without compression and one byte per color (r,g,b):
3*159*10^9 bytes = 477 gigabytes ~ 1/2 terabyte
judge me and give me red thumbs if i'm wrong
i can take it
i am the dark anon
actually its only a 15.9 Gpx camera, and its file size would be 25 or so GB for a raw12 uncompressed file. If it was a Tiff uncompressed CMYK 48 bit image it would be ~100 GB. If you were to print it at 30DPI it would be 5.5x3.5 meters WxH :P
i couldn't agree more, pisses me off when people buy the best ******* cameras money can buy and use it fully on automatic. its like buying a ferrari and only ever reversing
I know a few people who have bought a ridiculously expensive camera and shoot on auto, they're the kind of people who make 'moody art' pictures of empty wine bottles in black and white.
Goddamnit. I know a lot of those people too. Im getting myself a camera like this for christmas(i think), so i can shoot films and take pictures... then again i've been doing that since i was 5 with cheaper alternatives.
They just made a huge update today that completely changed combat. I personally don't like it, but some people love it. It might be worth checking it out again just to see the changes.
So your saying if I fit a camera to my .22 (or something better), it might actually be cheaper than an actual scope; and even if it isn't, I can still get a killcam shot to make it worth the extra cash.
no.. not at all. the scope is sighted in precisely so in theory it should hit the same spot on the x-axis every time it is shot. it's then sighted in so it hits the center of the x and y axis from the distance that you want ie 100 yards. it would be cheaper to buy an very expensive scope vs. a really good camera and a correct mount