Clarkson may get points for talking on mobile...

Dogbreath said:
None of the camera phones I have owned have had a shutter speed setting, maybe the posher ones do? AFAIK the exposure is simply varied automatically according to available light, which is why they give such wee-poor pictures in many light conditions.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need some better cameras :) Exposure is the result of a few factors

Try light painting with a decent cam. You can take a totally pitch black environment, a long exposure (slow shutter speed) and "paint" a torch around the environment to get a picture that looks like a full light picture :D
 
a lot of people seem to be missing the fact that Clarkson was "allegedly" doing 70mph, and the car that took the photo then overtook him in the fast lane, and beeped at him to confirm it was him. Surely the driver of the other car should get done for speeding, since it's fairly obvious they would have had to break the 70mph speed limit just to overtake him?

I hope JC doesn't get done for this, as that picture proves nothing aside from that fact that some muppets in another car saw an opportunity for a quick buck. If it was indeed him, and they were beeping at him when they passed him, why on earth didn't they take another photo? Perhaps because it wasn't actually him at all...

I don't condone the use of mobiles at the wheel, I hate it when I see people doing it. But that picture doesn't prove at all that it was JC driving.
 
SDK^ said:
I didn't say that had actual shutters but that they have a shutter speed setting ;)

This forum is getting worse for being picky about posts and requiring a whole load of backup material to prove something.
Click to expand...

But you cannot simply hide away when someone calls your statement into question, I fully understand how expose works on a picture - but a k800i at 70mph inside a car and not one bit of blurring or pixilation?
 
Now i dont know much about cameras but i would say that it looks like the cars in the picture were stationary - there is no blur or anything n the pictures that show any kind of movement............surely if it was a phone taking the pictures then it wouldnt be as sharp as it is,
 
Muffin` said:
But you cannot simply hide away when someone calls your statement into question, I fully understand how expose works on a picture - but a k800i at 70mph inside a car and not one bit of blurring or pixilation?
Click to expand...
I'm not hiding, just don't want to setup a reconstruction with cars, mobile cameras etc to prove to a bunch of teenagers that although they think they know everything they actually don't.

:)
 
SDK^ said:
I'm not hiding, just don't want to setup a reconstruction with cars, mobile cameras etc to prove to a bunch of teenagers that although they think they know everything they actually don't.

:)
Click to expand...

Mind you head on the way out. Most of us have various camera phones and most of us have tried to use them to shoot moving objects and moving objects while moving. It is quite difficult to get a clear image, even at low speed (example of my own).

It's all well and good being a condescending old fart, but us "bunch of teenagers" aint professional photographers and camera phones are not the best tool to compare against a DSLR in these conditions. I suppose being an old fart you don't even know how to use one of these newfangled mobile talking contractions?
 
SDK^ said:
I'm not hiding, just don't want to setup a reconstruction with cars, mobile cameras etc to prove to a bunch of teenagers that although they think they know everything they actually don't.

:)
Click to expand...

Well it's good to know that a 'professional' shot his mouth off about something he thinks he knows inside out. No one is asking for a reconstruction, just a picture of something moving at 70mph that some one has posted somewhere on the internet, if your into motor sport photography then you must have seen a picture in your travels. A paper on the abilities of a mobile phone camera etc.
 
Muffin` said:
Yeah, cracking crisp shots those ;)
Click to expand...

They are actually on a par with if not slightly better quality than the one of "Clarkson".

There are a lot of variables involved here, we dont know the specs of the phone camera used, shutter speed, the actual speed the photo car was travelling at the time of the event, the relative speeds of the two vehicles.

I just wanted to show that camera phones ARE capable of taking pics of that quality at speeds.
 
But what speeds? 30? 40? Possible, but wading in stating that a mobile phone camera is capable of said photo at 70 and defining only on the word of 'Trust me, I'm a professional' is pushing it ;)

I have a k800i and I cannot get a non blurred shot of cars moving outside my house at 30mph, it's a sunny day and lots of factors come into it, it doesn’t prove that the camera isn’t capable of it, it's just my personal experience.
 
Muffin` said:
But what speeds? 30? 40? Possible, but wading in stating that a mobile phone camera is capable of said photo at 70 and defining only on the word of 'Trust me, I'm a professional' is pushing it ;)

I have a k800i and I cannot get a non blurred shot of cars moving outside my house at 30mph, it's a sunny day and lots of factors come into it, it doesn’t prove that the camera isn’t capable of it, it's just my personal experience.
Click to expand...

Firstly - I am no professional and never stated to trust me...

Second - I have already stated that speeds are in debate so we have was to test accurately. We are all speculating. I never said that a camera phone was capable to take that pic at 70mph, nor did i imply it.

Why are we even arguing about it, I personally think nothing will come from it, there is no really proof that the police can use, there is way beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
 
As an amateur photographer, I can tell you that far from being difficult to get non-blurred shots, its the exact opposite! It is very, very easy to get a shot where everything in the frame is in crisp, sharp focus and completely still. Real skill is required to get the subject in focus and give the background motion blur. It took me an entire day at Mallory Park to stop getting shots like the one in the OP and to start getting decent ones.

The camera in the K800i is actually pretty decent and in the right conditions (clear bright day, plenty of available light) it can produce images that are pretty damn good. I recall a TV programme about a year ago where 3 or 4 professional photographers were sent out to take photographs of the same area, one had a dSLR, one had a point and shoot and the remaining guy had a K800i. The guy with the K800i returned with some absolutely amazing images :)
 
DRZ said:
As an amateur photographer, I can tell you that far from being difficult to get non-blurred shots, its the exact opposite! It is very, very easy to get a shot where everything in the frame is in crisp, sharp focus and completely still. Real skill is required to get the subject in focus and give the background motion blur. It took me an entire day at Mallory Park to stop getting shots like the one in the OP and to start getting decent ones.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you're talking about panning with a fast car, right? Not taking pictures where the background is already moving fast? :confused:
 
DRZ said:
I recall a TV programme about a year ago where 3 or 4 professional photographers were sent out to take photographs of the same area, one had a dSLR, one had a point and shoot and the remaining guy had a K800i. The guy with the K800i returned with some absolutely amazing images :)
Click to expand...

Slightly OT, but I remember that program too and the camera phone did take some incredibly impressive pictures.
 
therealnerd2 said:
Yeah but you're talking about panning with a fast car, right? Not taking pictures where the background is already moving fast? :confused:
Click to expand...

The principle is the same if the subject is moving at a different speed to the car with the person taking the photos :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom