File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
My camera is not professional so it gives me a white rectangle whenever I photograph the sunlight directly, my question is, what exactly is that rectangle and is it really that bad?.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix A403Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix A403 Ver1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:08 09:00:51Exposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.7Brightness10.8 EVExposure Bias-2.1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length5.70 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width672Image Height864RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeAutoMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeProgram AEContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous
maybe if you learn a bit about photography you wouldn't be talking shit in a board...

your rectangle is cause the sun is overexposing your picture
maybe if you try putting your iso smaller than f/5.6 most point and shoot digicams go up to f/8.0, but I'm afraid your's can't, and your ISO to the lowest possible instead of 200, 1/4000 for exposure seems nice, my point and shoot wouldn't go that far

tl;dr

lower your fucking ISO, use aperture priority in the smallest aperture possible (f/5.6 in your case)
>> Anonymous
>maybe if I learn a bit about typing I wouldn't be talking shit in a board...

Fxd 'your's' post
>> Anonymous
>>88861

I know it was overexposed but thanks anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>88861
>if you try putting your iso smaller than f/5.6

Lulz is a corruption of lol.
ISO is a corruption of aperture.

Both statments apply to the quoted post.
>> Anonymous
>>88867
you are clearly trolling
and nobody will get your point and internet fight you over such a noob statement
>> Anonymous
>>88869
I'm not trolling. I'm engaging in the common Internet practice of humorously pointing out someone's typos.
>> Anonymous
The fail in this thread is uncanny.
>> Anonymous
>>88872
okay
have fun with your camera auto modes, noob
>> Anonymous
>>88880
What? ISO is a measure of the film's speed or the digital sensor's sensitivity. It's expressed in the format of, for example, "ISO 640." It has nothing to do with aperture, which is what the whole f/5.6 thing is. His statement would've been correct if he talked about making the aperture smaller. ISO does not have "size."
>> Anonymous
>>88882ISO is a measure of...the digital sensor's sensitivity.
no it isnt
its a measure of signal to noise ratio
go learn something before you start trying to post here or just gtfo back to /b/
>> Anonymous
>>88894
no it isnt. signal to noise ratio would go down as the sensor sensitivity goes up. iso for digital is the equivalent sensitivity compared to film.
>> Anonymous
>>88894
>>88880
>>88869
>>88861
Please, just go be retarded somewhere else.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88894
This would imply that the signal to noise ratio was constant for a given ISO across all cameras...

>>88859
That rectangle is just the sensor hitting the end of its dynamic range. Once the sensor collects more photons than it has bits to represent, it just pegs at 0xFF and you get white. Enough and it'll bleed over into the neighboring pixels, which gives you the big white rectangle.

Too much of that can damage your sensor. Ever use a magnifying glass to fry ants in the sun? Your lens is a magnifying glass, your sensor is an ant. You can do it a lot without screwing something up, generally, but better not to risk it. Also: Photos like this shooting directly into the sun look like ass, so there's no really good reason to do it.
>> Anonymous
>>88898
mmm 1Ds mkIII/D3 iso performance in tiny point and shoots.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I only do it for these kinds of shots. Bit cliche though.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S2 ISPhotographerAnonymousMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:08:25 20:17:46Exposure Time1/1600 secF-Numberf/4.5Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
ITT: bitches dont know about photographing the direct sun can damage your sensor and/or mirror
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>88898
it's because in the sensor CCD/CMOS there are dyes, and those can get burnt by the sun or any other bright light for extended time
>> Anonymous
>>88882
it's not "what?"
first of all, read the fucking exif, I'll do it for you this time

Camera Model FinePix A403
Camera Software Digital Camera FinePix A403 Ver1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7


Exposure Time 1/4000 sec
F-Number f/5.6
Exposure Program Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating 200
Lens Aperture f/5.7

if you weren't such a NOOB, you would realize that the best he can do is lowering the iso, so his picture will get less overexposed, he's at his smallest aperture, and fastest shutterspeed already, learn some fucking photography techique
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>88915

No, (s)he's letting the most light in with that aperture.
Yes, talking about aperture can be complicated.
>> Anonymous
>>88915
someone lost track of what was going on here. the start of this, some guy was pointing out that a post said "try putting your iso smaller than f/5.6"

>>iso smaller than f/5.6
>>ISO smaller than f/5.6
>>ISO

as we all know, f/5.6 is APERTURE not ISO as stated in the post. that was the entire point.
>> Anonymous
>>88898

OP here, that is exactly what I wanted to know, thank you ac.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88915
Hey guys?
>if you weren't such a NOOB, you would realize that the best he can do is lowering the iso, so his picture will get less overexposed, he's at his smallest aperture, and fastest shutterspeed already, learn some fucking photography techique
Before anyone responds to this, I would like to point out that this is a really obvious attempt to troll all of us, and I would really prefer if you didn't take the bait.
>> Anonymous
>>88932
maybe he's serious, I feel sorry for the guy, he made a typo about iso's and apertures, he apparently knows what he's talking about, but he messed up badly, won't feed him anyway
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>88950

but he's still wrong, how on earth is 5.6 the smallest aperture? or is it impossible to shoot at f/8 or below with those P&S?

I'm thinkin terms of SLRs so maybe that doesn't apply to P&S controls.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88950
>>88915
Your poor typing is like a fingerprint.
1. You don't capitalize in general (e.g., at the start of a sentence), but you do capitalize "I" for some reason.
2. You type entirely in comma-spliced run-on sentences.

Additionally: It's not the Aperture vs. ISO typo that marks you as a troll. The thing that made it clear you were a troll is calling everyone else a 'noob' while appearing not to understand the direction that the aperture scale goes in.

So: Either you really are that dumb, or you like starting flamewars and know that a good way to do that is to call other people stupid while making easy-to-refute errors in your own posts. I'm not sure if it means I'm cynical or optimistic, but I lean more towards the latter. Is it optimistic if you believe the glass is half full of piss?

Either way, gtfo.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>88954
A lot of P&S digitals won't stop down further than f/8. That's as far as my PowerShot A95 goes. Small sensor means they don't need a small aperture for DoF. Wee tiny fast leaf shutter and a painfully low minimum ISO means they don't need a small aperture most of the time to block light. So all stopping lower than f/8 gives you is poor image quality due to diffraction.
>> Anonymous
>>88954
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixa400.asp

Maximum Lens Aperture it's 5.6

>>88956
Well your internet detective skills are impressive as usual ac.
Let's get this straight then.
Yes I do have a poor typing, maybe cause my english is quite horrible as it is, living a cheapskate 3rd world country you don't wanna know.
I really said it wrong about ISO and aperture, but as I tried to subtly propose the idea, Mr. Internet Dectective over there ruined it all.

Now I ask you, who is trolling who? a guy who came to us talking about a "rectangle" shooting 1/4000 f/5.6 and iso 200 the direct sun at nine o'fuckingclock in the morning, or I who merely mistyped ISO and aperture?
I'm replying to what I consider a troll, don't get me wrong ac, I personally like your pictures, your comments and the help you provide around here so don't get me wrong, I even tried to capitalize everything for you :X
as for punctuation you'll have to forgive me, cause I really won't get this right
>> Anonymous
>>88959
you forgot the sage there, brotha.
while we're weeding out the garden anyway, its not like you never do any trolling or doing stupid posts in threads
>> Anonymous
>>88962
thats the maximum lens aperture, or the biggest. not the smallest. small f/number = big aperture.
>> Anonymous
>>88966
Well, I did not shoot any finepix but, I've shot a s3is.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s3is.asp
The smallest it can go it's f/8.0
as described above.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixa400.asp
I was forced to believe dpreview has a standard, and the smallest it can go it's f/5.6

You can lecture me about a lot of things, but this time, I think you got it wrong.
It's a basic point and shoot, and it goes 3.3 to 5.6, in it's whole range, not wide/tele maximum (big as you said) aperture.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OK, actual sensor expert here. There is some truth in this thread, but most of you got it wrong.

The rectangle is caused by an effect called smearing. It only appears in CCD sensors, CMOS is pretty immune to it. Other than blooming, where photoelectrons are collected in adjacent photosites, smearing is caused by excess photoelectrons spilling over into the transport registers of the interline transfer CCD. While blooming extends to an oval area surrounding the overexposed spot, smearing affects the whole column of the overexposed pixel in an image. Contrary to the popular believe, modern image sensors can take quite a lot of this kind of abuse. Energy densities that can easily light paper on fire are not enough to melt the plastic microlenses on the sensor and the dyes of the colorfilters are mostly sensitive to ultraviolet light that won't pass through the optics anyway.

Next up: ISO. Increasing the ISO means to add more gain at the ADC. But to amplify the signal at this point won't help you with effects like blooming and smear already happening on the sensor. Neither will it increase the signal-to-noise ratio, since any noise present will be amplified alongside the signal.
>> Anonymous
Let's get to the point of "sensitivity". If you take a certain scene and photograph it with a conventional film camera using e.g. an ISO 200 film and use an otherwise identical setup with a digital camera, you can quickly find out how much gain you need at the ADC to get the same brightness levels as in the developed photo. The only difference between a high and low quality image sensor is the noise level after the gain is applied. The term "sensitivity" is horribly overused and can mean anything from the digital gray value displayed per lux to the voltage difference at the sensor output caused by a certain irradiance. In most cases, all these figures tell nothing about the real quality of a camera.

In conclusion:
More ISO != more SNR
Less ISO != less smear
taking picture of sun != instant death of camera
ISO != sensitivity (in a sense of quality)
>> Anonymous
>>88962
>>Now I ask you, who is trolling who? a guy who came to us talking about a "rectangle" shooting 1/4000 f/5.6 and iso 200 the direct sun at nine o'fuckingclock in the morning, or I who merely mistyped ISO and aperture?

It's not my fault that you couldn't give a decent answer you know?, if you thought I was a troll this thread could have done without your reply.
>> Anonymous
nowhere does it say that f/5.7 is the minimum aperture. look at the A640 for example.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_a640.asp

i can tell you for sure that f/4.1 isnt the minimum aperture, and look, its the same notation used for this other camera, which surprise surprise, is the standard notation people use to denote max apertures for a zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>88981

>>88984

Maybe it's not the biggest... which would configure in a bigger photographic mistake of the OP...

Thanks for understanding my reactions, I'm not really an internet hate machine instance..

And wow, we managed to get the commotion for a sensor expert to show up, trolling or not, we learned something outta this, awesome y/n? :B