How legal would it be to use a "Clip Motion" shot? The camera would be taking 16 (at least I think it's 16) 160x120 photos over the span of a second or two. Inside the camera, each frame displays as a separate photo, but once downloaded to the computer, it is displayed as one jpeg, 2560x1920, with the 16 frames inside. Would this be considered 1 photo or a bunch of photos? (I skipped using it for the motion challenge, but was oooh so tempted!)
How legal would it be to use a "Clip Motion" shot? The camera would be taking 16 (at least I think it's 16) 160x120 photos over the span of a second or two. Inside the camera, each frame displays as a separate photo, but once downloaded to the computer, it is displayed as one jpeg, 2560x1920, with the 16 frames inside. Would this be considered 1 photo or a bunch of photos? (I skipped using it for the motion challenge, but was oooh so tempted!)
Did it produce a motion JPEG, animated GIF or an MPEG file ? Neither are JPEGs in the 'challenge submission' sense anyway so I don't think it would work.
Gordon, the camera creates two files. One is a motion clip file that I can't seem to display on my computer and the other is a single jpeg image, with 16 small, slightly different versions, in it. The manual had described this feature as a good learning tool for golf swings and such.
Gordon, the camera creates two files. One is a motion clip file that I can't seem to display on my computer and the other is a single jpeg image, with 16 small, slightly different versions, in it. The manual had described this feature as a good learning tool for golf swings and such.
ah so it shows it like a 'contact sheet' kind of thing - so you see them all at the one time ? As this is really 16 pictures that have been
edited together (although automatically composed) I think it would get
DQed.
Swash, I think you already answered your own question by saying that the software in the computer arranges the 16 photos. This means that it is not taking place in-camera. While it is automated it is not different then if you arranged them your self in PS. I would have to say that it is illegal for DP but a cool feature just the same. Yet another reason why I wish I had that camera instead of the F707.
We are allowing double exposures. Why are two OK but 16 not? I believe the basic rule is if you can do it WITHIN YOUR CAMERA it is legal. However, if you want an answer, rather than a bunch of divergent opinions, send your question directly to D&L for a ruling, perhaps with an example of how you'd use it. Then be prepared to get slammed because most folks don't like it (or raves -- who knows?).
As is the case with the "borders" thread, think we should have the fewest rules necessary, and let people speak with their votes as to whether it is "appropriate" for DPC
If your single JPEG file was created entirely inside your camera, it would not be disqualified. You'd definitely want to send us the original with EXIF, though, so we could add an admin note.
Swash, I think you already answered your own question by saying that the software in the computer arranges the 16 photos. This means that it is not taking place in-camera.
T
Tim -- I DON'T think he said that. It sounded to me like the camera itself saves two files, one of which contains the multiple frames.
Paul hit my quandry on the head, almost. The camera creates two files, some sort of animated file that I haven't figured out how to "deal with" and a second that is a single jpeg, created IN THE CAMERA. I guess I'm going to just have to break down and do a shot, submit it with the original (for admin approval) and see how it flies. It's just that this would be THE PERFECT mode for showing action.
After all, what's the worst that could happen? I'd get DQ'd? That would be a new, possibly interesting experience!
Thanks for all your input!!!!
