deviant art

Deviant Login
Buy ArtBuy T-Shirts & Gear Buy adCast Buy Premium Membership
Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
Browse More Like This
Shop Similar Prints
This Print Not AvailableDownload Image
JPG, 2376×1944 more ▶

More from ~yankeedog

Featured in Groups:

Not currently featured in any groups.

Details

January 28, 2010
1.1 MB
2376×1944
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 17
Favourites: 3 [who?]


Views: 289 (3 today)
Downloads: 57 (0 today)

Camera Data

FUJIFILM
FinePix S5200
1/19 second
F/3.4
19 mm
200
Mar 10, 2009, 12:21:41 PM
Shop For This Camera
[x]
:iconyankeedog:
Over the years, I've collected a few cheap plastic cameras just for the fun of it. This actually works. I'll have to run a roll of film through it and see what we get. I wasn't able to find anything on the web about the camera, but I think I have the box and the instructions for it somewhere.
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
:iconbear48:
*bear48 Jan 28, 2010
YeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaw

What fun
Reply
:iconyankeedog:
~yankeedog Jan 29, 2010
LOL! Thanks Bear!
-Yd
Reply
:iconneubild:
~NeuBild Jan 28, 2010
how much megapixel? ;)
Reply
:iconyankeedog:
~yankeedog Jan 28, 2010
HahaHa! I was trying to remember the number that my father-in-law told me years ago that 35mmfilm worked out to in MP's, 36 MP seems to come to mind. He was comparing his Nikon F2 with my 3.2 MP Olympus point and shoot. I looked around on the net and there are various formulas, but I'm guessing with Walmart 35mm film, maybe 2-3 MP at best! :-)
-YD
Reply
:iconlancelotprice:
*LancelotPrice Jan 29, 2010
I seem to recall that I calculated long ago that with Kodachrome II [ASA 25 as they used to name the speed], it would have been 18 megapixels, assumimg the lens was sharp enough. I was using an F/1.4 Nikkor as my basic lens at the time. I'm pretty sure my 300 MM F/4.5 could not deliver any such number, even though it was a fine lens.
Reply
:iconyankeedog:
~yankeedog Jan 30, 2010
Quality optics would be a big factor in the equation. I'm thinking as well, that the quality of the scanner and the scan dpi are factors too.
-YD
Reply
:iconlancelotprice:
*LancelotPrice Jan 30, 2010
With a scanner, I would definitely not be able to duplicate the resolution of those little Kodachrome transparencies. Transparencies were always my favourite finished product back in the film days, so I wouldn't be able to get much quality online from them. Technological change now discards old formats very quickly, which means distributing our old work becomes a problem.

Now back when I was boy, my world was stable, goldang it. ;) Caint rely on nuthin nowadays. :D

Of course we/they couldn't do nearly so much either. :)
Reply
:iconyankeedog:
~yankeedog Jan 30, 2010
I'm looking at buying a film scanner to convert my negs and slides to digital. [link] Epson also has a nice scanner that will scan film too.
-YD
Reply
:iconqphacs:
=Qphacs Jan 28, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
I used to have one of these!! LOL
Reply
:iconyankeedog:
~yankeedog Jan 28, 2010
Cool! Do you recall when, what year? I'm trying to figure out when it was made, I guessing mid 1980's?
-YD
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
©2013 deviantART. All rights reserved
About Us | Contact Us | Developers | Careers | Site Tour | Help & FAQ Advertise | Premium Membership Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy