Quote:
Originally Posted by ou2mame
the camera kinda sucks. lowering the brightness may limit the blur, but thats only because there's less actual data in the picture. long story short, the lens on our camera is way too small for the mp. at wide open, its still limited in light. the flash isn't a flash, and the camera sensor is probably less sensitive than a disposable digital camera. literally. all this does is limit the actual data in the picture. the reason why the fps rises as a result of limiting the amount of data in the picture is preceicely that. the sensor can obviously only see a certain amount of data at its current lens opening, and limiting that raises the fps because there's less actual data in the picture. its like doing a benchmark of quake 3 in a dark room, compared to a room with action going on in it. of course the fps will be higher in the dark room, because there is nothing to slow it down. you could get 10000000fps if you walk yourself into a dark corner, but as soon as you turn around and watch the rocket fly towards you, the fps will drop to 10fps due to the fire and the glare on the surroundings that it provides.
|
Sorry but that's not correct and not a good analogy. It is simply a matter of a shorter shutter speed. While indeed you may lose some image data (i.e. tonality) because of the underexposure, the sensor is sending the same amount of information to the signal processors; a black pixel needs to be processed, just the same as one of any other color.
In a 3d rendered environment, the hardware is actually generating the image, so that is a different situation entirely; a camera captures an existing scene.