a smaller file size from a nikon D1x.

I vote digital today.


http://www.costa-rica-girl.com/DSC_0132a.jpg

To uptheyingyang:

The picture you posted is nice, its fine, its great, but the moment I saw it, the first thing I thought of, was hey, that is a digital camera picture.

Whatever the case, there is something about film (especially the specialty film types like portra) that digital cams simply are not able to emulate just yet.


Yes, I know there are professionals that do use the digital for print and such (hey, like I said I use the D100 also) but my core point is you cannot achive that film quality without hitting photoshop, airbrushing, and doing all the color & image changes to make it look like film. And even then it still does not have the same feel.

I switched to the D100 mostly because of efficiency, cost, and the fact that scanning from 35mm negs made me lose some image quality in the transfer process, and members noticed that. The D100 I can get those 3000x2000 pixel images sharp & clear. But it aint film.

I understand your point FTV. It's just an aesthetic thing.

I've seen your stuff and it is very beautiful, and if you are trying to achieve the film "look" then you are right, you must go with film.

In most situations when shooting skin (models) you try to make them more beautiful than they are in reality by using artistry, and portra is a portrait film, I've used it myself when shooting weddings. If covers skin flaws, smooths textures, reduces contrast on purpose. And it makes people beautiful.

But gonzo style porn is a different subject matter, to me digital just conveys a more "real" look which is important for the scenes I shoot. I don't do studio type stuff, I shoot everything on "location" journalism style, bang bang bang, in and out. FAST.

Another problem for me is that in the web business you must get the content online with a minimum of down time.

I'll shoot, edit, correct, compress and upload 1000 images to my server that the world can see within 24 hours while other guys are scanning film.

And I've scanned plenty of film, and for me it was always dirty, and it always needed spotting digitally, (or dust specks removed electronically which induces fuzziness).

I even ran my own color lab and processed my own c-41 and e-6 to get the originals out fast for scanning.

There just is no comparison in workload. Digital made me a believer.

Holy fuck! 13,8!!!

Sorry I was running ie 6.0 on a 450 mhz compaq ,you dont need state of the art. Guys are jerking off not looking at life magazine lol.

True.

And I shoot hardcore myself. And today's web is saturated with it. And I think many would be surprised that today (for me at least) my softcore sites sell more memberships.

Weird but true. Maybe it goes in cycles.


http://www.girls-of-bangkok.com/Dsc_7374a.jpg

wrong again.

The average joe surfer does NOT download updates, be it MS OS, or MS IE.
They just run what they brung :)

If they did the MBlaster would not have been anywhere near as sucessful as it was.

Just face it, the numbers you quoted are way off.

Anyway, your argument is invalid on a whole seperate level. The objective of a good webmaster is to stay ahead of the surfer's technology without comprimising their experience. So when they aquire newer and better technology your site is right there to provide a better surfing experience.

i.e. when they get a new computer, better monitor, faster connection, you can provide them with better image quality.

rather then playing catch up.

Great Camara's that create more colors than the human eye can see:)

I'll take 2 of em.