h a l f b a k e r yEureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
groupcam
takes hundreds of pictures over a short time (eg. 0.5 sec) for good group photographs | |
How many times have you tried to take pictures of a group of people, and no matter how many times you do it, there's always one person with a goofy expression in each picture ? The groupcam solves this problem by taking a few hundred pictures within the space of half a second or so (obviously it needs
a slight technology advance). You can then use a little post-process application to blend between different versions of the same picture until you get a "perfect" composite.
Continuous photography
http://www.photocourse.com/12/12-02.htm
Taking a number of photos in a short space of time. [madradish, Sep 06 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Photron APX
http://www.photron...._prod_apx_main.html
Lots of pictures in a short time. Bring money. [bristolz, Sep 06 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
EOS-1V
http://www.usa.cano...ras_slr/eos_1v.html
Camera that boasts the fastest continuous shooting [madradish, Sep 06 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Hi bumhat, welcome to the halfbakery. I'm afraid that
your idea is baked. I used to have a camera that did this. |
|
| |
I agree that the camera is baked (link) but I think that there is a big difference between a system that takes hundreds of images per second, like that described in the idea, and one that takes ~5 or so a second. |
|
| |
The original part is in the post-processing that allows a merging of lots of closely-spaced-in-time images to net a picture perfect image. |
|
| |
I dunno, the idea seems to focus on the camera with the
processing thrown in as an afterthought. Also, this sort of
processing can be done with extant programs (photoshop
etc) and a little skill. |
|
| |
The Canon EOS-1V claims to have the fastest continuous
shooting speed (linky) and it can take 10 frames in a
second. Apparently the difficulties with increasing this
have to do with film transport. Many hundreds of pictures
taken in less than a second seems unrealistic. |
|
| |
How about a motion picture camera, like a Photosonics? 1200 FPS film, mechanical. Or a Mitchell-Fries at 96 FPS, pin-registered. |
|
| |
Wow bris, that was fast! I have to admit that I don't know
a great deal about cameras so I go by what google tells
me. I had a look at the ones
you mentioned and they were very large and very
expensive. Not really made for group photos unless you
are a professional portrait photographer. |
|
| |
I'm curious as to whether the 'post-process application'
would be automated (which would be very difficult to do)
or whether it would involve lots of fiddling. |
|
| |
Digital image capture would avoid the film-transport problem, and would also enable one to use a version of the "magic-wand" area-selection tool in PhotoShop (or is it Paint Shop Pro?) to say "Keep this person on this frame, use a different frame of *this* person". |
|
| |
You'd probably need 10 to 20 seconds of pictures to get rid of goofy expressions, turned heads and rabbit ears. |
|
| |
I've done this - making a composite of several photos (taken seconds apart) of a family group, to get one that looks good and which you can't tell it's not a real photo. I had 4 negatives professionally scanned onto CD - about 13Mb each. I used Photoshop for the jiggery-pokery and wrote the finished file back to CD and had it nicely printed on photo paper (and onto the back of my parents' Christmas card last year). The one I ad printed on photo paper is 8"x12" and you can't tell it's not a genuine photo. |
|
| |
I'm with FJ - you expect people to get rid of goofy expressions within half a second! Some folk I've worked with haven't got rid of theirs for over 4 years now. |
|
| |
As angel notes, you only need two or three photos and a copy of Photoshop. |
|
| |
If two or three aren't enough, the group isn't worth photographing in the first place. Sorting through several hundred photographs to find exactly the right one is not so easy as all that, and if you've taken more than a couple of groups, you'll be at it all week. |
|
| |
Or, enlarge the goofiest expressions and publish them on a very public website, with lots of traffic. The offending goofs will either die of mortifying embarassment or learn to control their facial muscles? Eventually, this will allow homo sapiens to weed out individual genes responsible for goofy expressions. |
|
| |
It's usually the same few clowns who sabotage the picture. Next time send them special invitations that have them several counties away from the actual event when you take the picture and save yourself a lot of grief. |
|
| |