Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: "MLUG Off-Topic Discussion" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] I missed the best woot evar
- From: "Ryan Thornton" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:01:58 -0600
- Delivery-date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:02:11 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=aFlVUO+I+iDZTLV3g8kZyImrUa4ZAm/Gj94fkEN4Aus=; b=m8vQ4j/wcj8rpbltnGe4h5KjsVZEp8Yr9XleU50N3wThGkOLuQo/eScFZ3w0Rjxaxcxz622J415ww4L9PlQGQyEdXDGJvIMGj2JZGYwlMSrO/LrgFY4SOUZwLMOfBmDN85jGilboAzygX5l2YgVvniGYtbZbqeuW4mP6q3FkgiI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=X+41NHicgkmz6a1hk3PhNKvGmvJX45YJR67Zm143X034nikK+PhMCmU5WLhphgEwojN7pJn64HRx/QPKc+i6hAbvl07X1xXo6HkVA/t8zVsn7eU77T5IEPXUNJRL4cCTriZUwNVKYOvsm0igYiTEjIb8xqqG8Dh87XLGQM+JcSw=
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED, MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
I'd say the quality of the lens counts for more than the megapixel
size. Adding more megapixels when the lens can't resolve that close
is like using digital zoom to get closer -- it doesn't add any
meaningful information.
(that's not to say a $50 camera wouldn't be good to hack on, play
with... it might be fun to rig up one with external batteries and a
timing circuit and set several outside for time-lapse photography)
-- Ryan
On Nov 12, 2007 2:21 AM, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > Sigh...
> >
> > http://www.woot.com/
> >
> > A 6 MP camera you can get USB out from for $50 is just too impressive to
> > pass up. But I missed it. Oh well...
>
>
> I guess that's this one, for future readers:
>
> http://www.woot.com/Blog/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryId=3273
>
>
> Regarding the MP debate: The number of pixels definitely counts for
> something. I agree that it is like MHz -- that has some meaning too.
> One 4 MP camera could be better than some 6 MP camera, but how many 1 MP
> cameras are better than how many 6 MP cameras? Take a photo, print it,
> and compare. My cell phone has a 0.3 MP camera (640x480) -- you don't
> have to see a photo to know that it isn't going to be all that impressive!
>
> Side note: I can bring my USB stick with me when I go grocery shopping,
> pop it into a little machine there and have it print out photos for me at
> a cost of $0.19 per 6"x4" photo -- no waiting! It's pretty amazing. I
> just realized that I can do one better, though I haven't tried it yet: I
> can use my cell phone/PDA (Treo 600) to download a photo from my web
> pages, save it on the SD card, put that card into the machine and print my
> photos. The next step will be to have networked machines hooked up to the
> photo printer in the store so that you can download and print seemlessly.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion