Gerlach Webcam Fun Jan 2013

[tamarakay]

Friends!

[Elliot]

You are beating me to it!
All right, I have four screen grabs, and I lightened them a little.
They should be in chronological order:

[nilasnake]

it's great that the 'finish' sign they are holding pops out. good job pals!

[Elliot]

Zooming in -- there just aren't enough pixels in the web cam to do much with. Maybe somebody with better computer skills?

[theCryptofishist]

It says "Russia".

[theCryptofishist]

The lights are coming on in Gerlach.

[Eric]

Zooming in -- there just aren't enough pixels in the web cam to do much with. Maybe somebody with better computer skills?

The pixels depend on the camera, not the computer. If they aren't there to begin with, the best a program can do is extrapolate them, and it's just going to blur, not make clear faces.

[Rice]

Zooming in -- there just aren't enough pixels in the web cam to do much with. Maybe somebody with better computer skills?

The pixels depend on the camera, not the computer. If they aren't there to begin with, the best a program can do is extrapolate them, and it's just going to blur, not make clear faces.

But, they do it all the time on CSI...

[Elliot]

Zooming in -- there just aren't enough pixels in the web cam to do much with. Maybe somebody with better computer skills?

The pixels depend on the camera, not the computer.

I knew that...

If they aren't there to begin with, the best a program can do is extrapolate them, and it's just going to blur, not make clear faces.

...but I was hoping/dreaming. But yeah, there are only so many grains on a given frame of film. We cannot switch from 400 speed film to 50 speed film after the picture has been taken.

It was a fun exercise, regardless.


(Edit: In the days of film, slower films had finer grain = "more pixels".)

[BBadger]

[junglesmacks]

Captain Burning Man saves the day yet again.

[theCryptofishist]

I told you that banner said "Russia".

[theCryptofishist]

Zooming in -- there just aren't enough pixels in the web cam to do much with. Maybe somebody with better computer skills?

The pixels depend on the camera, not the computer. If they aren't there to begin with, the best a program can do is extrapolate them, and it's just going to blur, not make clear faces.

You lie! There was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll!

[FIGJAM]

Occupy Gerlach!!!

[Eric]

(Edit: In the days of film, slower films had finer grain = "more pixels".)

Way back in the day, Fujifilm made a 35mm 50 speed color print film (usually if they were that slow they were slide film or larger 120 format). I only got to use it a couple of times, but... damn. It totally intensified the colors, and I could blow up a 35mm neg into a huge print! By the mid 90's it was hard to find color print film slower than 100 speed (my preferred film for nightclub shooting)

Even with my new-as-of-last-year Nikon D5100 I can't capture some of the things I could on film, especially when dealing with low-light situations, trailing light, or fire. You get pixilation, whereas on slow film you wouldn't get any.


If they had a high-def webcam in Gerlach we could get faces. Maybe we should buy them one before the next trip...

[Elliot]

Sounds like a print version of the Fujifilm Velvia 50 slide film we used. Good times in the glossy magazine business!

[theCryptofishist]

Sounds like a print version of the Fujifilm Velvia 50 slide film we used. Good times in the glossy magazine business!

Careful, yggy is going to start asking about Miss February.

[ygmir]

Sounds like a print version of the Fujifilm Velvia 50 slide film we used. Good times in the glossy magazine business!

Careful, yggy is going to start asking about Miss February.

it is easiest to overlook, being the shortest month and all.

[Ugly Dougly]

Thought you would ask about the ASA setting.

[theCryptofishist]

That's Miss Swedish February, I think.

[BBadger]

Even with my new-as-of-last-year Nikon D5100 I can't capture some of the things I could on film, especially when dealing with low-light situations, trailing light, or fire. You get pixilation, whereas on slow film you wouldn't get any.

You probably know this stuff, so I apologize if this doesn't help or it's way below your expertise level:

There are some other differences too. For one, that camera has a cropped APS-C sensor, not a full-frame 35mm-equivalent that your film camera would, so you don't capture quite as much light per pixel, which means you need more sensitivity, and therefore more noise, to capture the same amount of light. The smaller sensor also affects the diffraction limitations of the camera.

You can also mitigate some of the noise by resizing, as you've got a bit of resolution to play with on that 16.2MP sensor. Resizing the image down to something like 10MP will clear out a lot of the noise without notable loss of resolution, especially when that extra resolution does nothing for the photo when diffraction limited.

Also, you do remember to turn off auto-ISO and then set your ISO manually right? Even for manual mode auto-ISO will kick in; you need to manually turn it off to have full ISO control. I've had many long exposure shots ruined by the auto-ISO. I leave auto-ISO on so I can get "the shot" in most cases, but for longer exposures it's all about turning it off.

For capturing action and backgrounds, setting the flash to rear sync helps a bit. I found it produced some of the nicest night photos of people because it prevented the ever-present dust from obscuring the view, and captured the nice lights in the background.

Finally, there are other tricks if you're photographing very slow moving objects like stars, such as taking many single photos and summing them up in a program so that the sensor isn't operating constantly. Even more drastic, some people put the camera in a cold-box (dry ice, etc.) to cool down the sensor and reduce noise. It works quite well, especially for astronomy webcams.

[Elliot]

Alas, I never worked with (sun)bathing beauties. That was handled by our man in Los Angeles. I went along on one of his shoots though. My job was to keep hosing down the pavement with a fire hose for that shiny reflective look. Ah, the glamor!

[Eric]

Even with my new-as-of-last-year Nikon D5100 I can't capture some of the things I could on film, especially when dealing with low-light situations, trailing light, or fire. You get pixilation, whereas on slow film you wouldn't get any.

You probably know this stuff, so I apologize if this doesn't help or it's way below your expertise level:

I actually had some of that info in my comment originally, but I removed it before posting (not really relevant to the webcam discussion). I shoot in dark nightclubs, but I try to keep my ISO below 800 for stage shots (band/ burlesque), 200-400 for close-ups. I also use an SB-700 flash, which throws a ton of light - and eats a minimum of 4 AA batteries every time I walk out the door to shoot an event (I shoot 300-600 images a night, average). I aim to underexpose my images slightly, as that can easily be corrected in post, whereas a blowout is basically a dead photo.

As for shooting on playa -the only camera I bring is an old Cannon a600something (I don't even remember which number) point & shoot, which I pull out for 20 or 30 shots a year max, and maybe a short video or two. I do photography every week of the year, Burning Man is my escape from that, and other people do it better. The only shots I want are of friends, or the occasional piece that speaks to me (Pier 1 & 2, 2012 Temple).

Now back to webcam addiction before I have to break this out into a new thread!

[Sail Man]

So, tell us, how did the playa look?

[trilobyte]

I think pics were posted in this thread.

Ygmir also posted a pic of the group standing at the edge of the playa in The Bar.