Talk:Digital camera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Add/remove suggestions

1- Keep and expand the nice classification scheme. 2- There should be only basic info + link to each camera category's main article (avoid redundancy). Some detailed info about each category may be available on this but not on the main article of the category (should be transferred to there and summarized here). 3- dSLR should be included more clearly without mixing them up with with medium and large formats in one incomprehensible category. 4- Digital rangefinders should be included. 5- Video cameras do not fit in this article (Digital camera implies still cameras only, video cameras fit in the camcorder article).

[edit] Next generation of digital photographing

Hm... What do you think, this is a quite interessting discussion, we could have an article about this maybe?. The next BIG evolution will probably be 3d... So that you snap a photo and it snaps all edges, and you can move and rotate all objects as you want.. And you can take one objects and use in another photograph... It have to take throw all objects so you can remove annoying things in front of yourself or such... With laser may it be possible... Is it going to happen? --unsigned


Speculation is difficult to justify in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there are significant technical difficulties to producing the type of 3D camera that you are talking about. Certainly, in a controlled environment or studio, techniques for 3D mapping is currently being worked on. But it to have a single camera take an instant snapshot of a 3d scene is currently not technically possible. There is no current method for capturing the texture of a non-facing surface. Some form of millimetric wave camera could possibly probe some objects, but colour information cannot yet be gained from millimetric imaging. If you are interested in the 'next big thing', look up negative-refractive index materials, allowing the production of über-compact lenses that are not constriained by the diffraction limits of traditional lenses. Stestagg 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How works?

how actually it works?

Digital camera is one thing and digital photography is more generic. --Mac 07:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

[edit] Take 1

I don't know why this was forked in November. Digital photography is a much more comprehensive article, and nearly all content here is duplicated there already. We should merge back. Rhobite 09:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

A digital camera can make much more function that only take pictures. It can take video, sounds.... And digital camera is centered in the machine, not in some results (photos).

[edit] Take 2

First off: I am not saying to consolidate the two articles (digital camera and digital photography). That said, there is definite overlap that needs to be addressed. A quick run-down of major overlap:

  • storage technology
  • sensor technology
  • resolutions

I think those points belong in digital camera (article on the technology of the camera). I think the market & social belong in digital photography (article on the art of photography in the digital age). In short I'm proposed a merge of the following variety:

Of course non-technical should go in digital camera where appropriate and vice-versa. There's probably even some material to merge with digital imaging.

I'm up for any discussion offered and any thoughts on what should go where. Cburnett (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I previously started to do a rewrite of Digital single-lens reflex camera, got side-tracked and created a new article, Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras, and that dragged on and on. What I discovered is the tremendous amount of time major editing and rewriting can take. :-(
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that if you really have the time and energy to do a serious rewrite of Digital camera and Digital photography, then more power to you. One suggestion: people who end up in one or the other article won't immediately realize that perhaps they're in the wrong article according to your proposed division of content. So I think that Digital camera should still have a section about the non-technical stuff, with subheadings for each section in Digital photography and a few words and a link to the other article. Correspondingly, Digital photography should have a section about technical stuff, with subheadings and a few words about each technical topic, and links to the proper section in Digital camera. So there will still be some overlap, but a systematic and motivated overlap, each article having a kind of table-of-contents for the other article, as well as the contents that belongs in that article. If you understand what I mean. --RenniePet (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because I placed the tag doesn't mean I'm volunteering (as is indicated by Dicklyon's position about the citations tag on digital photography), though I will probably take a stab at it. Ultimately it seems that these two articles further developed with each oblivious to the other. The two definitely are closely related and definitely won't be bipartite like cheese and keyboard. Cburnett (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, and I'm willing to help. If you can start, and make sections in each with "main" link to the other, that can help cue future editors to what's going on and we can sort it out incrementally. And you're right that suggesting improvements doesn't necessarily include volunteering to follow through; the tags are useful to remind other editors what direction things should go. We should leave the merge tags that link here until it's pretty much done. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If I had the time I too would offer to help, but unfortunately...
If/when anybody does do a major re-write of these two articles, may I suggest also taking a look at Bridge digital camera and Live-preview digital camera, two articles full of redundant and incorrect information that should probably be simply deleted. --RenniePet 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take 3

I just placed the merge template again as it remained in the other article and I see no result here so far. To add my two cents, I am against merging, because the two are totally different things - while camera is a consumer electronics device, photography is an activity and actually kind of art too. Therefore, merging is absolutelly irrelevant here.--Kozuch (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to revive take 2; the consensus above was to do a cleaner division between article, rather than a merge. Anyone who wants to help in that direction is welcome to. I'll take the tags off. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prosumer vs long-zoom

This article does not make difference between prosumer and long-zoom, even though they are very different thing.

  • most long-zooms have worse image quality than good pocket cameras
  • most prosumers have about 4-7 x zoom, samsung 815, fuji S9500 and pana fz20, fz30 are the only cameras than can be classified as both prosumer and long-zoom
  • most long-zooms don't have flash hot-shoe

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.230.47.19 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand what a "long-zoom" is nor get how zoom has anything to do with image quality. Cburnett (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-Weather (Water-resistant/Waterproof/Rugged) Digital Cameras

I couldn't find any information on the topic here, so I'm stuck doing my own thing. If anyone's interested in the research I've done on the topic, check out http://jrandomhacker.info/Low-end_digital_cameras

The topic is too young to really be fleshed out into a proper comparison of digital cameras, but I'd be interested in collaborating on such an effort. -- Sy / (talk)

[edit] Duplicated article

I found one article called Digital Cameras, added a redirect in it, as it was before someone wrote anything..., and because I don't have enough time to put the content of there in this article I'll just drop it above this message. If is your wanna you can do it :). Just remove this message after mixing the article --Henriquevicente 23:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)Henrique Vicente

Digital cameras are a remarkable advance in technology. They can electronically capture images and store them as digital files. They have all the functions a standard camera has, such as, an optical viewfinder, shutter release, a variety of flashes, built-in lens, zoom features, self-timer, manual exposure and focus. However, digital cameras also offer additional features like the ability to view shots using a built-in LCD (liquid crystal display) screen.


When buying a digital camera, the following should be considered.


Image Resolution

Each digital camera uses a certain number of pixels to create an image. This is referred to as megapixels. The more megapixels, the higher the resolution and clarity will be. If the camera has at least 3 megapixels or more, the resulting photograph would be worth framing. test


Optical Zoom

Optical zoom helps bring subjects visually closer or move them further away for wide shots of the whole scene. It does this by magnifying the size of an image through adjusting the lens. Optical zoom, unlike digital zoom, enlarges the subject without giving up resolution. Digital zoom imitates a telephoto lens making the subject appear larger and closer through electronic enlargement.


Memory

Different digital cameras use a variety of different memory flash cards. It all depends on how many pictures will be taken, and how high the resolution is. The higher the resolution the more memory it takes up. Today, the available memory capacities are 16MB to 128MB.


Equipment

When a digital camera is bought, usually all required equipment will be available in the package. On the other hand, extra memory cards or rechargeable batteries would be a great backup.

To manipulate pictures, imaging software is required. Imaging software like Photoshop is quite costly, but it is always good to use the software to crop, erase, add, and edit images.


Other

When traveling, many photographs are taken, and usually a lot more are waiting to be taken. This is where those extra flash memory cards would be useful. However, if only one memory card is available, it’s very easy to reuse. All that’s needed is a computer. Photos can easily be put on a CD arranged in folders, so images can be found easily again. This makes digital cameras very convenient for a traveler. To get the images printed, some cameras have a printer to go with the camera, but photographic paper is needed. An easier way to get photos printed is to go to a retail outlet, where they have machines that assist you through the printing process.

Other things that should be considered is how much money is available to spend.


Digital Cameras VS Conventional Cameras

- Digital cameras have the ability to view images as soon as they have been recorded, whereas for conventional cameras, you cannot see the resulting shot until the film is developed.

- In digital cameras, unsuitable pictures can be deleted and therefore do not have to be processed. In conventional cameras, however, once the photo is taken, you must develop it.

- The digital camera memory can be re-used, because its photographs are stored on a flash memory card. However, the conventional camera has no storage space because all shots are recorded on film.

- There is no need to purchase film in a digital camera, because all photos, as mentioned before, are stored on a flash memory card.


Bibliography

- British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2005 [Online] http://www.specialschool.org/webforia/spsch31stdec/%7B2DD5921C-B3D7-4536-BD2A- 5C9EF8486747%7D_1155_649.htm July 1 2005

- Digital Camera Resource Page, 2005 [Online] http://www.dcresource.com/ June 30 2005

- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2005 [CD-ROM], Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.

- Fuji Film USA, 2005 [Online] http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalGoingDigital.jsp June 30 2005

- Long’s Electronics, 2005 [Online] http://www.longselectronics.com/camguide.jsp June 30 2005

- Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia, 2003 [CD-ROM], Microsoft

[edit] External links to enthusiast sites

It seems that in the past there have been clear cases of linkspam to personal pages. However, sites like dpreview.com and imaging-resource.com are definitely not in this category.

  • Unfortunately there is no way of determining this objectively. Google is a great place for finding sites like these - and Wikipedia is not a link farm, so I have reverted these edits. Not doing so will just encourage more linkspam. Cheers. --PhilipO 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you make this judgement in regards to the other links already here? Wikipedia is nothing if not a resource for accurate and helpful information. Fears of linkspam shouldn't lead to handicaping this central purpose of Wikipedia. Past cases of linkspam were blatently obvious in this page.

[edit] Digital Cameras VS Camcorders

Since modern digital cameras can record sound, how about a section contrasting them with camcorders? Rlevse 12:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not very Comprehensive

It seems to be more of "What digital cameras do" rather than "What digital Cameras are". This article should contain a History of digital cameras and a Critisisms section in addition to the current content. A reference is available here: [url]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldigitalcamera.htm[/url]--Mincetro 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just come to Talk to say pretty much the same thing! Unfortunately I don't have sufficient knowledge to write a proper History section myself, but digital photography has virtually nothing on it either, so there's most definitely a need to make one. Also, this:
Initially, a digital camera was characterized by the use of flash memory and USB or FireWire for storage and transfer
That "initially" as it stood was misleading, the 1994 Apple QuickTake came out before either USB or FireWire existed, and used a serial connection, as did a number of other early models. (Actually, "flash memory" is misleading too, given the Sony cameras that used floppies for storage.) I've added a very brief mention of the serial connection, but a proper History section still seems as though it should have a high priority. Loganberry (Talk) 09:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Camera Reviews

I think we should add a link to a very authoritative website for Digital Camera Reviews (www.camera-reviews.net) in the external links any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.229.4 (talk • contribs) .

Nice linkspam there mate. I checked it out and what do I find? camera-reviews.net redirects to... drum roll... bargainfindsonebay.com! So I've gone and unlinked your text, leaving the hostname in parentheses. You wouldn't happen to be Nexus Goof, would you? I just removed a link to that site which he managed to sneak into one of his edits. Stupid spammers. Imroy 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LSST

Thought it worth mentioning that the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope will use a 3 billion pixel digital camera. Simesa 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Photography

Thought it also might be worth mentioning something about (www.bargainfindsonebay.com/Digital_Photography.html Digital Photography) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.202.90 (talk • contribs)

You trying to link-spam the talk page again? Stupid spammers. Imroy 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Near IR

I have heard that CCDs are capable of seeing in the near-infrared spectrum, and that consumer digital cameras have an IR filter so that only the visible spectrum is recorded. Is this true? If so, we should probably mention it. Identity0 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read and link to Infrared photography. Dicklyon 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux link is quite dated

The page referred to is one that I had encountered in the past couple of days while trying to figure out what I needed to do to get my digital camera working on this linux box. Linux has come quite a long way since that page was written, and as it turned out all I needed to do was to come up with the proper mount statement while the camera was connected: "mount -t vfat /dev/sda1 /mnt/camera" and that did the trick, none of the other stuff mentioned at the link was necessary, though I did have to create the mountpoint. --Rtellason (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analog Camera?

I suggest someone add an explaination for what is meant when it says early digital cameras were analog? It is pretty unclear what is being discussed. TheHYPO (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m also quite confused as to what is meant by early digital cameras being analog. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I already added a line about that (...it recorded pixel signals continuously, as videotape machines did, without converting them to discrete levels; it recorded television-like signals to a 2 × 2 inch "video floppy"). No bits; just analog video. If you know what digital means, analog means not digital. Let me know if that's not clear. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Live Preview Digital Camera

That whole section and the article (Conventionally Generated Live Preview Digital Camera) it links to should be deleted. It is a made up term originating on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.16.115 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)