Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 8, 2011, 9:35 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faiyz View Post
I'll try to look for a photo host to publish my photos, as for uploading them to the forum, the maximum allowed size is smaller than what I have, that's why I put them on Rapidshare.
Downsize them first. ;-)

If you're using Windows, you may want to try the free Irfanview to resize your images.

After opening an image (File>Open), just go to the Image>Resize/Resample choice and make the longest dimension no larger than 1024 pixels (and around 800 is fine), making sure the box to retain aspect ratio is checked. Personally, I use the Lanczos algorithm for resizing (you'll see a drop down list of choices).

Then, after you resize the image so that the dimensions are smaller, use the File>Save As choice and give it a new filename (so that you don't overwrite your original), selecting JPG as the file type. When saving a JPEG file, you'll see a box pop up with a JPEG quality slider. I'd make it about 80% to keep the file size where it's not too large for an image with dimensions of around 800 pixels on it's longest side.

In order to prevent the forums software from modifying images, they must not be any larger than 1024 pixels on their longest side, and the file size should not be any larger than 253.9KB (260,000 bytes).

The forums software will also strip out the EXIF information if you exceed the limits we have set for the maximum allowed sizes here

So, even though the forums software will try to resize/recompress images if they're not too far over the limits, it's a bad idea to let it (unless you want softer images with no EXIF information in them).

You're much better off resizing them yourself before uploading them. Then, as long as they're within the limits for both file size and dimensions, the forums software will not modify them.

If you're using Linux, I'd install digiKam if you have the resources. Make sure to install the Kipi Plugins, too. You'll find them in the repositories for most Linux distros. It's pretty good and has the ability to resize images in batch mode.

I don't keep up with Mac software if you're using OS X. But, most any image editor can resize a photo for you.

Note that even if you host them elsewhere versus uploading them to our servers, I'm going to frown on someone embedding full resolution images in a forum post here. We prefer that images are no larger than about 1024x768 when you embed them in a post (and 800x600 is even better).

Keep in mind that many users don't have higher resolution displays (the most common display size is still 1024 x 768 pixels if you look at most statistics keeping track of that kind of thing).

http://gs.statcounter.com/#resolutio...-200903-201101

You also have members browsing forums with netbooks and even smart phones. So, even an image that's 1024 pixels on it's longest side can make it difficult for some members to see the entire image without scrolling.

If file sizes are too large, that can also cause problems for members, as we still have a number of members that don't have high speed internet access.

Also, some wireless data plans are not unlimited and have bandwidth usage restrictions (i.e., based on how much data is downloaded in kilobytes). So, larger image file sizes increase member costs in those cases (using more of the bandwidth on the data plan they have), and can cause longer page load times with large image sizes (especially if more than one image is on a page).

Not too long ago, we used to recommend images be no larger than 640 x 480 pixels. Here's an old post on the subject (the instructions are no longer valid, since we've changed forums software since then).

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/ge...ur-photos.html

Right now, we have the forums set for a maximum size of 1024 pixels on the longest side of an image, with a max file size of 253.9KB. But, keep in mind that that's still considered to be large when users don't have high speed internet access, or have a usage based data plan. Ditto for trying to view a larger image on a smaller screen (netbooks, smart phones, etc.) without needing to scroll to see all of it.

IOW, please don't assume everyone has the latest and greatest high resolution display, and an unlimited usage high speed internet plan when posting images here. ;-)

If you want to embed an image that's larger than around 1024 pixels on the longest side, please post a link to it instead of embedding it in a post. We don't currently have an automated way of enforcing size limits when photos are hosted elsewhere. But, if I see full resolution images embedded in a post here, chances are, I'm going to remove them, or remove the img tags so that only a link is displayed instead.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2011, 1:47 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loekids View Post


This is one of my HS10 shot. For the photo hosts, here I use flickr. Just register there and upload your photos, either as private or public, as you like. Then you can open one of them then just copy and paste here. Of course you don't need full resolution pics to upload.

The 4.5x HD we're talking about is a teleconverter (TC). There are many famous brands, but the ones suitable for HS10 are Sony 1758 series (DH1758 is the one available now), Olympus Tcon17 and some Raynox (I'm not sure which series). Canons DC58 series are said not compatible because of the deep thread. The 4.5x magnification of the Zeikos may seem amazing, but consider also the quality of the image, ie sharpness, color, detail, focusing speed etc. With 1.7x magnification (number 17 of the Sony1758 and Tcon17 means 1.7x magnification) you get equal 1200some mm of lens, and it's quite difficult to handle the cam still, don't be so optimistic with 4.5x magnification.

Lenses and filters, there are many many. But some of the famous, quite reasonable price and good quality brands are Hoya, Tiffen and B&W.
Hi guys!

I haven't been on here alot since i bought my HS10 last year and i stumbled across this post because i'm in the same situation. I was so close to buying the Zeikos 4.5x Telephoto lens until i found this post so once again i'm very happy to be part of this wonderful site
Ok i can't afford those brands that were listed and recomended above so what about a 3.5x Vivitar like this one? http://www.ebay.ca/itm/360417716246?...84.m1438.l2649

OR a Bower Telephoto lens like this one?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/330609504923?...84.m1438.l2649

I've narrowed it down to either one of these two and would like to know which one is better before buying?

Thanks so much for all your help in the past,present and future

Michael
Mike6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2011, 3:18 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Default

Is there ever anyone on here anymore....???
Mike6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2011, 4:14 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Sure.... But, not everyone is going know much about TCs you're asking about.

However, as a general rule of thumb, a lot of them like that are junk and can degrade image quality more than they help it. You tend to get what you pay for in many cases, and there is a reason the higher quality TCs cost more (and you tend to run into issues trying to use that much magnification, too -- which is one reason the better ones tend to be around 1.4x to 1.7x, and you can still run into vignetting, flare related issues, etc. -- even with higher quality optics, especially on a camera that already has a lot of optical zoom).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2011, 8:54 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
Sure.... But, not everyone is going know much about TCs you're asking about.

However, as a general rule of thumb, a lot of them like that are junk and can degrade image quality more than they help it. You tend to get what you pay for in many cases, and there is a reason the higher quality TCs cost more (and you tend to run into issues trying to use that much magnification, too -- which is one reason the better ones tend to be around 1.4x to 1.7x, and you can still run into vignetting, flare related issues, etc. -- even with higher quality optics, especially on a camera that already has a lot of optical zoom).
TC'S...? I'm just asking which would be better....
Mike6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2011, 10:07 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TC = Teleconverter (that's a common way to refer to an add on lens that provides more magnification).

Note that we also have a dedicated forum for add on lenses like you're looking at here:

Add-On Lenses

Frankly, I think you'd be throwing away your money with either one. Chances are, you're not going to find a TC with good quality with more than around 1.4x to 1.7x magnification, and even then, most of them in the price range you're in will have very poor quality optics.

Good glass is not cheap.

With something like one of the 3.5x TCs you're looking at, I would expect vignetting (darkening of corners) or what looks like viewing an image through a dark Tunnel, giving you soft images with lots of CA (Chromatic Aberrations/Purple Fringing) and a washed out look due to veiling flare in brighter light, if they would even mount (as the HS10 can be a bit "picky" about thread depth from what I can find out from users that have tried different TCs on one).

Most of those types of optics are only suitable for lower resolution video cameras, not higher resolution still cameras, because they just don't resolve enough line pairs per millimeter for good quality with modern digital camera sensors.

So, I'd be very surprised if you found either one to provide anything close to good images.

It's your money. But, I'd make sure to buy one of them from a vendor that has a good return policy, because I suspect you're probably going to be disappointed with either one. If you're dead set on buying one of them, it looks like B&H (a very reputable vendor) stocks that Vivitar, and they have a pretty good return policy, and they also ship to Canada. It's got 4 elements in 4 groups (all multi-coated) from what I can see of it's specs. So, it may not be as bad as some of them in that price range. But, I wouldn't "hold my breath", as it's probably pretty bad. ;-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...onversion.html

Return Policy (but if you decide to return it, I'd expect to pay for shipping costs both ways and/or have a restocking fee, since returns cost a vendor money since they can't resell the same item again as new):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Hel...rnExchange.jsp
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2012, 3:15 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Default

Thanks Jim! I do expect the tunneling to a certain degree and i'm not looking for perfection with this type of lens. I want it for very long distance shots such as pics of the moon. I can take some amazing shots with my Nikkon P100 but my fuji HS doesn't even come close to being as powerful because it only has the 30x manual zoom and the Nikkon has both manual and digital. The pics would not amaze anyone here because alot of you folks are exeperts with very $$$ equipement but alot of people on facebook are amazed at least lol.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
TC = Teleconverter (that's a common way to refer to an add on lens that provides more magnification).

Note that we also have a dedicated forum for add on lenses like you're looking at here:

Add-On Lenses

Frankly, I think you'd be throwing away your money with either one. Chances are, you're not going to find a TC with good quality with more than around 1.4x to 1.7x magnification, and even then, most of them in the price range you're in will have very poor quality optics.

Good glass is not cheap.

With something like one of the 3.5x TCs you're looking at, I would expect vignetting (darkening of corners) or what looks like viewing an image through a dark Tunnel, giving you soft images with lots of CA (Chromatic Aberrations/Purple Fringing) and a washed out look due to veiling flare in brighter light, if they would even mount (as the HS10 can be a bit "picky" about thread depth from what I can find out from users that have tried different TCs on one).

Most of those types of optics are only suitable for lower resolution video cameras, not higher resolution still cameras, because they just don't resolve enough line pairs per millimeter for good quality with modern digital camera sensors.

So, I'd be very surprised if you found either one to provide anything close to good images.

It's your money. But, I'd make sure to buy one of them from a vendor that has a good return policy, because I suspect you're probably going to be disappointed with either one. If you're dead set on buying one of them, it looks like B&H (a very reputable vendor) stocks that Vivitar, and they have a pretty good return policy, and they also ship to Canada. It's got 4 elements in 4 groups (all multi-coated) from what I can see of it's specs. So, it may not be as bad as some of them in that price range. But, I wouldn't "hold my breath", as it's probably pretty bad. ;-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...onversion.html

Return Policy (but if you decide to return it, I'd expect to pay for shipping costs both ways and/or have a restocking fee, since returns cost a vendor money since they can't resell the same item again as new):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Hel...rnExchange.jsp
Mike6969 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:36 AM.