|
Post by grahamlfarrell on Dec 15, 2006 20:16:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rhece6 on Dec 16, 2006 22:21:18 GMT -5
Try more like 11 pictures and they are just screenshots from 3 various dvd's.
|
|
|
Post by grahamlfarrell on Dec 17, 2006 14:09:57 GMT -5
Screen shots or not. They are still picture's of Bon. 11 is better than 2 aswell m8.
|
|
|
Post by travishayes89 on Dec 24, 2006 12:28:07 GMT -5
11 > 2, Screenshots (at times) > Actual photgraphs.
|
|
|
Post by StiffUpperAngus on Dec 25, 2006 16:17:28 GMT -5
How are screen shots better then actual photographs... your making no sense
|
|
|
Post by angusaholic on Dec 25, 2006 21:58:32 GMT -5
Yeah really, Screenshots aren't really photos at all if you think about it. You are just pausing a DVD or whatever and hitting Print Screen, or if you use Windows Movie Maker, just taking a screenshot. I would rather want to take the actual shot. So I can say that I took that shot. You know, its more vaulable to your heart, unlike a screenshot, anyone can take those. But an actual photo, Not everyone can easily in 10 seconds do that.
You Know what I mean eh?
|
|
|
Post by rhece6 on Dec 26, 2006 17:31:30 GMT -5
11 > 2, Screenshots (at times) > Actual photgraphs. No, Screenshots are not Actual Photographs. Actual Photographs are taken with an Actual Camera, not using a computer to simply pause a video and kepp the same frame that it's paused on. By the sounds of it grahamlfarrell didn't even know what he was uploading and when I saw that the file was 7MB with 1 or 2 photos I thought that they were going to be decent sized photo's that were good quality.
|
|
|
Post by acdcUSSR on Dec 26, 2006 19:43:54 GMT -5
M'kay, time for the technical side of this. Consumer/amateur video cameras have, at best, 2 megapixels. Your HD DV camcorders are higher (probably around 4). DV and miniDV are probably around 2. Older Hi8, VHS-C, and VHS camcorders are probably about 2 depending on camcorder brand and quality. Your family videos don't have as good of megapixels as the TV cameras used to record TV shows. BUT! The better the camera, the higher the megapixel. There's also a higher "megapixel" with film cameras, since they have actual frames that you can see. Tape is just a long reel of film, whereas film-film has seperate frames already made, along with a visible audio track. Example: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Anamorphic-digital_sound.jpgen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vhs_cassette_bottom.jpgYou can see the individual frams with film. You can't with tape. Film results in MUCH higher quality and better editing options without sacrificing quality. For anyone who has the Pink Floyd "Pulse" DVD, it was TAPED, not FILMED. Gilmour later said that he wished they would've filmed it, resulting in better quality altogether, but especially on larger screens. The Donington DVD was FILMED in 35mm, resulting in beautiful picture quality. Get what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by grahamlfarrell on Dec 26, 2006 19:49:49 GMT -5
No, I did know. If you dont like them... Delete them. Simple, int it. All my pic's, screen shots or photo's are dear to my heart. They capture the moment regardless of where they came from. A collector wouldn't appriciate this, a fan would.
|
|
|
Post by angusaholic on Dec 27, 2006 22:30:11 GMT -5
yeah I see and acdcUSSR, I know, Donigton VHS is much better, but the DVD, the image is more crisp. But the audio sucks.
|
|
|
Post by rhece6 on Jan 7, 2007 23:05:28 GMT -5
M'kay, time for the technical side of this. Consumer/amateur video cameras have, at best, 2 megapixels. Your HD DV camcorders are higher (probably around 4). DV and miniDV are probably around 2. Older Hi8, VHS-C, and VHS camcorders are probably about 2 depending on camcorder brand and quality. Your family videos don't have as good of megapixels as the TV cameras used to record TV shows. BUT! The better the camera, the higher the megapixel. There's also a higher "megapixel" with film cameras, since they have actual frames that you can see. Tape is just a long reel of film, whereas film-film has seperate frames already made, along with a visible audio track. Example: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Anamorphic-digital_sound.jpgen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vhs_cassette_bottom.jpgYou can see the individual frams with film. You can't with tape. Film results in MUCH higher quality and better editing options without sacrificing quality. For anyone who has the Pink Floyd "Pulse" DVD, it was TAPED, not FILMED. Gilmour later said that he wished they would've filmed it, resulting in better quality altogether, but especially on larger screens. The Donington DVD was FILMED in 35mm, resulting in beautiful picture quality. Get what I mean? I totally get what you mean. No, I did know. If you dont like them... Delete them. Simple, int it. All my pic's, screen shots or photo's are dear to my heart. They capture the moment regardless of where they came from. A collector wouldn't appriciate this, a fan would. I'd much rather watch the Video though.
|
|
|
Post by travishayes89 on Jan 8, 2007 23:09:12 GMT -5
Stills taken from video clips sometimes get true to life action, where as photographs seem to take the life out of it.
|
|
|
Post by rhece6 on Jan 11, 2007 4:56:25 GMT -5
lol No they don't. Otherwise pictures wouldn't be enjoyable to look at.
|
|
|
Post by angusaholic on Jan 28, 2007 20:40:21 GMT -5
hahaha No travis, a screenshot is boring to look at, I think real photos are really cool to look at. They have better quality, better image than screenshots. Still there both great, but a real photo is cooler.
|
|
bon scott rawpower
Malcolm Young
" I've never had a message for anyone in my entire life. Except maybe to give out my room number." B
Posts: 148
|
Post by bon scott rawpower on Feb 23, 2007 12:49:34 GMT -5
|
|