Cameras for textures
whispers65
Posts: 952
I've been watching some vids and reading tutorials and there's been mentionings of using cameras for reference shots and textures. Can anyone make a recommendation for a camera? I can't afford a $1500 dollar one but are there less expensive ones that are good enough.
As always thanks. I appreciate your time.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I haven't seen the tutorials so I don't know the specific suggestions they presented but as as photographer I can tell you that a decent camera doesn't have to cost $1500.
Yes, a $1500 camera is nice but you can get very very good photos for much less. Even if you stick with the major quality brand names (Nikon, Canon, etc.) and look for needed features rather than perfection you can still find a wonderful camera for under $500.
Most cameras today are marketed as doing everything automatically for complete idiots with dial-an-idiot-mode that may or may not cover a necessary situation. Those cameras generally are "WYSIWYG" (What You See Is What You Get), i.e. no attachments, and no manual settings. i.e. no future growth potential.
There are however a few cameras put out by the major brands (Canon, Nikon, etc.) that have manual features and interchangable lenses that take screw on filters, that can handle the most demanding situations, yet can also function completely and totally automatically too.
Nikon's small Coolpix line of models has lots of idiot cameras but they also keep one pro level camera in that line that is usually numbered with a "p" like p5100, p5200, p5500, etc. I use a 5 year old Nikon Coolpix p5100 that takes a 12 Megapixel image, has excellent color, and focus, has the ability to attach external lenses. Note that it doesn't use interchangeable lenses, but does permit attaching high quality telephoto and wide angle lenses to augment it's standard built in zoom lens. It accepts screw-in filters, it accepts an external flash that can be used alone or together with the buit-in flash. It has all the manual settings (shutter, aperture, flash, color balance, etc.) for people who want absolute complete control of the exposure. It has attachments for telescopes & microscopes. It does time lapse movies. (I recently captured a week long observation of a blooming flower by taking a photo automatically every 10 minutes.) And this is a 5 year old camera! I'm sure the corresponding features of the p5500 (or whatever the latest incarnation is) have improved in some way. And the price isn't unreasonable at about $500 retail, less if you get an older model or watch the sales or get it from a major Internet store. Of course, external lenses & filters and an external flash will cost extra but even without them my P5100 can macro focus down to about 2 inches (actually I think it's even less).
Point being that these days, for $500 you can get a damn good camera. However, even if you stick with a totally automatic camera of good quality for less than $250, you can get very good photos but you may be limited on how close it will focus, you may have to go out into the sun to get a photo of a fabric, and you might not be able to time-lapse a flower blooming.
$1500 cameras are for true professionals, or gadget collectors, or people who have more money than they know what to do with.
I've helped some people with even simple cameras get good photos. It's all about knowing the limits of the machine.
It all comes down to what's needed.
Again, I didn't read the tutorials you mentioned so if they said you needed some obscenely high pixel resolution then you might have to go to a full size camera with 16 or 24 Megapixel capabilities. But my 12-Megapixel camera produces a 3984x2656 image. Which at 300 pixels per inch produces a 13.3x8.8 inch image on paper. And if you need to you can always use software to stitch together several photos into a huge single image with obscene pixel dimensions.
My $99 Fuji Finepix T410 does very well is HD and has 10x Zoom. The File size is Perfect for textures.
EDIT: You can change the settings so it's only Auto if you wish it to be.
Personally, I prefer one that will output a picture file in more than just jpeg format...tiff, RAW or something...and there's lots of those in the couple of hundred to $500 range.
Canon Rebel, or Nikon Equiv. ;)
Actually don't 'need' to do dSLR, but it's nice if one can afford the $ and time to learn to use it effectively. A bigger issue is learning 'how' to take good images for textures, which in the end is more important even then the camera.
I would think, for texture sources, the main thing you would want would be a flat image - which ought to require a powerful optical zoom, taking the image from a distance, to avoid fish-eye distortion.
Thank you all for the great advice! The tutorials I've been watching didn't recommend a specific camera or really even mention anything other than the textures were taken from photographs they took. I was watching a tutorial on a small building and the textures were photographs taken by the person doing the tutorial so that peaked my interest. So I did a search and on one website that featured panoramic background shots that I've used in the past had recommended hardware, software, cameras etc and on there the recommendations for cameras were around $1500 so that's where that came from.
I know diddly about cameras but trying to learn lighting, etc. Up til now, I"ve purchased all of my stuff and believe me I've spent enough to get a good camera lol. But I really would like to get better at lighting and start learning how to create some of my own items.
I'm always going to be buying something because I don't come up with the same ideas as someone else but it would be cool to see a render and say, "Hey, I made that!"
Thanks again for your time and effort. It is much appreciated!
Since you want to make textures the most important thing seems to be able to go really close to the subject as mentioned by Leather Gryphon.
Macro photography is the keyword in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
To do that it seems important to have a camera with a special macro lens.
I recommend either a fixed 35mm or a 100mm.
- What is the issue with a system cameras that come with a built in variable zoom?
Being able to zoom makes those cameras valuable in a lot of situations.
The main issue here is though that in most cases they will not let you go very close to the subject.
- What is the advantage of a macro lenses?
They are built specially to go really close to the subject.
They key to good quality photography is having a camera that lets you change lenses. So you can use that lens that you need for the situation.
You will find cameras that let you change lenses from many brands at a price level of 500 $ up.
A good quality macro lens you can find for 300 $.
If you are lucky you may even be able to get a used one for a lower price.
If you want to make textures using digital images such as JPEGs, your best bet will be with an SLR type digital camera.
The ones that come closest to my needs run around $500- $600 US. Most SLRs have pretty decent lenses and the ability to switch out the lenses for others that might better suit your needs.
The problem with most NON-SLR cameras is the lenses just plain suck (as well as the CCD sensors in some models), there is way too much distortion on the edges of the picture.
They fine when you take a normal photo, but try stitching images together to make a seamless tile of a brick wall or a sidewalk and you'll end up wasting too much time compensating for curved seams and other distorted.
Most of the "good" non SLR look fine in the store, but take it home, lay a square sheet of white paper on the floor and take a picture of it looking straight down... then you'll see what I mean.
A while ago I made a simple rig to hold a camera and make sure the camera was as close to straight as possible. I borrowed several cameras both SLRs and non SLRs from friends and family and tested them (as well as the 3 non SLRs I own) to see which gave the best results... SLRs won hands down... I'm currently saving money for a decent SLR.
I'm done with non-SLRs for textures.
But that is just my opinion.
I would also suggest trying out either FilterForge and or Genetica. For me it has always seemed that no matter how good the subject material is I find, it is always a little off... not quite what I had in mind... so I always end up tweaking and adding to it in FilterForge and Photoshop.
Like it was mentioned before, CG Textures is a good source for textures too (as well as Mayang's free texture library)... I don't really like using them though since I use the textures for my free models and I'm not 100% sure how their usage would apply to freebies... that and some of the textures are pretty distorted and dark too.
Basically it is always good to have a combination of techniques and tools at your disposal.
Fisheye effect with a non fisheye lens can be corrected for in software pretty much. A more important issue with textures is getting good flat but well distributed lighting. Outdoor photography is actually better done on cloudy days in my experience. For indoor textures, a tripod with the ability to pivot the camera straight down with a decent light box setup (can be handmade) helps.
Picture is © All Rights Reserved
Hey, I know that bee... I haven't seen Shirley in a long time... best bee I ever knew.
I can fix distortion in photoshop, but it gets really annoying real fast... especially when you photograph things with a grid like pattern, like bricks or tiles... the distortion is harder to repair, it also really stinks when you find that the series of pictures you took of a wall has too much distortion in the overlapping areas... stuff becomes harder to line up and things that are near the edges not only get curved, but become compressed... like were a grout line tapers from a half an inch to something like 1/16th or less... that is impossible to correct, all that image data in that squeezed grout line reads as a thin brown line and widening and straightening it out only looks weird.
Many non SLRs have crappy low light settings, pixilating, or adding artifacts to the image in "low light"... a cloudy day is not low light to me, but to many of these pocket cameras you may as well be in the basement with the lights off. I always prefer shooting certain images on a cloudy days, especially for certain close ups, back when film was all we had, I used to shoot all my pix of FX miniatures outdoor on overcast days... SLRs really handle this 10X better than most of the non SLRs.
To the OP-
Actually, what we should really have asked is- What are the kinds of textures you need/intend to take photos for?
If it is stuff like brick walls and stone walkways where you'd be outside a lot, that is one thing...
Is it a marble wall in a hotel, or suit of armor in a museum... indoor artificially lit stuff is pretty different...
The side of a building, or a meadow?.. you need good sharp zoom for that....
Stuff with glossy surfaces, where it is best to shoot in soft diffuse light...
Skin, fur or leaves? need good sharp Macro for that...
All that could make a huge difference in what you need, camera-wise.
Shirley?
That is a picture I took.
Good question and honestly I'm not sure I can give an answer without a lot of rambling and trying to explain but....
In my Daz experiences, I've gone from putting scenes together with all purchased materials to learning about shaders (haven't made one) to tweaking textures from others such as something as simple as changing the diffuse color or pulling it into Photoshop (I know less about Photoshop then I do about Daz) and stenciling letters on a plain black t-shirt texture (I never said it looked good lol). So the next natural progression for me seemed to be making some of my own textures for some of the items that I have purchased.
Then I ran across the attached image. (I did resize so it would upload to Daz). This wasn't someting as simple as a color change or anything like that. It looked like real material and I was curious how it was done and started to do research. I did ask the vendor also but didn't get back a reply. I'm sure everyone is extremely busy as I am.
So then that lead me down the path of looking for tutorials and I purchased a couple of different ones. One was pretty simple showing how to make a texture in photoshop and then applying it.
Then within the last 2 weeks I signed up on the Dreamlight Website, all trying to make sense of how all of this works. I was interested in how to model but my chief attention grabber right now is on textures. So my progression has been working with textures, making subtle changes to premade textures, to now I would like to make some of my own textures so in each render I do there's a little something that I've done in there. Sooooooo....this is starting to feel like a novel here....I was browsing on Dreamlight's website and saw a modeling series for a utility building...well buildings and environments take up a lot of room in my runtime....I don't know why I like stuff like that but I do....anyway, in that series, he explained how he went out to the site and took photographs of each side and in the process of modeling used the photographs for the textures. I don't recall him making any kind of recommendations about cameras or really explaining the process.
And in other places, I've seen mentioned - Photo Realistic textures and so forth so that is kind of how all of this started and where my thinking has been going.
And as someone mentioned up above, I could use other people's textures but not sure about usage rights. What if I wanted to make something to sell one of these years so was thinking if I made stuff of my own it would be fun and then I wouldn't have to worry about rights and so forth. 98% of what I have has been purchased from Daz, Rendo, etc. I have a wee bit of stuff from Sharecg but that's the exception.
Then I saw stuff about Filter Forge (if I recall the name correctly) and other places but after a while it all gets to be too much. There's a zillion ways to go and I'm obsessed with finding the right way lol. I'm so anal that way and that causes problems in itself.
So bottom line, creating stuff is in my blood. I'm just not artistic. I've been hanging around computers for 30 years so I can do tech but I don't know art, lighting, Fstops, diffusion, and all that other stuff but I am learning and it's fun and relaxing, sometimes frustrating if I can't find an answer or can't make things work. For instance, I'm doing a tutorial for Reality and the creator does a really good job of explaining and breaking things down. I just have to digest it all. Well in the first example, he uses a freebie that is no longer available from what I see, so I bought something similiar but then again it has it's own issues. But because of my computer background I'm used to problem solving and applying principles to something completely different so I'm working through those things.
Soo....lol...I don't know if that answers your question or not. Right now, I just have a strong desire to create something and I have a very high interest in that something being from the texture department.
Thanks for listening. I do appreciate people's time.
Shirley?
That is a picture I took.
Oh, I figured you where friends with Shirley too... some people say all bees look alike... I think thats crazy... This is a picture I took of Shirley in 2001 at the annual cloverfest... she is a little tipsy from too much fermented nectar...
Actually it does! You sound like probably should get one that is well rounded as you wish to try a little of everything... a SLR is most versatile since you can buy different lenses and their manual modes are the best... but if you do get a non SLR make sure it has excellent low light and macro capabilities. I'd go and browse those photoshop and digital camera mags in the books stores, and get a good idea what is good at the moment... they tend to opt for expensive stuff, but at least you can get a good idea what current standards are, even if you not are buying a bleeding edge model... try to avoid anything too old... some manufactures make it VERY confusing which model is new and which is two years old... especially when you buy in a big box store. I still would recommend an SLR if you can afford it... they are big and bulky, but in the long run you'll keep it longer and hate it less... the smaller cameras are okay... sometimes, but they tend make you hate them real quick... if I'd have just bought an SLR in the first place, I'd have been a lot happier, had more usable textures, done less fixing of the images and not had to buy another small crappy camera to replace the other crappy camera that stopped working... and I'd probably would have save money in the long run.
Actually it does! You sound like probably should get one that is well rounded as you wish to try a little of everything... a SLR is most versatile since you can buy different lenses and their manual modes are the best... but if you do get a non SLR make sure it has excellent low light and macro capabilities. I'd go and browse those photoshop and digital camera mags in the books stores, and get a good idea what is good at the moment... they tend to opt for expensive stuff, but at least you can get a good idea what current standards are, even if you not are buying a bleeding edge model... try to avoid anything too old... some manufactures make it VERY confusing which model is new and which is two years old... especially when you buy in a big box store. I still would recommend an SLR if you can afford it... they are big and bulky, but in the long run you'll keep it longer and hate it less... the smaller cameras are okay... sometimes, but they tend make you hate them real quick... if I'd have just bought an SLR in the first place, I'd have been a lot happier, had more usable textures, done less fixing of the images and not had to buy another small crappy camera to replace the other crappy camera that stopped working... and I'd probably would have save money in the long run.
Well good! With the stress at work and my nephew's cancer and everything else, I wonder if I make conherent sense of anything these days lol.
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer and offer suggestions. I do buy the Photoshop mags every once in a while but never paid any attention to cameras. that is a good idea. I'll pick one up just to see what they say. I've heard of "SLR" but that is it. I've only heard it mentioned lol. So looks like another oppurtunity to learn.
And I really do like to try a little bit of everything...my mom always said jack of all trades master of none. It does have it's drawback but I like variety. :)
Oh, I figured you where friends with Shirley too... some people say all bees look alike... I think thats crazy... This is a picture I took of Shirley in 2001 at the annual cloverfest... she is a little tipsy from too much fermented nectar...
Gotcha, nice pic.. bees can be tricky as they don't sit still ;p
Doing tonns of digital image retouch and correction jobs I'd say there is no decent cameras for texture shots under $500, nor under $1500. Even $3000-5000 cameras giving probably unlimited creative and technical exposure controls are not producing any tecnically satisfactory quality shots. In 99,5% cases the image taken with $1500 - $5000 camera has blurred object edges, over-edge color bleeding and lots of subtile or strong color noise and require an enormous amount of work on sharpening to make it acceptable for further processing. The input image of these cameras at closer look remind rather dirty chewed paper insted of sharp and crisp picture. The under $500 cameras shots technically are total crap. While all mentioned above cameras may be pretty good for reference shots. In my personal experience really excellent for texture shots I'd call Leaf and Hasselblad bodies and digital backs with lenses usually starting from $3000-$5000 and up to seen $20000 per lens. The shots are really similar to high-end drum scanners output, brilliantly sharp and clear, with crisp and clear colors, taking some time minor color corrections (but usually a significant amount of work on human skin imperfections removal). But such sourse images are very rare in my daily operations as the price of these cameras holds in range of $15000 - $45000. Seems to me, these cameras recently are used by only true fanatics and zealots of photography, not the modern so called "pro".
OK, it's just my opinion based on my experience. If someone may point on $500 camera with sensor larger than 4x3 cm and $300 Zeiss lens I'll take my hat off and shake his hand.
Perfection is approached asymptotically. It's like trying to get to the speed of light. The faster you go, the heavier you get and the increasingly more energy you have to come up with to go any faster. When is fast fast enough? What's your fuel budget?
Agreed that inexpensive cameras have issues. But like many problems there are some workarounds. If your image gets fuzzy or distorted near the frame border, just crop that part out and use only the tolerably good area in the center (if any). As I said earlier, true professionals will want state-of-the-art gear which almost always requires mucho scratch. The rest of us will just have to satisfy our itch with our meager scratch.
And take heart in the realization that what is state-of-the-art today may be old hat before you're dead. 8-o
After all, I was doing simple 3-D graphics 37 years ago on a million dollars worth of government equipment. Today for less than $1000 I can do several orders of magnitude more. But that's electronics. Optics on the otherhand has reached a plateau but who knows, there may be a breakthrough in Wavefront Recording that makes traditional optics as obsolete as sliderules.
No pin-hole built-in lens ever breaks the optics and economics laws. Appropriate resolution to have small sharp details on the texture picture did, does and will do cost.
http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-S4200-Digital-Camera/dp/B006T7QWGO/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1363105369&sr=1-1
this looks like it would be perfect for creating textures...
Just a word of caution on the FinePix, I have the model before the 4200... Well, by model before, I mean in features, not series... because I can not make heads or tails out of their criteria for model numbers... but it is more or less the same as the one suggested, just a year older... actually, aside from the larger display and the "Super EBC (Electron Beam Coating)" on the lens... (really, that sounds like something I'd make up for one of my promos... how do you get the electron beams to stay in place in a coating?) it matches my camera in all the listed features...
If I were to sum up my feelings about the camera, I'd have to say...
Not bad for $160 (when I bought mine it was supposed to cost $330-$350)... but it has the bulk of an SLR with none of the benefits...
The special feature modes are no better than a cheap pocket camera (I have 3 to compare it against), The low light capabilities seem great on paper- in reality the images are terrible, especially bad on cloudy days which should not really be considered low light... the lens is okay, if you don't mind constant "Lens Control Error Warnings" (although flicking the camera on/off usually makes that go away for a while)... (this may be a inherent problem with FinePix cameras, since there are a lot of hits for that problem on the internet and the owner's manual suggests turning the camera off/on to make it go away- thanks but how about fixing the problem)... for close up photos it takes okay pictures... if you crop out everything but the center 1/3 of the image. It has some "manual" features but they don't really seem to work close to what they should, but maybe I don't get the settings differences between digital and film... although I seem to on more expensive cameras...
The batteries are standard AA... and pop out efficiently when you got to swap out memory cards, a nice feature if you are a character in a sitcom, an annoyance if you are trying to capture images of bigfoot before he runs off while you try to get the battery/SD card cover to stay locked... I don't know who had the bright idea to make the flash a "pop up" feature, but I hope Santa didn't bring them anything that Christmas...
The lens cap is a sin, you would be better off cutting the bottom off a styrofoam cup and force fitting it in place- it would probably stay in place longer... (this is really a minor issue, but quite annoying since it doesn't really protect the lens... then again maybe thats why they chose to coat the lens with "Super Electron Beams" on the newer model)...
On the bright side... the video is decent and the zoom works while filming, though it is noisy and jerky and once again you'll encounter low light issues if it is not well lit.
BUT- Having said all that, mine only looks like and shares most of the features... it is NOT the exact same model... so for all I know, in the year or so between these two models they could have gotten their act together... or MAYBE mine was put together by someone who was going though a nervous breakdown that day... who knows...
By the way, I'm not pooping on wancow's suggestion, it's just that I REALLY have unfond feelings for MY camera.
One other thing... If you will be buying the camera from a big box store, make sure they don't charge a re-stocking fee for returning electronics... I made that mistake and that is why I did not bother taking it back.
You also mentioned- "I’ve heard of “SLR” but that is it."
Basically an SLR (Single Lens Reflex)... (actually I should write DSLR- Digital Single Lens Reflex), is a camera that allows you to see in the viewfinder, exactly what the lens sees... basically when you look through the viewfinder, you are looking through the lens via a prism and mirror... you can see what the CCD sensor (the sensor that captures the image) will see, not what the 3.5" LCD screen makes it seem like you might see. Once you use one a bit you'll understand the difference.
Also SLR cameras usually have the ability to detach the lens unit from the camera body, so you can swap out the standard lens with say a telephoto or macro lens... plus you can add diopters and filters to most of these lens.... the other feature I love about them is the ability to manually focus the damn lens... something almost all non SLR lens lack... in those you are at the mercy of a motor and a button (and a lens control error warning), on an SLR, you can smoothly rotate the lens to the exact point you wish.
Unfortunately, they cost way more... If you have a reputable camera shop near you, you could look into purchasing a used model... just make sure it is a reputable shop and you know what you are buying.
I'm probably going to get my SLR from either BJ's Wholesale club or Costco... when they close out the models the prices are crazy cheap, only problem is I always miss them... they have very limited stock by that time, so they alway go fast... I missed a Canon EOS T2i for around $450 by one customer... "oh we just sold that guy the last one".... Grrrr! They both have very good return policies too.
Whatever you do get Non-SLR or SLR, research it and if at all possible ask friends and family (if applicable) if you can try out their cameras... and if you can, buy from shop with a no hassle return policy... return it if you hate it.
I use two cameras. A now aging Pentax DSLR that is good for exterior shots and (my husband's) smaller Canon (about the same in price) for interior shots as it seems to work better in lower light.
I take a huge amount of architectural features, particularly Romanesque and Gothic stone carving and also wood carving in churches. They can be quite badly lit and additional lighting is often badly directed and sometimes strangely coloured.
1. Pentax used in well lit interior
2. Canon in less well lit interior
I've taken some decent pictures with a pinhole camera. The smaller the hole the sharper the image, but there is a limit. When the hole gets too small you start getting diffraction effects, and the image smudges again. Also the smaller the hole, the longer your exposure has to be. Either that or you need a brighter light source.
Pinhole cameras are actually quite handy for taking pictures with an extensive depth of field. Like setting the camera on one end of a piano keyboard pointing toward the other end and getting the whole keyboard in focus. But most of my pinhole camera photos would be classified as "soft focus".
very interesting...I am reading everything posted so far and letting everything soak in, trying to wrap my head around everything.
An aside....
sorry if I've been quiet today....strange, strange day...of all things to happen...a young girl making a u-turn on my sister's street lost control of her car and plowed through the fence and ran into my nephew's bedroom while he was sitting on the bed playing on his xbox. The car stopped a few feet from him. He is ok thankfully but badly shaken up and wondering why all of this is happening to him, the cancer and now this. I'm 48 and might would ask that question but he's only 15 so it's understandable but things happen. I'm just glad he's ok. I took him to Gamestop and bought him some games that he's been wanting. Playing helps his stress level. We had a hug-a-thon and that helped too.