Sure thing; let me know if you need any help mocking it up, as I've moved around my share of pixels in my day.

So, this is what I've come up with. I can't go any smaller as it wouldn't be readable.

The image here is from facebook and with some work, my QR reader can read it.



I think what I need to decide is if I want to do this or another idea. Where the QR is a URL to a mobile page on my site with words of copyright. And at the top of the QR Code (where my name and words are) is to add "2010." I don't think this idea of a watermark is going to work out that well.

I need some better ideas & concepts.

Awesome, that's exactly what I had in mind (well, close enough, I was thinking of a horizontal configuration, but that looks very nice too). Will the QR code read fail if you turn down its alpha a bit?

I have no idea. I made it as a grayscale PNG. An indexed search through the menu's of CS4 yielded no "Alpha" options. Same result if I convert to colour.

Nono, change the layer transparency of the watermark so more of the underlying photo shows through. The alpha of a layer or image is how transparent it is.

Got it.

I'll magic erase the white from the QR and set the transparency of the underlying white layer to about 50.

I took 2 pictures and stitched them together to make this:
http://i37.tinypic.com/m9vm86.jpg

Whoa, I love it! The colors are nicex and simple without being bland, and you have a great interplay of light and shadow. Win.

ty Kerm! Yeah, photo stitching is something that I got into *very* recently and im planning to make more panoramics like that. I'm also going to see if i can get a nice camera for xmas

That sounds like a good idea. What are you using now, and what do you have your eye on as a possible replacement?

Right now im using my dad's cannon PowerShot SD1100 IS and unfortunately I can't buy a DSLR (I really want to), and my budget at its absolute max is $400 and that's pushing it. Hopefully a nice digital camera that has some good features in it.

I'm sure you can get a nice new camera for within that budget, or probably a very nice refurbished or used camera.

I'm excited to see you with a Canon. The Canon PowerShot line is great for to-be pro's. Powershots with the DIGIC II & III image processors can installed with the CHDK hack to allow more control as well as the capture of RAW images - which yields more control in post processing. If you have the space to save images up to 6-8MB's (almost a megabyte per megapixel), and want to get a feel for RAW, then do it.

I've never hacked my P&S Powershot, but I have hacked my Canon DSLR 400D with the CHDK for it. Basically, you install a custom firmware that opens flags in the RAM. The real hack lies on the memory card. Hack your memory card to be "bootable" and place the CHDK file on the card. The custom firmware enabled the camera to boot off the card and you get the features of the hack as long as that card is in your camera. Replace it with a card without the hack and it works normally. Format your card and you loose the file and the bootability.

The DSLR CHDK brought more ISO's and another option to meter. My 400D had Full Stop ISO settings (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600) but the hack brought in 16, 32, 50, 64, 150, 320, 1000 and 3200 to name a few. Sadly, anything below 100 registered as ISO+100. So 16 was really 116.

Something to note when shooting panoramics, is to shoot a series of a photos in 90 degree's than they'll be stitched in.

If you shoot a panoramic landscape, shoot a series of portrait oriented photos going left to right. If you are shooting a panorama up to down, shoot a series of landscape oriented shots going up and down. It has something to with lens distortion (may not apply to point and shoots) on the farthest edges of the photo, and those edges are typically the shortest side. If you try and stich the shortest sides together and there is indeed lens distortion you are good as screwed doing it manually and the automatic stitching programs may have issues.

It also yields more photo in the panorama. Instead of a very short landscape panorama, you'll get a taller photo though, you'll have more photos to stich. Also, overlapping each photo by about 5-10% is ideal ;)

yeah.. well i just have this nice auto-create button that looks at the pictures and determine the lens settings, the focal point, and all that stuff.. oh and it auto-crops. It's really nice to have a 1 click input-output
Thanks for the tips though! ill note them when i get into photography.

Good stuff Snake!

KermM: The QR Code works best when it's got no transparency. I am able to get up to about 60% (40% Transparency) but it won't be instantaneous at smaller sizes.

That's fair and understandable, do what you have to do.

@Snake: That sounds pretty cool.

So. My whole quick reply got deleted because my login session timed out. But, Sony has this cool new DSLR that's not really a DSLR by definition but rather a DSLT - Digital Single Lens Translucent. It uses a Pellicle Mirror that reflects 1/3rd of the light to a secondary sensor that connects to an electronic viewfinder.

The DSLT allows for a competing 10FPS on a prosumer camera, a first, the next closest for the same price is 4FPS. It also has Geo-Tagging. With more programs these days coming with maps and supporting GeoLocation data - even Flickr and Picasa Web allow viewers to see where photos were taken - and that I've already found the geo-tagging with my phone nifty, that's a feature I'll love!

However, since it redirects 1/3rd of the light, your photos need 1/3 more light or however that'd work. So, a slower shutter is required making indoor & low-light shooting nearly impossible. But that can be fixed with faster lenses, much like a 2.8 instead of a 3.5. But If you're loosing 1/3rd your light, a 2.8 would be just a hair faster than a 3.5.

Those Numbers? Aperture, how large of a hole the light can go through. Smaller the number, larger the whole and faster the lens is because more light equates to faster shutter speeds. Follow? Also, faster the lens the more expensive it is.

So, I'll have to spend more money on lenses to get just as fast shutter speeds as any DSLR.

However, more cameras will be announed this Month (September!) at Photokina, I understand. So. If Canon doesn't come out with anything better. I'm switching to Sony. Finally.

Once I own a Sony Alpha Series camera, my life will be complete. I've wanted a Sony Alpha for years. But Canon was - and is - more commercially recognized in stores and schools. And since I was more familiar with Canon than with Nikon (the other Major Camera manufacturer) I went with Canon to start.

So, if things go well. I'll be buying two Sony Alpha 55's for 850$ each and about 1.6k in Studio Equipment this year. Not at the same time, but within a month or so of each other.

I got a Canon 1000D for my birthday on the 29th (August). I've already taken about ~200 pictures already

Congrats, Lucas!

@ComicIDIOT, this DLST concept sounds somewhat intriguing, although that one shortcoming seems pretty significant. I've always been a bit confused on why DLSR's need an electronic viewfinder anyway. Now that we have CCDs instead of film, shouldn't a single sensor, like in a point-and-shoot, be all that is necessary? I could Google it, but you probably have a better and more concise explanation. I presume that the faster capture rate is as much a function of not needing to have a mirror move back and forth as it is any other feature of this camera? Thanks for explaining shutter and aperture. So if there's nothing good from Canon next month, you're gonna go with a DSLT?

I honestly don't follow the electronic viewfinder here. It could be that with only 1/3rd the light being directed to the viewfinder, the best way is to electronically brighten it. Every DSLR has non-electronic viewfinders, I guess electronic viewfinders is another downside to a DSLT.

Correct, The faster capture rate is indeed directly related to the mirror.

Regarding the use of just one sensor, I don't quite get it either. The fact that DSLR's block the sensor for all light until the photo is taken, is probably why it has two sensors. I can't really follow up on that question or continue with the answer with much certainty and accuracy.


@Lucas: Nice! How are you liking it? Will we see any photos here in the topic?