Q. People who know cameras please help me find a very inexpensive digital camera that will not blur or motion bur and takes high resolution photos of close-up/small subjects. I definitely can't afford anything over $100, but $50 would be even better. I'm looking for the least expensive option that takes super super clear closeups basically.
I don't need a lot of storage space, just as long as it has a memory card slot. Would also be nice if it was wall-chargeable (aka you can plug it into an adapter to charge instead of a battery) but I don't know if that's possible. I don't know resolution jargon, but my current camera takes pictures that are roughly the size of an entire computer screen, so anything that resolution or better is good for me. It just blurs a lot, so that's why I need a new one.
Recommend away! Thank you!!!!
I don't need a lot of storage space, just as long as it has a memory card slot. Would also be nice if it was wall-chargeable (aka you can plug it into an adapter to charge instead of a battery) but I don't know if that's possible. I don't know resolution jargon, but my current camera takes pictures that are roughly the size of an entire computer screen, so anything that resolution or better is good for me. It just blurs a lot, so that's why I need a new one.
Recommend away! Thank you!!!!
A. Canon PowerShot A2300 is an excellent camcorder. This camera comes with 16 megapixels. It also has an excellent 28mm wide angle lens with digital image stabilizer and a 720p HD video. This camera shoots awesome pictures,videos and have been one of the top recommended in 2013 so far. It would be perfect for your youtube videos. It is sold at amazon for $88.72 which i think is a decent price for such quality. I have provided links below for you.
Canon PowerShot A2300 16.0 MP Digital Camera with 5x Digital Image Stabilized Zoom 28mm Wide-Angle Lens with 720p HD Video Recording (Red)
check out this video that the camcorder took below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87rv5OUn17s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_6rS2x3JAE
Source(s):
Professional photographer for over 20 years
Canon PowerShot A2300 16.0 MP Digital Camera with 5x Digital Image Stabilized Zoom 28mm Wide-Angle Lens with 720p HD Video Recording (Red)
check out this video that the camcorder took below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87rv5OUn17s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_6rS2x3JAE
Source(s):
Professional photographer for over 20 years
This may sound like a stupid question, but hear me out?
Q. There are two .jpg images. Each has the precise number of pixels – e.g., the dimensions are the same.
These were images taken by a professional photographer so presumably he had good equipment, lighting, etc.
On was about 500KB, and decent, but a bit blurry. The other was 10 MB and crystal clear. You could see the dew on the blades of grass, the individual strands of the people’s hair, etc.
I know this sounds strange, but given the precise amount of physical information, pixels, were used, where is that additional 9.5 MB coming from and what goes into making it a better image?
BQ: What is primary reason digital images look better in 2013 than 2003 – technology, or was the technology available in 2003, but the data size of the files precluded them from widespread use?
OK. I thought if two images were say, 1000 x 1000 pixels, and if you viewed said image on a 23 inch monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution, that they would be *exactly* the same physical size on that monitor.
These were images taken by a professional photographer so presumably he had good equipment, lighting, etc.
On was about 500KB, and decent, but a bit blurry. The other was 10 MB and crystal clear. You could see the dew on the blades of grass, the individual strands of the people’s hair, etc.
I know this sounds strange, but given the precise amount of physical information, pixels, were used, where is that additional 9.5 MB coming from and what goes into making it a better image?
BQ: What is primary reason digital images look better in 2013 than 2003 – technology, or was the technology available in 2003, but the data size of the files precluded them from widespread use?
OK. I thought if two images were say, 1000 x 1000 pixels, and if you viewed said image on a 23 inch monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution, that they would be *exactly* the same physical size on that monitor.
A. It means the .jpg is the same size,"pixels" have different meanings, size and resolution. The computer can make bigger pixles smaller, either to save space or because the camera resolution is to small eg. 2.2 mp or 20 mp. (megapixles) the size of the file is different because there are way more smaller pixles in the one that the other. Therdore higher resolution. The year difference is because the cameras back then only had like , 1 megapixle and now pro cameras have up to 100 megapixles
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar