My first attempt with a digital camera

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

Well, today I remembered that I was given a digi camera for an xmas prezzie back in 2000, but I'd never been able to get it to work. Turns out, my dad's computer was just way too old to cope with it, as it works fine on my shiny new one. 🙂 Well, considering.

The camera is a really cheap one, only £30 when it was new, and as for it's capabilities, I decided to test them out. Here's four shots of my foot and a short clip that I did as a first test. I shouldn't imagine anyone has problems with AVIs, but anyone who can't see it will most probably need to dl a copy of the DivX codec. Also, yes, the camera angle WAS lousy - it is now sitting on top of the monitor. 😀

EDIT: Forgot to attach files...d'oh! Please let me know what you think, and I'll start thinking of a way to produce a tickle video as a solo project using this camera. 😀

 

[nessonite1]

I didn't get any sound...
Oddly enough the quality of the video picture was higher than the stills. Weird

 

[casanova]

What type of camera was used. The still quality was horrible,a nd I couldn't get the vid to work. May I suggest that you google some photography sites to get some tips. I found it very helpful when I got my first digi cam and my pics have been improving ever since!!!! Congrats on getting your cam up and running and some pictures posted.!!!

 

[nessonite1]

Thade...I'm sure it's due to the camera being, no offence, bad. For $100 you can get a camera that will take pictures perfectly adeqyate for web use and, if you've got 0 budjet, for like $20 you can get one that's pretty decent as well though it will probably run on standard battaries and have no card slot. 😛

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

Yep, Nessonite's right - the camera really is just that bad (but that's what you'd expect for £30 - how much is that in $, anyway? 🙂 ). No amount of photography experience could make them look any better, sorry.

The only reason I can think of for the video being better quality is that photos are stored in the camera's 4MB memory (and 20 "hi-res" - or 80 "low res" photos can fit in there, hence the crappy pic quality). It can only be used as a video-camera when it's connected to a computer, and records directly to the hard drive instead.

As I said, I compressed the video using the DivX codec http://www.divx.com/divx/download/ (the raw AVI footage was about 85MB compared to the little over 1 that I got it down too - and without losing any of the *ahem* video quality). Also, I hadn't yet plugged in the mic, so there was no sound to this clip; I've now tested that however, and the sound is working. 🙂

 

[nessonite1]

I can never remember how £'s translate to $'s. I THINK that would be about $20 but don't quote me on that. I didnt even know you could GET a camera that cheap 5 years ago beyond like a webcam..come to think of it the picture quality is pretty comparable to my webcam which is about the same age.

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

Right conversion factor, wrong direction - it equates to roughly $55 (at present). But even at the time it would've been about $50.

Well it can be used as a webcam - for stills shots, it's abosolutely hopeless, and it can only do video when connected to the PC. So, either as a camcorder that's connected to the computer, or as a webcam (and I got it to work with MSN Messenger last night. Woo).

 

[nessonite1]

ahhh...my mistake. 😛 I really didnt think it was right that you could get a camera for $20 5 years ago 😛

 

[Yet_One_More_Idiot]

W00T! Over 1700 views of the thread (and I'd imagine a decent portion of those downloaded the short video), and it hasn't even been up for a day.

I'm...speechless! In a very good way, of course. 😀

 

[naveltkltr1350]

to be exact..at this time its 394 viewed the video