Well if you want to take photos to compile into high dynamic range textures, like a HDR sky panorama texture for instance, then you'll be better off with a DSLR type camera than a standard point and shoot.
There are some threads on DSLRs in general discussion.
ha ha I thought this was camera mapping related, nerd thoughts
imo. its sometimes better to buy or use a texture library as it takes years to build up a useful texture library. In the end as a texture artist you will end up mashing anything you can get your hands on together anyway. And if you don't have the right sources in your own library most likely you will end up searching online or in free libraries like cgtextures.com .
Maybe a useful thought: Try taking HRDI photos so you can adjust later on the light or contrast or just in general have more control. Same for going RAW, don't get a shitty consumer camera that only knows JPEG.
...or you could just render a skybox in Vue or Terragen. I'm assuming that is quite a bit less of a hassle than driving many hours out into the country to take pictures of an unoccluded sky.
Interestingly some point and click cameras can be 'unlocked' to add raw support and user scripting. This means you could control the bracketing with a little script. allowing easy HDR/Multiple exposure shooting.
ha ha I thought this was camera mapping related, nerd thoughts
imo. its sometimes better to buy or use a texture library as it takes years to build up a useful texture library. In the end as a texture artist you will end up mashing anything you can get your hands on together anyway. And if you don't have the right sources in your own library most likely you will end up searching online or in free libraries like cgtextures.com .
Maybe a useful thought: Try taking HRDI photos so you can adjust later on the light or contrast or just in general have more control. Same for going RAW, don't get a shitty consumer camera that only knows JPEG.
I agree, you want something that you can edit easily without destroying the image quality and if you'll be painting out lighting and shadows and such, having a uncompressed image will make the end results much better.
I have a normal camera 12.2 megapixels , but is a handy camera , and when I ake the photoes they aren't perfect and sometimes look bit blurry or darker than what is in reality or lighetr etc ... I just want to be able when I go for trips for example to take advantage of those and get lots of good texture I may use in future ....
Try to take your photos when the sky is overcast, this way you get a lot of ambient light from the sky that will remove most of the shadowing. It will also rob some contrast but I'm sure it's easier to fix that than it is to spend time painting out shadows and lighting.
The more megapixels the better. That way you will be able to crop more.
More MP does NOT = better. Especially with a compact camera, craming more pixels into a tiny sensor = MORE NOISE, not better image quality. If you want good quality and high resolution, you want a dSLR with a nice large sensor.
The lens is also very important to detail, if you're shooting through a shity plastic lens but have a 30 megapixel camera, do you get better detail? In all likelyhood, a 6/8mp dSLR with a quality lens, will resolve more detail than a cheap 14mp compact.
Also, shooting in raw is very important, as standard noise reduction, and jpeg compression(even on highest compression) will kill a lot of detail. So a high end compact that can shoot in raw or a dSLR again.
Really its important to know your budget, because you could spend anywhere from $100-5000 on a camera.
I have a Sony DSC-H2 which does it´s job, unfortunately only with JPEG compression, which is a real bummer.
Another downside is that it consumes a lot of power.
If you get a cam look if it has it´s own rechargeable battery. or if you can put standard 1,5 V batteries in there.(If that´s the case get some good rechargeable batteries, don´t pick cheap ones otherwise you will regret it)
mine saves as bmp m anyway is there a tutorial that explains how to take great pictures even with a portable camera that isn't a 1000 pro? Ok for the overcast day but how I get pictures in interiors and in places where I cannot control the lightning etc?
Again, what is your budget? You can get a used dSLR + lens for about $300-350. Most compacts, and most cameras in general will be poor for getting high detail, low noise shots in interiors without the use of some sort of studio lighting(or an abundance of natural light).
If you want these type of shots, you can get them with long exposure on a tripod however, even with a cheap camera.
Also, it will be good to know what actual camera you have "12 megapixel" is what my grandma says when I ask her what camera she has, its not a descriptive answer. Make, model, etc.
Now, its a little hard to answer the question "how do I take good pix?", its akin to asking "how do I make good models?"
First you need to understand how a camera works, and then you need to understand basic concepts of photography.
For compacts with a nice zoom range the Panasonic Lumix's are nice cameras. The have quality Leica lenses, and sharpness is very consistent corner to corner. There's nothing worse than trying to make a seamless texture when the center of the image is sharp, while the corners are soft.
For a smaller zoom range, but much better low light indoor pictures, the Canon S95 is superb. I'm not a fan of DSLR's for building a texture library, I like using quality compacts for the simple reason that you can have it with you at all times very discreetly.
Replies
There are some threads on DSLRs in general discussion.
imo. its sometimes better to buy or use a texture library as it takes years to build up a useful texture library. In the end as a texture artist you will end up mashing anything you can get your hands on together anyway. And if you don't have the right sources in your own library most likely you will end up searching online or in free libraries like cgtextures.com .
Maybe a useful thought: Try taking HRDI photos so you can adjust later on the light or contrast or just in general have more control. Same for going RAW, don't get a shitty consumer camera that only knows JPEG.
I think I know what you mean. But he's referring to textures in general. Asphalt, wood, brick, grime, paint, cement, rock, etc. Not JUST skies.
Worth considering if your on a budget.
Now to see if I can get RAW support on my Canon SX210 IS
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
I agree, you want something that you can edit easily without destroying the image quality and if you'll be painting out lighting and shadows and such, having a uncompressed image will make the end results much better.
Very cool! I was hoping someone would make something like this.
More MP does NOT = better. Especially with a compact camera, craming more pixels into a tiny sensor = MORE NOISE, not better image quality. If you want good quality and high resolution, you want a dSLR with a nice large sensor.
The lens is also very important to detail, if you're shooting through a shity plastic lens but have a 30 megapixel camera, do you get better detail? In all likelyhood, a 6/8mp dSLR with a quality lens, will resolve more detail than a cheap 14mp compact.
Also, shooting in raw is very important, as standard noise reduction, and jpeg compression(even on highest compression) will kill a lot of detail. So a high end compact that can shoot in raw or a dSLR again.
Really its important to know your budget, because you could spend anywhere from $100-5000 on a camera.
Another downside is that it consumes a lot of power.
If you get a cam look if it has it´s own rechargeable battery. or if you can put standard 1,5 V batteries in there.(If that´s the case get some good rechargeable batteries, don´t pick cheap ones otherwise you will regret it)
If you want these type of shots, you can get them with long exposure on a tripod however, even with a cheap camera.
Now, its a little hard to answer the question "how do I take good pix?", its akin to asking "how do I make good models?"
First you need to understand how a camera works, and then you need to understand basic concepts of photography.
This is a good place to start: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/techniques.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/new-photography.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/compact-vs-digital-slr-cameras.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-metering.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm
etc
For a smaller zoom range, but much better low light indoor pictures, the Canon S95 is superb. I'm not a fan of DSLR's for building a texture library, I like using quality compacts for the simple reason that you can have it with you at all times very discreetly.