CGTalk > Technical > Technical and Hardware
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-01-2004, 10:22 AM   #1
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
looking for a good camera

I'm looking for a good camera for taking hires (like 4k x 4k) picures of various textures and such. I don't know of any digital camera that can do that kind of resolution, or even 2k x 2k. Or do you think that 2k by 2k would be enough? I really don't know. So, if I don't get a digital camera then I would need a good scanner as well and I really know very little about scanners.

Any suggestions?

Last edited by 3Dfx_Sage : 02-01-2004 at 04:17 PM.
 
Old 02-01-2004, 02:20 PM   #2
imashination
Expert
 
imashination's Avatar
portfolio
Matthew ONeill
3D Fluff
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,824
How much are you looking to spend?
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
Old 02-01-2004, 02:36 PM   #3
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
up to about $800 but I'd really rather not go quite that high.
 
Old 02-01-2004, 03:02 PM   #4
imashination
Expert
 
imashination's Avatar
portfolio
Matthew ONeill
3D Fluff
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,824
Check the general talk forum, I just posted one for sale.
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
Old 02-01-2004, 03:14 PM   #5
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
wow, that's really nice but I don't know a thing about HDRI. I'm more looking for something to use for textures- I'm always seeing something that I'd like to have a picture of but never a camera.
 
Old 02-01-2004, 03:44 PM   #6
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
I already have a rather nice traditional camera if I wanted to use it to produce slides / negatives. How about one of these film scanners? It looks quite a bit cheaper considering I already have a high quality camera, but what dpi would I need? And what about those other specs? I know nothing about this stuff.
 
Old 02-01-2004, 11:42 PM   #7
dvornik
--lowlife--
 
dvornik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,442
You may consider the Digital Rebel - it's almost within yor budget if you shop around. Since it's an SLR you have an upgrade path. Otherwise a lot of 5 megapixel cameras like Nikon Coolpix, Sony cybershot etc are totally within your budget. It's like 2560 x 1920 which is plenty for most purposes. Digital camera really streamlines your workflow compared to a scanner and saves you a bunch of money, too. Make sure you get one that can do TIFF or RAW, some cameras just do jpgs.
 
Old 02-02-2004, 12:18 AM   #8
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
mmmm I'm not sure sure that resolution is going to be enough for me. I'm wanting to make some texture CD's to sell (yes, people do buy them...)
 
Old 02-02-2004, 02:18 AM   #9
raz-0
:P
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 391
well you are what we technically refer to as either

a) shit out of luck

or

b) in over your head.

or

c) have unrealistic expectations.


Even professional digital cameras barely go up to 4k by 4k resolution.

Things that get close

canon EOS digital rebel - 3kx2k roughly, $900 with lense.

kodak DCS proback 645 - 4k by 4k... it's a back for a large format camera, which I don't even want to speculate about the end cost of such with lense(s). But the digital back will set you back something like $12,000 and is specific to which type of large format camera you are going to use.

kodak dcs pro 14n - 4.5k by 3k about $4,000 for the body.


Most everything else out there in a digital SLR is about the same res or lower than the canon digital rebel. Having seen the output from it, it is very nice for the price point and a great bargain.


Short of large format printing projects, and perhaps using it as film replacement in fine art prints, the most common high res images produced are for movie screens. Thats 4096 pixels by 3072 if you render out to the full resolution of a cineon scanner (well technically per color channel, so it is a lot of data). However, I don't think your average texture off of a CD is going to ever bee 100% of a full frame seriously, To match something like a cineon scan you are talking like 9MB per color channel. SO like 27MB per frame. And frankly if you have a project that needs that kind of detail, then oddss are the project will cover the cost of specifically going out and photographing what you need at the resolution you need and stitching it together to get your perfect source image.


THe only way to come even close to your $800 mark is to use GOOD film under good conditions developed well and scanned with a GOOD scanner. If not have the things drum scanned.

I doubt someone who is going to hit a stock texture CD for their textures would be anywhere near disappointed with a 3k by 2k raw image equivalent.
 
Old 02-02-2004, 04:38 AM   #10
Novakog
Lord of the posts
 
Novakog's Avatar
portfolio
Andrew Helmer
Software Engineer
Google
USA
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 813
Yeah, seriously, who uses non-handpainted textures larger than 2.5k x 2k?
__________________
If someone offers a penny for your thoughts, and you give them your two cents, where does the other penny go?
 
Old 02-02-2004, 12:36 PM   #11
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
well, it's obvious to me that a digital camera is not going to provide what I'm looking for at a price I can afford. What about those slide scanners I linked to? That looks like a good deal. I already have a very high-dollar traditional camera and good film and developing costs would not be an issue.

Or maybe I just tend to go overboard on resolution...
 
Old 02-02-2004, 01:20 PM   #12
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
Okay, what about good 2.5k x 2k cameras? I hate all of this megapixel crap because sometimes the math doesnt seem to work right between the various numbers.
 
Old 02-02-2004, 01:46 PM   #13
parallax
set of car keys
 
parallax's Avatar
M
piece of furniture
Marshall Islands
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,457
To capture God on camera, i think you need a pretty expensive piece of hardware.

Sorry, couldn't resist
 
Old 02-02-2004, 02:37 PM   #14
3Dfx_Sage
lisenced toilet-cleaner
 
3Dfx_Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 895
LOL yeah I've been hitting myself in the head every time I think of this thread because of that...
 
Old 02-02-2004, 02:43 PM   #15
Ice Czar
Q=k/L(T1-T2)
Designer - Communications Strategist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 322
Foveon X3 Tech
dpreview.com
digital-photography.org review
Foveon to challenge with 16 megapixels

Quote:
Only two weeks ago, Eastman Kodak announced a chip able to capture digital images with a resolution of 4,096 by 4,096 picture elements or pixels per square inch. That, by some measures, is about twice the resolution of 35-millimeter film.

Today, a company founded by one of Silicon Valley's pioneer chip designers, will announce an image-sensing chip capable of the same resolution as the Kodak chip, but made using a technique that could be much less expensive.





ect ect

all this tech came on the market right after I bought my camera of course ]
__________________
ceterum censeo (in my opinion)
Vista delenda est. (Vista must be destroyed)

Last edited by Ice Czar : 02-02-2004 at 02:52 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.