| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2002 12:57:20 PM · #26 |
Again, that would be relative to the distance. I have taken pictures from a moving vehicle on a clear day with a sharp backgroup. Nothing else in the frame show much in the way of vibration. I have seen very clear pictures taken from helicopters and airplanes that are sharp. The body can dampen a lot of the vibration. I tripod mounted to a vehicle will make it worse, because the vibration is delivered right to the camera. With a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster, I think this is possible, but it does look very sharp.
Originally posted by Reuben:
I think the main argument is that cars are not tripods. They vibrate with the road, and so it would be difficult to expose for any period of time long enough to get blurring on the road without lots of motion coming through from the car's vibration.
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]It is a matter of perspective, the road close to the car will appear to blur more. It movement will affect more of the frame becaus of it's relative distance to the lens. If the the camera moved 2 inches duringthe exposure, an object 1.5 inches from the camera would be 0.5 an inch out of the frame by the time the exposure is complete. For an object 3000 feet away at the start would be 2999 feet 10.5 inches from from the camera, I believe that would hardly be noticable.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 01:03:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
Are you going to dispute that it's difficult? I certainly didn't say it was anywhere near impossible :)
Oh, it's very difficult, but it is possible. I know you're not saying it's impossible, but others seem to be. And the tripod comment in this thread was right on, a tripod would carry the vibration straight to the camera; the key is the body dampening the vibration.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 01:16:14 PM · #28 |
| i was really just kidding about the tripod. :-) |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:18:43 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by karmat:
i was really just kidding about the tripod. :-)
I was referring to Zeissman's post, in which he said:
I tripod mounted to a vehicle will make it worse, because the vibration is delivered right to the camera.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 02:55:42 PM · #30 |
The only blur I see in this picture is due to the road. The car looks pretty sharp, this image is very bright with good contrast, that also makes it looks sharp. but, 1/30th seems pretty slow.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/13/2002 7:10:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 03:32:31 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Again, that would be relative to the distance. I have taken pictures from a moving vehicle on a clear day with a sharp backgroup. Nothing else in the frame show much in the way of vibration. I have seen very clear pictures taken from helicopters and airplanes that are sharp. The body can dampen a lot of the vibration. I tripod mounted to a vehicle will make it worse, because the vibration is delivered right to the camera. With a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster, I think this is possible, but it does look very sharp.
I can believe you can take a sharp picture from a moving car, what I
don't think you can get is all that motion blur at the same time -
could be wrong, but it just looked altered
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 03:53:48 PM · #32 |
I would be more impressed if this were a composit.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]Again, that would be relative to the distance. I have taken pictures from a moving vehicle on a clear day with a sharp backgroup. Nothing else in the frame show much in the way of vibration. I have seen very clear pictures taken from helicopters and airplanes that are sharp. The body can dampen a lot of the vibration. I tripod mounted to a vehicle will make it worse, because the vibration is delivered right to the camera. With a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster, I think this is possible, but it does look very sharp.
I can believe you can take a sharp picture from a moving car, what I
don't think you can get is all that motion blur at the same time -
could be wrong, but it just looked altered
[/i]
|
|
|
|
06/13/2002 03:55:30 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I can believe you can take a sharp picture from a moving car, what I
don''t think you can get is all that motion blur at the same time -
could be wrong, but it just looked altered
Motion blur is a function of shutter speed and rate of subject motion relative to camera, nothing more. The question is whether it''s possible to keep the camera that still for 1/30 sec, and as I''ve mentioned I believe it is. I''ve done so for 1/45, and the difference is only another 1/90 sec. What''s more, this photo is probably reduced substantially from the original scan, so there could be some very slight shake that reduced away.
I took a very close look at this image in photoshop, and cannot find any evidence of alteration. Remember, Gordon that a lot of people thought this photo was was altered as well. Just because an image looks too good to be true doesn''t mean it is.
-Terry
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/13/2002 7:57:23 PM. |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 04:15:30 PM · #34 |
| I've been looking at Darwin's pics for about a year and a half, and that guy can do anything. If the caption on that road pic read "taken underwater holding my Kodac DC215 up to the periscope while eating a sandwich and chatting on my cell phone" I'd believe it. You guys are absolutely correct about the relative motion thing, and 1/30, while not necessarily easy, is absolutely doable. One of my favorites of his, and the first I ever saw, is a pic of him swinging his son around by the arms (holding hands). He duct taped his camera (35mm, I think) to his head and held a pneumatic cable release in his mouth. |
|
|
|
06/13/2002 05:41:03 PM · #35 |
Yeah, Darwin absolutely, positively KICKS ASS!!
Of course his stuff is film photography but if you need to see some incredible photography just visit his over 100 photos on photos sig.
Another of his On the Road shots minust the car it is still spectacular!
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/13/2002 9:43:57 PM. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 01:03:30 PM EDT.
