|
|
James Cook
{K:38068} 5/2/2007
|
Sure, 800 isn't so bad. Thing is, here are two examples of shots where I then show a bit of the original resolution.
This one I ran a PS filter on and then posted a small segment of here:
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1266621
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1266023
And this one a crop is located in the thread:
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1176064
But compared to what you're shooting with my camera is pretty slow.
I have seen some fair camera phone pictures here too.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
{K:8529} 5/2/2007
|
1.5MP is still pretty good, if you go full frame, particularly when it's only an 800 pixels web photo. You can actually get detail from a cell phone, as well. And because it's blurred, like this, there's not much chance for stair-step alias effects.
|
|
|
|
|
James Cook
{K:38068} 4/19/2007
|
Yeah, that's a really fast camera (the newest top o' the pops from Canon will do 10fps), but 1.5mp really sets you back a bit in terms of pixalization.
The shot is very effectively framed. The motion blur throughout it is great.
|
|
|
|
Marcus Armani
{K:36599} 10/26/2006
|
wow not that guy is being taken for a ride! the motion in this shot is very appealing, nice timing. well done..
|
|
|
|
Jason Mckeown
{K:22200} 10/25/2006
|
the only thing that lets this great shot down Joe is the obvious pixelation everything else is very good
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
{K:163889} 10/25/2006
|
wonderful shutter effect and very great composition
very best regards my friend
|
|
0 
