🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <VNW9SLASUti4Ewa4@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<andy@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <qSjwXGAZvji4EwdB@atelier48.demon.co.uk>, Richard Landau
><Richard@atelier48.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>I weakened and ordered one but am very
>>disappointed in the  hazy and ill-focussed images it delivers.
>
>The images certainly don't match those in the supplied album of samples
>- though it's not impossible that the latter were taken with something
>else.
>
>>Do any of you out there know anything about this product, and whether it
>>is likely to achieve an acceptable picture?
>
>I found the settings I used last night, in artificial lighting, were
>totally wrong when I used the camera this morning, next to a sunlit
>window - sadly, sets of settings cannot be saved.
>
Though I don't have one of these, I have found that webcam images are
far more sensitive to light conditions than other digital imagery.

If you aren't able to use natural light, try lots of indirect
backlight... and of course mess around with the settings.

Maybe obvious, but does the camera have a zoom ? Most webcams need this
at or near maximum unless you have your face pressed against the lens.

As an aside, I'd've thought there'd be a market for a realtime imaging
suite with filters, etc. as most of the supplied software by
manufacturers seems inadequate. (if anyone knows of anything which does
this, please let me know)

dee