How to connect to a wireless device (a video camera's memory card)from windows 10?

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

Yip, I tried some of that with my Canon EOS 10D. No matter what terrible
images I took with a wide range of exposures, I couldn't get anything more
out of he RAW than the JPEG. Maybe it was just damn good at making the
JPEG?

no, it's because you don't know how to get the best quality from the
camera.

I know perfectly well how to manipulate images in photoshop.

that's *highly* unlikely, but even if you did, that has nothing to do
with getting the best quality from a camera.

That was a very good camera and I shouldn't have got rid of it. I stupidly
changed it for a smaller Fuji. The thing I loved about it most was how
fast it could take multiple images, while refocusing for each one. 10
shots as a motorbike passed on a race track for example.

it's 3fps, which is slow.

It was faster than that.

no it wasn't.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/p...s/details/came
ras/support-dslr/eos-10d/eos-10d
3 fps Continuous Shooting

With a continuous shooting speed of up to 3 frames per second and a
maximum burst of 9 shots, the highly responsive EOS 10D is equipped
to seize every photo opportunity. The rapid image processing of the
high-performance imaging engine and a generous buffer memory help
maintain this speedy performance regardless of selected recording
quality, ISO speed and subject conditions

in 2003, 3 fps was considered 'rapid'. today, it's very slow.

It depends on what lens you used,

no it doesn't.

I used the Sigma
50-500mm telephoto (the "Bigma"). It most certainly did not take 3.3
seconds for the bike to pass, and I got 10 images.

it took longer than that, about 5 seconds (assuming jpeg), plus an
additional 15-30 seconds to clear the buffer, depending on card speed,
which was probably slow. if you shot raw, it was much longer.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DA7.HTM
Very fast. Shoots at around 0.42-second minimum intervals for first
nine shots, then slows to about one second per shot. Time is with
Lexar 256MB CompactFlash card. With slower Mr. Flash card, times are
similar. First nine shots at about 0.42-second minimum intervals,
then about 1.22-second minimum intervals.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:01:01 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:



the fuji *is* a 10mp camera.

It gives out 10 million pixels

therefore it's a 10mp camera.

but they aren't unique.

spatially, they are.

their value is irrelevant.

If I take a photo with the camera set to 2.5MP, then enlarge that in photoshop to 10MP, I don't have a 10MP image. It won't be as good as a photo from a 10MP camera.

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

the fuji *is* a 10mp camera.

It gives out 10 million pixels

therefore it's a 10mp camera.

but they aren't unique.

spatially, they are.

their value is irrelevant.

If I take a photo with the camera set to 2.5MP, then enlarge that in
photoshop to 10MP, I don't have a 10MP image.

yes you do.

It won't be as good
as a photo from a 10MP camera.

irrelevant.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:01:02 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

Yip, I tried some of that with my Canon EOS 10D. No matter what terrible
images I took with a wide range of exposures, I couldn't get anything more
out of he RAW than the JPEG. Maybe it was just damn good at making the
JPEG?

no, it's because you don't know how to get the best quality from the
camera.

I know perfectly well how to manipulate images in photoshop.

that's *highly* unlikely, but even if you did, that has nothing to do
with getting the best quality from a camera.

Then what is?

That was a very good camera and I shouldn't have got rid of it. I stupidly
changed it for a smaller Fuji. The thing I loved about it most was how
fast it could take multiple images, while refocusing for each one. 10
shots as a motorbike passed on a race track for example.

it's 3fps, which is slow.

It was faster than that.

no it wasn't.

It seemed it.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/p...s/details/came
ras/support-dslr/eos-10d/eos-10d
3 fps Continuous Shooting

With a continuous shooting speed of up to 3 frames per second and a
maximum burst of 9 shots, the highly responsive EOS 10D is equipped
to seize every photo opportunity. The rapid image processing of the
high-performance imaging engine and a generous buffer memory help
maintain this speedy performance regardless of selected recording
quality, ISO speed and subject conditions

in 2003, 3 fps was considered 'rapid'. today, it's very slow.

It was fast enough for racing photography at the Knockhill race track. I filled the 9 frame buffer as each vehicle passed.

It depends on what lens you used,

no it doesn't.

The lens had to move to do focussing surely? So a cheap **** lens on it would lower that to under 3fps.

I used the Sigma
50-500mm telephoto (the "Bigma"). It most certainly did not take 3.3
seconds for the bike to pass, and I got 10 images.

it took longer than that, about 5 seconds (assuming jpeg),

3 seconds for 9 shots at 3fps. You can't add up.

plus an
additional 15-30 seconds to clear the buffer, depending on card speed,
which was probably slow.

It wasn't very long, I think I put in the best card at the time, the highest speed of 512MB CF card. It had cleared long before the next vehicle approached. I'd have guessed well under 15s.

if you shot raw, it was much longer.

I shot max res jpeg.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DA7.HTM
Very fast. Shoots at around 0.42-second minimum intervals for first
nine shots, then slows to about one second per shot.

If it was 1 second per shot when the buffer was full, the card must be capable of clearing 9 shots in 9 seconds, not 15-30.

And I used a 512MB card, so it may have been even faster than that.

Time is with
Lexar 256MB CompactFlash card. With slower Mr. Flash card, times are
similar. First nine shots at about 0.42-second minimum intervals,
then about 1.22-second minimum intervals.

I also had a battery powered CD recorder (Apacer Disk Steno I think) - I could record the 512MB card onto CD then wipe the card and take more shots. Much cheaper in those days than buying several cards for the day out.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:23:54 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

the fuji *is* a 10mp camera.

It gives out 10 million pixels

therefore it's a 10mp camera.

but they aren't unique.

spatially, they are.

their value is irrelevant.

If I take a photo with the camera set to 2.5MP, then enlarge that in
photoshop to 10MP, I don't have a 10MP image.

yes you do.

It won't be as good
as a photo from a 10MP camera.

irrelevant.

But selling a camera that makes an image with 10 million pixels in it, simply upsampled from a 2.5MP sensor, is cheating. You might aswell buy a 2.5MP camera.

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


If I take a photo with the camera set to 2.5MP, then enlarge that in
photoshop to 10MP, I don't have a 10MP image.

yes you do.

It won't be as good
as a photo from a 10MP camera.

irrelevant.

But selling a camera that makes an image with 10 million pixels in it, simply
upsampled from a 2.5MP sensor, is cheating.

it's not doing that

You might aswell buy a 2.5MP camera.

no

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:34:37 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


If I take a photo with the camera set to 2.5MP, then enlarge that in
photoshop to 10MP, I don't have a 10MP image.

yes you do.

It won't be as good
as a photo from a 10MP camera.

irrelevant.

But selling a camera that makes an image with 10 million pixels in it, simply
upsampled from a 2.5MP sensor, is cheating.

it's not doing that

My last Fuji admitted to it. They claimed they had some fancy **** using hexagonally shaped arrays of pixels on the CCD.

You might aswell buy a 2.5MP camera.

no

Yes, because you can always upsample in photoshop. Pretty pointless either way, as you can't create something from nothing. See those films where they take a ****ty CCTV image then magically enhance it so you can see someone's face? It's bull****.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:34:37 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


If I take a photo with the camera set to 2.5MP, then enlarge that in
photoshop to 10MP, I don't have a 10MP image.

yes you do.

It won't be as good
as a photo from a 10MP camera.

irrelevant.

But selling a camera that makes an image with 10 million pixels in it, simply
upsampled from a 2.5MP sensor, is cheating.

it's not doing that

You might aswell buy a 2.5MP camera.

no

Let me explain this another way. Take a decent HD TV set. Give it an SD channel, then tell it to upsample to HD. You don't get HD quality. You can't make extra pixels from nowhere. It might smudge it a bit to make it look a little less blocky, but it won't make an HD image. You'll have more pixels, but every other pixel is guessed by what the neighbouring ones are. You don't have any more data in the image. Cameras which output an HD image that started out as SD are doing the same thing, they're cheating.

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

But selling a camera that makes an image with 10 million pixels in it,
simply
upsampled from a 2.5MP sensor, is cheating.

it's not doing that

My last Fuji admitted to it.

it did no such thing.

They claimed they had some fancy **** using
hexagonally shaped arrays of pixels on the CCD.

but not 2.5mp

You might aswell buy a 2.5MP camera.

no

Yes, because you can always upsample in photoshop.

that has nothing to do with the camera

Pretty pointless either
way, as you can't create something from nothing. See those films
where they take a ****ty CCTV image then magically enhance it so
you can see someone's face? It's bull****.

just like your babbling.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:49:04 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

But selling a camera that makes an image with 10 million pixels in it,
simply
upsampled from a 2.5MP sensor, is cheating.

it's not doing that

My last Fuji admitted to it.

it did no such thing.

It did, it was called interpolation.

They claimed they had some fancy **** using
hexagonally shaped arrays of pixels on the CCD.

but not 2.5mp

It was sold as a 6MP camera with a 3MP CCD. What it gave out was about as good as 4MP from a real camera.

You might aswell buy a 2.5MP camera.

no

Yes, because you can always upsample in photoshop.

that has nothing to do with the camera

Yes it does. If a 10MP camera gives out something you could create by upsampling an image from a 5MP camera, then the 10MP camera is no better than the 5MP camera.

Pretty pointless either
way, as you can't create something from nothing. See those films
where they take a ****ty CCTV image then magically enhance it so
you can see someone's face? It's bull****.

just like your babbling.

What I say is sense, what you say is bull****. You believe the hype the manufacturers tell you, which is why you buy Iphones.

On 6-1-2019 22:33, Mike wrote:
On 1/6/2019 9:34 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


It doesn't seem to matter what camera you buy nowadays, I've looked at
results from expensive and cheap cameras, and you always get 4 times less
usable pixels than they claim. Basically they're all ripping us off.

nonsense. there's a significant difference among different cameras,
with the number of pixels being what is claimed. lying about that is
illegal.

You're oversimplifying it.
Most cheap cameras specify the maximum megapixels of the image file they
export.
RARELY is there any mention of sensor resolution.
My experience is that the image you get is scaled up from a lower res sensor
so they can have a bigger number in the ad.
All it does is take more memory to save the same image.

It's not a lie...in the legal sense.
It's merely a misrepresentation. ;-)

My favorite is flashlights. 1000 lumens, 4 hour run time.
Oh, you thought you could get both at the same time? Misrepresentation.
But it doesn't matter because it's really only 100 lumens and half an hour.
Now, that's a lie.

For example, take a photograph with 10MP camera. Use photoshop to change
that to 2.5MP (by resizing the image to 50%). Now resize it back to 10MP.
If the camera was really 10MP, the adjusted image should be crap compared to
the original, but it's identical. Therefore the original image only
contained 2.5MP. Blocks of 4 pixels were the same and gave no extra
information.

nonsense. it is in no way identical.


Besides,they can always give you the number of color pixels, three
times the full pixel density.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:30:51 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 16:48:27 -0000, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 02:00:35 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

If it uses TCP/IP, why can I not access its IP address and copy files off it?

You have to connect to it first, before IP addresses can be involved.

WiFi connection = OSI Layer 2
IP addresses = OSI Layer 3

You can't do Layer 3 before Layer 2 is complete. Since the camera is
acting as an access point, you need to connect to it with a client.

I was assuming it would be a client to my router, then I could access its IP just as I'd access a laptop a friend brought over, to get the files from it.

I think by now everyone is in agreement that the camera is not a client,
it's an access point. You'll need to connect to it with a client, which
your router is not. Once you do connect to it with a client, however, it
should happily assign an IP address and away you go, ready to access its
files.

I guess as it's an access point, it's my PC that gets an IP from the camera.

Correct, but only after you connect to the camera with a WiFi client.

But clearly it's not using proper standards, or Windows would just get an IP then communicate with it using file sharing.

So far, I'd say it's clearly using proper standards. It's a WiFi access
point. Connect to it with a WiFi client and off you go. Once you
actually connect to it, it may or may not need that special app, but you
have to connect first, before anything else can happen.

On 7-Jan-2019 1:37 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:30:51 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 16:48:27 -0000, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 02:00:35 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

If it uses TCP/IP, why can I not access its IP address and copy files off it?
You have to connect to it first, before IP addresses can be involved.

WiFi connection = OSI Layer 2
IP addresses = OSI Layer 3

You can't do Layer 3 before Layer 2 is complete. Since the camera is
acting as an access point, you need to connect to it with a client.
I was assuming it would be a client to my router, then I could access its IP just as I'd access a laptop a friend brought over, to get the files from it.
I think by now everyone is in agreement that the camera is not a client,
it's an access point. You'll need to connect to it with a client, which
your router is not. Once you do connect to it with a client, however, it
should happily assign an IP address and away you go, ready to access its
files.

I guess as it's an access point, it's my PC that gets an IP from the camera.
Correct, but only after you connect to the camera with a WiFi client.

But clearly it's not using proper standards, or Windows would just get an IP then communicate with it using file sharing.
So far, I'd say it's clearly using proper standards. It's a WiFi access
point. Connect to it with a WiFi client and off you go. Once you
actually connect to it, it may or may not need that special app, but you
have to connect first, before anything else can happen.


I have two cameras. One, a Foscam 9928 is set up with an IP address on
one's LAN. This gives a lot of flexibility in being able to view the
output using browsers, and applications like VLC, and, by setting port
forwarding appropriately, being able to view the output on the WAN. The
other one, a Techview 720P is probably similar to the OP's camera. It
doesn't have an IP address on the LAN and is accessed by an application.
This limits considerably the things one can do with the output. It
appears that this second type is designed primarily to be used with
phones. These are becoming more popular and many can *only *be used with
phones.

My concern is that when choosing a camera it's very difficult to work
out which type you are going to get. The relevant information doesn't
always appear in the specifications - for the cameras I've looked at, at
least. My Techview claims the output can be viewed on a PC, but it was
only after I got it I discovered this was via a proprietary application,
not a generally available application like VLC or a browser.

/Caveat emptor./

On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:26:56 -0000, Sjouke Burry wrote:

On 6-1-2019 22:33, Mike wrote:
On 1/6/2019 9:34 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


It doesn't seem to matter what camera you buy nowadays, I've looked at
results from expensive and cheap cameras, and you always get 4 times less
usable pixels than they claim. Basically they're all ripping us off.

nonsense. there's a significant difference among different cameras,
with the number of pixels being what is claimed. lying about that is
illegal.

You're oversimplifying it.
Most cheap cameras specify the maximum megapixels of the image file they
export.
RARELY is there any mention of sensor resolution.
My experience is that the image you get is scaled up from a lower res sensor
so they can have a bigger number in the ad.
All it does is take more memory to save the same image.

It's not a lie...in the legal sense.
It's merely a misrepresentation. ;-)

My favorite is flashlights. 1000 lumens, 4 hour run time.
Oh, you thought you could get both at the same time? Misrepresentation.
But it doesn't matter because it's really only 100 lumens and half an hour.
Now, that's a lie.

For example, take a photograph with 10MP camera. Use photoshop to change
that to 2.5MP (by resizing the image to 50%). Now resize it back to 10MP.
If the camera was really 10MP, the adjusted image should be crap compared to
the original, but it's identical. Therefore the original image only
contained 2.5MP. Blocks of 4 pixels were the same and gave no extra
information.

nonsense. it is in no way identical.


Besides,they can always give you the number of color pixels, three
times the full pixel density.

I wouldn't put it past them.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:59:00 -0000, Wolf K wrote:

On 2019-01-06 17:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:53:21 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:


Everything's the same these days - a 2TB hard disk is really 1.85TB.

The disk does in fact hold 2TB of data. Manufacturers express the
capacity in decimal, but the system expresses it in binary. Here's one
explanation of what happens:

https://support.wdc.com/knowledgebas...er.aspx?ID=615

Basically, 2TB decimal = 1.85TB binary. It's like specifying a can of
beer in fluid ounces and ml. Or distance in miles and km.

In addition, when you format the disk, a good chunk of that
capacity is
used for housekeeping data.

But it's mainly the difference between gigabytes and gibabytes (note the
spelling difference).

gibibyte.

Near enough.

It's misrepresentation.

it isn't.

It's not giving what people expect. How can 32GB of RAM not be equal in
size to 32GB of hard disk?

Depends on where the disk capacity is displayed.

A decimal kilobyte is 1,000 bytes. A binary kilobyte is 1024 bytes. So
32 decimal GB = 1000/1024 x 32 = 31.25 binary GB. Or 32 binary GB =
32.276 decimal GB. Windows etc display file sizes etc in binary
kilobytes. Why? Because the computer's arithmetic is done in binary.

And a hard disk is used on a computer, so they should use binary notation, just like they do with RAM.