Thats a Kodak DC260 digital camera...

just the camera adjusting towards darker to compensate for the bright light from the explosion. Digital cameras have very low contrast ratios.
>> ^VoodooV:

crazy how the sky appears to get dark when it goes blue

He might wanna be careful filming lasers with digital cameras. Concentrated brightness from lasers actually burn through the lens and leave permanent dark spots.

@ponceleon, yes this is a real effect that you see with real lenses. The tilt shift lenses made by Nikon and Canon like the one above mimic the motions possible using a large format view camera. By allowing both the film and lens plane to be manipulated by the photographer, it is possible to do some really interesting things like having an apparent infinite focus and perfect parallels.

I had to use a 4x5 camera (like this one) for an assignment back when I was doing my photography program. I can tell you that the image quality you get with a big sheet of film is unparalleled among digital cameras. Plus big 4x5 view cameras are a lot of fun to use.

@sixshot, yes, PC (perspective control) lenses that allow tilt/shift movements are incredibly expensive, buy not really much more than any other high-end 35mm lenses these days. (The last lens I bought for my system retails for about $2400.) It's true that photoshop can imitate some of what is possible with these leses, but digital imitation is never as good as the real thing.

It might be interesting to note that it's possible to pick up 4x5 view camera system (on ebay) capable of these motions AND a professional film scanner (new) to digitize your images for less money than the PC lens shown in this infomercial.

My little Canon MP620B printer is great. I use it to print my photos and they always look good. It does eat ink like crazy though. That's about the extent of my printer knowledge.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Excellent website! What about a ridiculous high dpi inject printer?
>> ^critical_d:
http://components.arrow.com/part/search/%5E8/33/790
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

Excellent website! What about a ridiculous high dpi inject printer?
>> ^critical_d:

http://components.arrow.com/part/search/%5E8/33/790
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

http://components.arrow.com/part/search/%5E8/33/790

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

lol "OLD digital camera"

could just shoot with a smaller digital camera and then Photoshop it to look the same , but then I guess it would not be as "artistic" that way.

not that I have anything against shooting with film , but its pretty inconveneant and if your end product can be achieved without using film might as well not use it if your going to inconvenance yourself why not go to the exstreem ? why stop at a film camara why not use a pinhole camera , why not stop and paint every person ?

I can see a justification for using film is that you like the random artefacts and inherent qualities , but again you can achieve those qualities using Photoshop only with the advantage of full artistic control.

Honestly I don't think this guy was trying to show off. Unless someone can show me the rest of the video I think this guy was intentionally trying to run the guys filming off the road.

Besides the really REALLY steep turn in angle for no reason (since the road looks to be straight) if you have enough money for a corvette I'm sure you have enough money for a decent digital camera for your friends to film you with.

>> ^bareboards2:
Wait, she accepts!???!!! Where is your source? I want corroboration!
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18456636?source=most_viewed and there it is.... Wow. The power of a simple digital camera and a uniform....


And arrogance...

and Justin Timberlake don't forget his part in this.
>> ^bareboards2:

Wait, she accepts!???!!! Where is your source? I want corroboration!
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18456636?source=most_viewed and there it is.... Wow. The power of a simple digital camera and a uniform....

Wait, she accepts!???!!! Where is your source? I want corroboration!

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18456636?source=most_viewed and there it is.... Wow. The power of a simple digital camera and a uniform....

Very strange. I'm trying figure this out - did he pretty much just go to some marketing company, plop down a couple of thousand dollars, he spent a couple of hours recording some non-music shite in fruity loops or reason and what they rented him were two ass-shaking booties, a bentley, a digital camera and then told him the video location was a Walmart? I think this guy just got pimped!

I'd take her picture ANY day. With my camera... cuz it's like... digital... camera...


...that sounded a lot more lascivious in my head.