Re: IR with digital still cameras

["Kenneth Carney" <kcarney@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Rand Evan Molnar <randevan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <infrared@xxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: IR with digital still cameras


> Why do you say "except for the 3.3Mpix"? Have you run some comparisons?

Nope.  IR is something of a sideline for me, though I am getting much better
results with digital than I did with IR film.  The part about 3.3 megapixel
is hearsay to me, based on internet messages I have read to the effect that
they produce IR effects with an R72 but not an 87 or 87C.  You might check
"infrared digital" on dejanews and see what's current.  I didn't figure
there was much difference between a 2.1 and 3.3 with IR and consumer
cameras, so I went with what seemed to be safe.  I am waiting for something
that produces a 25MB or so file and costs less than a new Benz, well make
that a Geo.  Please let me know what your results are.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-infrared@xxxxx [mailto:owner-infrared@xxxxx]On Behalf Of
> >Kenneth Carney
> >Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 5:18 PM
> >To: infrared@xxxxx
> >Subject: Re: IR with digital still cameras
******************************************************

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************