Display on a computer screen.................
How many computer screens will I need to fill my 16x12' wall space? What is the best way to hang them? How can I hang them without the power cords being visible? Can I drive 12 screens from one computer with a different image on each, or will I need a computer for each one? Where will I put the computer so that it is not visible? How can I run connections from computer to screen without wires being visible? I prefer borderless presentation.... how do I get rid of that nasty surround from the computer screen? I prefer flat to the wall presentation, will I need to dig into the sheetrock to make the front of the screen flush with the wall? How easy will it be to adjust the position or orientation of those when I rotate my pictures?
And... how much will that all cost me? I am thinking there will be a fair few screens needed for that 16x12' space. Oh, and I would like a mixture of sizes too, from 20x16" down to maybe 10x8"
I absolutely LOVE your idea of using a computer screen to display artwork on my walls instead of boring old canvas or paper.... if you can help me with some of the practical issues mentioned above I would be most grateful....
I realize there's a sub forum for this but most posts are several years old.
So question: any recommendations based on experience for a digital camera appropriate for snorkeling in Hawaii? Olympus TG-3 seems to be a contender....
I'd rather not get into Ikelite housings for full sized digital cameras...
Just bought the Olympus TG-5 for my Florida vacation - more than happy with the capabilities and quality (4K video and RAW images were top of my list). Used it on beach, underwater in sea, pool, lake - works great. Get one of those cheap "floater" wrists straps for it... I just leave mine floating on the surface of the pool 'til I need it :)
You know, all those places you listed prohibit drones....
I am pretty sure that is the point of his post!!!
Sheesh! "they're fair game..."
LOL.... annoying, isn't it?
The newer processor will move the photo to the memory card faster, but have no effect on low light capabilities.
The difference between 16MP and 12MP is minimal and if anything the 12MP will be better in low light and color rendition because the pixels will be larger.
The TG-5 has improved ergonomics and better button placement than the TG-4.
Thank you Mac... that helps...
Looking for a good rugged waterproof camera that will shoot RAW... The TG-4 seemed to fit the bill. But the new TG-5 is out this month and it has 4K video and the newer processor (better low light?)
BUT - resolution goes DOWN from 16MP to 12MP
Why? Any thoughts on which would be best for general use/underwater/etc.? Will that 4MP make a significant difference when set against the benefits of the newer processor, faster burst speeds and 4K video?
BTW - I know some of you don't see the point of 4K video - would rather we didn't go down that road on this thread thanks... let's just assume here that $K is "better" than 1080P for my purposes.
To do this stacking, there is a free application called 'DSS' which stands for Deep Sky Stacker. I suggest only downloading from the actual site since there is no guarantee how clean a program is coming from some other URL: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/download.htm
Dammit.... Windows only! :o(
That's the beauty of stacking. It aligns each ima... (
Awesome stuff - thanks Jim
I am adding a picture I took tonight using a 14mm ... (
Thanks Jim.... can you explain what you mean by "stacking" please? How come such short exposures? Also wouldn't time lapse result in trails or indistinct or even multiple points for each star?
I have found the Canon 6D to be a very good camera for the use that you described. Here is an example of Milky Way with 6D and a Canon 2.8 lens.
Beautiful image. Can you give me the focal length, ISO and exposure details?
Stars are point sources of light, and the f-stop v... (
Again... I think this is the salient point here... and something that I simply did not understand until now. Thank you for this, Jim!!!
I will, of course, still go out and do the comparison testing!!! LOL
This is the problem then. You cannot treat stars ... (
Now THAT is REALLY interesting.... and that might explain a lot given that he was using something like a 16mm or 20mm at f2.8, and I was using an 11mm at f4
Just to put the focus issue to bed - I was very happy with focus on the final images....
How good of focus did you have on the stars? When... (
Thanks for that. 11mm lens focused on slightly less than infinity gave me everything from around 3ft to infinity in focus. I also tried focusing on infinity... did not actually try to focus on stars specifically... was almost impossible to see them in VF
If you were basing the results on the camera viewf... (
Thanks. I do think that he had his viewfinder turned up brighter than mine for sure, but final results on computer monitor were also strikingly different. With 11mm focal length 40-45 secs is acceptable without seeing trails. I did try bumping ISO even higher to get same 20 sec exposure they were using, BUT even by doubling ISO again I was still looking at closer to 25-30 seconds for equivalent results compared to their 20 secs.... truly weird....
Note that the situation you just quote - 1600ISO, under 30 seconds, f2.8 - is pretty much what I was seeing from the others. What I did was double the ISO to 3200 in an attempt to use same 20 sec exposure at f4.... didn't work... had to increase to 45 secs... so I was exposing for double the time as the others.
Need to check that lens is not stuck at f5.6... or camera/lens communications are broken somehow...
Scientists do not typically change two variables on the same test run. Match all settings between cameras.
I made a career out of testing complex computer security devices... believe me when I tell you I know how to test stuff.... ;o)
Good idea re astronomy club... but I can't really wait for that given short return window on this equipment....