By George, I think I've got it!

[Leothelion]

Hi EveryoneThis post is about pixils and I think have learned something about them. Some good and some not so good! Bitmap verses .jpg! Some of you probably already got the picture but here it goes! I have this camera, a Canon Mavica FD-91, that was a popular $1100 camera 4-5 years ago! I paid less then $300 for the thing because it was a shelf display model and plus I used one of those $400 rebates by joining a MSN internet service but that's another long story! For the past 4 years or so I have been learning how to use this camera effectively, to take pictures of my coins. I have had some success and have learned some from threads posted by others here. So last night, I'm trying to figure out why some of my pictures are turning out (slightly) blury while I'm having some luck with other pictures. The wonderful thing about my camera is that it takes pictures with a floppy and that I can transfer the pictures easily to my computer. The camera also has a few settings where I can take a picture using the jpg or bitmap format. And I already know the bitmap format uses more pixels per inch then jpg. So this is where I did my investigating, comparing the jpg pixels to the bitmap pixels! With my Microsoft photo editor and yes, I know it's old, but with it, I can blow up the pictures 1600% and compare the arrangement of the pixels between formats. I did this to see which format would give me a sharper picture. And another great thing my camera does when I have the format set to bitmap, it will also provide a second picture in the jpg format! So it's very interesting that I can get two pictures through one click of the button and compare the pixels! Another great feature is the 5 second delay option that I use so I don't need to steady the camera while the picture is taken and also the camera has a anti blur mechanism that helps take clear pictures. I also have a makeshift camera stand! So I have just about everything going for me in taking some of the greatest pictures in the world of my coins, right? Wrong! First note that I have already proven that the bitmap takes a better pic then the jpg format when I compared the pixels. And furthermore, the pixels don't change when I load them up to the computer and Photo editor. My problems start when I copy the 300 pixel per inch(ppi) bitmap pic onto the blank page Photo editor provides but now the picture has been reduced to 100 ppi but yet, when comparing the bitmap pic to the copied pic, the pixels have not changed! They are exactly the same! This I haven't figured out! Now my thinking has turned to what Vendio, the website where I load up my pictures for auction, will do to my pictures and what ebay will do with them. Does anyone know, by the time I copy them from ebay back to my Photo editor if the pixels have changed?And here is the best picture that I believe I've ever taken with this camera.

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

Leo

[spy88]

Leo, I really wish I could help you but I don't know a thing about bitmap pics. The only thing I can suggest (and you probably already know it) is to move your camera up or down your stand to get the focus. If you leave it in one place and has worked some of the time but not others, then you may be forgetting to turn on the macro (does it have one?).

 

All I can think of to add.

[Oldtrader3]

Leo: High macro ratios have very shallow depth of field. The closer you get to 1:1 ratio, the shallower the depth of field. This is a lens design issue, not one of pixel size. You may need to use a small spirit level on the back of the camera and or on the coin to assure that they are level and parallel in both axis.

[Leothelion]

Thanks guys

I did find out that the pixels remained unchanged after uploading the above pic to Vendio and then to this thread and copied back to my photo editor. Each and every pixel was in it's exact position! As for the macro setting! There is none! The above picture of the 1958 nickel is a macro as my camera gets! I'm planning on picking up a series of macro lens 1x, 2x and 4x this afternoon to see if they make a difference. I was also told that they can be combined for higher magnification although I'm a bit puzzled with the 1x lens. Anything times one is the same, isn't it? Well, we'll soon find out. Will the 2x times 4x lens give me 8x square?

 

Leo

[EZ_E]

Leo, every time that I've had a photo in Bitmap then I could never, ever post it as a file in hotmail or on these boards. What is the Bitmap format used for besides for higher resolution?

[Leothelion]

Leo, every time that I've had a photo in Bitmap then I could never, ever post it as a file in hotmail or on these boards. What is the Bitmap format used for besides for higher resolution?

EZ_EIt's for higher definition as I'm finding out! The pixels are tighter, leaner or less are used to define a line or design of the image.And here's my first gigantic picture using the macro lenses I recently purchased. Am I excited or what?

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

Leo

[thebeav]

Leo,

Interesting thread. There are too many doggone steps on that nickel though. Somebody's going to trip and fall down those things !!! (Great pic)

My Mavica, FD73, won't accept the lenses. At least, that's what I was told....

 

Paul

[Leothelion]

beav

What's the thread size on your camera? 35mm?

 

Leo

[EZ_E]

Leo, I can see what you're saying: Incredible details on the Jefferson reverse!

 

Still, why are Bitmap images so user unfriendly and incompatable with most applications? I have to convert them to JPEG's in order to work with them.

[Leothelion]

Victor

Without doing an internet research report, I'd have to say it has something to do with the large amount of bytes used in the bitmap format.

 

Leo

[EZ_E]

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the reply, Leo.

[thebeav]

Hi Leo,

The inside diameter of my lens is 32mm.....It does appear to be threaded in there. I remember something in the manual saying that lenses were not an option.

I'm going to have to dig that out and look again. It's been many years.

 

Paul