My first reaction was "neat!" My second reaction was "wait, this is totally useless."
The only people this would be good for are those who use live preview on SLR's that have that feature to shoot. Anyone who uses the viewfinder - which most SLR shooters do - would have to look at the leveler, then look in the viewfinder to frame the shot, then back out and look at the leveler again, thereby losing their framing. There'd be no way to get both a perfectly level shot and a perfectly framed shot.
It *would* be nice for camera makers to build levelers into their viewfinders. I can't imagine that would be too difficult, either.
I was just having this discussion with my partner the other day -- there's a whole new generation who doesn't remember flashcubes (what these remind me of.) You'd buy them 3 to a pack, only get 12 flashes, usually at least one would go bad. You had to decide which of your pictures were important enough to use flash. And they were expensive ($4.+ for a 3 pack)
@TristaBarlow: I had an old camera when I was a kid (late 80s, early 90s) and I had a handful of flash cubes to go with it. They were a rare, blinding commodity I was always hesitant to use. I was a bit in disbelief that once you used it, you had to throw it away.
Yeah, um, all you need to do is open the file in MS Paint, change the image size a few times (both bigger and smaller), open the resulting image in an image viewer, resize it to fit the screen, take a screencap, and trim off the extra bits. Ta-da, all the pixel data that could be used to tie the image to a make/model of camera is left behind, all the information that's normally encoded into the image is lost, and all the specific processes the image has been put through should be nearly impossible to recreate, since you're not even dealing with the same specific image file anymore (therefore _NO_ alteration data should still be attached to the file).
I'm confused on a number of fronts. First off, how's it help knowing what make and model camera they had? Ohh, a Nikon D40? There are only a couple hundred thousand of them in existence.
Secondly, couldn't messing around with the levels / color effect this technique?
And finally, to those mentioning EXIF, if you have a clue (which surprisingly a lot of people don't, so I guess you do have a point) you'd resave the image in a compressed metadata killing mannor (such as "save for web" in photoshop) and that'd end that.
It's own Gmail account? I can only see bad things coming from that. Like you're showing off pictures, and say "and this is my pride and joy", and a spam ad for Cialis is showing.
08/13/09
The only people this would be good for are those who use live preview on SLR's that have that feature to shoot. Anyone who uses the viewfinder - which most SLR shooters do - would have to look at the leveler, then look in the viewfinder to frame the shot, then back out and look at the leveler again, thereby losing their framing. There'd be no way to get both a perfectly level shot and a perfectly framed shot.
It *would* be nice for camera makers to build levelers into their viewfinders. I can't imagine that would be too difficult, either.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
[www.dealextreme.com]
11/19/08
11/19/08
18 months??? I've had the same digital camera for almost 6 years now.
11/19/08
11/18/08
11/18/08
11/18/08
Secondly, couldn't messing around with the levels / color effect this technique?
And finally, to those mentioning EXIF, if you have a clue (which surprisingly a lot of people don't, so I guess you do have a point) you'd resave the image in a compressed metadata killing mannor (such as "save for web" in photoshop) and that'd end that.
11/18/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08