I saw online the 0.03 megapixel camera and was kinda curious so i snapped a few pics and modified them in gimp to reach a similar effect, including the resolution.I honestly having quite a bit of fun with these and i'm enjoying the results quite much
>>4500532
>>4500533
>>4500532>remove the ability to pixel peep>suddenly photos look more interestingWell that was straightforward
>>4500539>say something that is totally untrue but helps you feel better about how envious you are of people who can afford nicer cameras>in a totally unrelated thread that is just about sharing pics, not your perpetual seething at literally anyone with a job and properly managed financesIts funny how your exact behavior is common to cameras, guns, bikes, cars, and electric guitars. All trailer park ass hobbies with a bit of overlap with the upper class. Might as well have been>OP: I took my miata out today>seething poorfag: WOW AMAZING HOW NOT HAVING THE ABILITY TO GO FASTER THAN MY CIVIC MAKES DRIVING ACTUALLY ENJOYABLE (DO YOU HEAR THAT, YOU MONEY WASTING BOURGIE BITCHES?)
>>4500540are you okay?
>>4500585I’m working three cases at the law firm and have family in bomb shelters, and the first thing i see on 4chan is some poorfag cow trying to cope with his shitty camera. What do you think?
>>4500590>t. Has money but no wealthSAD.
>>4500590I think perhaps caring about random people on internet is not good for you. Relax and have some slack.(unrelated)
>>4500590>I’m working three cases at the law firm and have family in bomb shelters,I'm not gonna take the bait, sorry.
>>4500534cool thread anon. do you have any project of series with it? >>4500539no photo>>4500540no photo>>4500585no photo>>4500590no photo>>4500591no photo>>4500611no photo
>>4500540Are you right there schitzy?>>4500614>moans about nophoto>posts photo that doesn't even fit criteria for the threaddigishit thread is over there anon
>>4500540He’s right, you know. All “pixel peeping” means is “other people succeeded in life where I failed”.
>>4500614I wanted to try a green palette but the results really didnt work out very much. The purple one made the picture completely unreadable. This blue/red palette seems to work for quite a lot of stuff instead but i really know nothing about color theory so i dont really know why.
>>4500614unfortunatly i dont have any real project... i really like photography but i really lack of ideas or inspiration and every pic i take i feel like it's boring. At least editing photos like this is fun.
Old scan of late stone age 135 film, bit of crop, scaled to 200 long side, as it was indexed to max 16 colors.
>>4500704Old snap, crop, scale & index to 16 colors.
>>4500704>>4500706super nice pics.Did you make the palettes yourself or did you use some programs to help you?
>>4500723In Gimp, Image/Mode/Indexed with options "Generate optimum palette" and "Maximum number of colors" 16. Nothing fancy. (Old Vongoaivi turf hut at summer 2015. Replaced with a new one.)
>>4500649i quite like this for some reason. makes me want to mess with game boy resolutions and super small palettes myself>>4500744did you know Gimp gives different results if you set an opened image to indexed color, or if you paste the image into a work space already set to indexed? at least if you're using a fixed palette but it's probably the same with generated ones. it's been years and they never fixed it
>>4500532Nice. I've got a 1.4MP thermal on my phone. I've mostly been using it for work stuff. But I've got some shapshits with it.
>>4501768
>>4501769
>>4501771
>>4501773
>>4501775
>>4501776
>>4501778
>>4501782
>>4501703If a thing is pasted into an already indexed space I'd expect the thing gets converted indexed using the existing palette, whatever it is. If that's not what happens I'd call it a bug. (Some wild snowmen on their way to mischief. This time only 8 colors.)
>>4500532Why is this actually fun and whimsy??
>>4501868i don't know, but think of how much bandwidth we're saving.
>>4501868it's definitely better with patterned dithering, almost resembles film grain
>>4501784
>>4503211
>>45017681.4MP might be the output size, but you'll rarely see a thermal sensor with more than 640*512.They're hard to make and fall under ITAR restrictions.
>>4503286Yeah. Shows up as 0.3 MP now. Idk where I got the 1.4 from. I swear I didn't pull it out of my ass.
>>4500590Family in bomb shelters?
>>4500590berg
>>4501778I feel like this photo would be better with higher resolutionmost of these thermal photos of yours failed >>4503212except this one, you nailed it. the subject is well defined and the color grade of the sky works really well in an “aesthetic” sort of way. some of your preceding attempts were too abstract to be photos of “anything” and when there is a subject the colors are so intense it’s a little garish.>>4503211I have mixed feelings about this one. I like the subject surrounded by so much negative space but the low resolution really does hurt it in my opinion, just a little more definition wouldn’t hurt. the subject feels like a blob…I mean duh it’s the low res thread but still I think there needs to be a lower limit on how little resolution there is to a photo before it’s no longer working.
>>4500744Can't see shit. Make them bigger.
>>4501768>>4503461So you were using a phone with a built in thermal camera?>>4500532What’s the 0.03 megapixel camera you used here?
>>4500532>>4510734>What’s the 0.03 megapixel camera you used here?Was it this one:https://www.pixlesscamera.com/https://petapixel.com/2025/01/09/0-03-megapixel-pixless-camera-captures-charming-pixel-art-photos/
