Penryn die shot wallpaper

One of you guys wrote in and asked for a higher resolution version of the Penryn die photo that I ran in my Core 2 Extreme QX9650 review to use as desktop wallpaper.  Unfortunately, I don’t have any higher res version of that one since it came from Intel.  We don’t often run pictures we haven’t taken ourselves, but this one was an exception.  Fortunately, I may have a substitute on the wallpaper front using some pictures I did take myself.  I just made one of them in an 1800×1200 wallpaper image that should be suitable for most monitors.  Here’s a snippet from it:

If that’s not high-res enough for you, you can grab the original here.  Next time, I’m bringing a mini-tripod to make this easier.

Comments closed
    • continuum
    • 12 years ago

    Mini-Tripod? Get a Gorilla-pod for dSLRs…. =)

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 12 years ago

    camera: Canon Rebel XT
    ISO 400
    focal length:85mm
    f-stop f/6.3
    shutter: 1/10 sec.

    That last one’s the problem. That’s not the kit lens, so I don’t know which it is, but even dropping down to f/4 would probably have allowed 1/30 of a second, which would have been alot better, IMHO.

      • eitje
      • 12 years ago

      this post is not a troll, it’s an honest question. ๐Ÿ™‚

      How would those changes impact the picture? What would I, as a viewer, expect to see differently?

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 12 years ago

        Well in general, the longer the shutter is open, the more your hand is going to shake and the more that is going to make the picture look un-sharp or smudged. The general rule of thumb is that you want 1/focal length, so optimally 1/85 sec would be what you’d try for shoot in this type of scenario. However, that’s not always possible.

        **Note, the following is extremely simplified**
        Camera’s are all about light hitting the surface of the sensor. The longer the shutter is open, the more light will hit. The wider the aperture (lower f/ value) the more light. The higher the ISO/sensitivity, the ‘brighter’ the amount of light hitting will look.
        Normally, you have a specific shutter or aperture that you have in mind, and then you adjust the other 2 settings to allow you to get that. For example, for faster action you want a faster shutter speed to ‘freeze frame’ however in equivalent lighting that means you have to up the ISO or open the aperture wider. When I take my camera to football games, I usually want the shutter to be no less than 1/800 or 1/1000 of a second to freeze the players. My lens has a max aperture of 2.8 @ 320mm (eq) which is zoomed in all the way, and so as the afternoon progresses into evening, I have to keep increasing the ISO to allow me to capture images with less light.

        That’s probably a longer answer then you wanted, but hey, you can always just not read it ๐Ÿ˜›

          • Damage
          • 12 years ago

          You forgot an impact of the change to f/4: a narrower plane of focus, which would have compromised this shot.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 12 years ago

            Yep. You could see the depth of field issue in the Intel-supplied shot, too.

            Good luck finding a mini-tripod that is robust and stable enough to hold up your camera and lens. I got a little dinky one free with another purchase from Newegg, and it’s barely strong enough to hold up a compact camera. You can forget about the SLR.

            I’d like to try a shot like that with this lens:
            ยง[<http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7400<]ยง

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 12 years ago

            Ah. I take it you weren’t shooting head-on then?

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 12 years ago

            Is a high depth of field that imperative though? I mean all the die’s are the same, so it’s not like you need to see the detail so that you can tell differences.

            Plus, IMHO, shallow depth of field and sharp beats blurry any day.

            • Damage
            • 12 years ago

            You try shooting a mirror-like surface head-on without taking a picture of yourself and your camera.

            Let me say this nicely: I understand photography basics, too. I was posting this shot to be nice and respond to reader requests. It wasn’t a plea for help. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • swaaye
            • 12 years ago

            I’ve been using a Rebel XT for photography about 2 years now. You did fine. Rebel XT’s kit lens (if that is what you’re using) does needs a good bit of light or the shutter speed quickly ends up suffering. Going ISO 1600 is an option, but the noise gets heavy up there.

            We picked up the EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS lens to help with this. Lenses are very expensive but the stabilizer function is a major help. It basically allows you to manage a good bit slower shutter than you would otherwise. More lighting always helps too, of course, but that is usually not exactly an easy thing to improve. Always take a bunch of shots too so you can pick the best. ๐Ÿ™‚

            • Damage
            • 12 years ago

            Heh. I have the EFS 17-85, used it here, and took a whole load of shots, then picked this one.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 12 years ago

            Even with image stabilization, 1/10 of a second is slow for hand-held shooting.

            • Damage
            • 12 years ago

            Indeed.

            Someone here has a point. I think it’s my gently stated one about knowing what I’m doing, and about not having asked for help. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            This shot wasn’t perfect, but it worked out. Are you guys aware how small a Penryn die is? Perhaps someone here could have done better. But I think he would have simply been choosing different tradeoffs, not qualitatively superior ones.

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 12 years ago

            I’m sorry if I stepped on your toes. I wasn’t really intended to try to teach you or anything. I just noticed that the photo was a little blurry and so I looked at the EXIF information and thought I’d share.

            I shall refrain in the future if you wish.

            • gratuitous
            • 12 years ago
            • JustAnEngineer
            • 12 years ago

            I’m sorry. Your comment appears to be underexposed. Perhaps you should try a larger aperture or a longer exposure?

            • gratuitous
            • 12 years ago
            • gratuitous
            • 12 years ago
        • liquidsquid
        • 12 years ago

        Two things that would have improved this image:

        Smaller aperture, tripod.

        The smaller aperture would increase the depth of focus, the tripod, well, duh. You would definitely need the tripod as the smaller aperture would slow the shutter even more.

        Other options: Get the higher-end Canon dSLR with a lower-noise sensor so you could get the ISO up to 800 or even 1600. Then your hand-held shots would be clearer for that faster shutter rates this would provide. Of course the added weight may make you shake some more and counteract the fater shutter ;-).

        -LS

          • liquidsquid
          • 12 years ago

          Oops, sorry, I didn’t mean to be critical of your photography. I just saw the other posts.

          What I should have said is: “Thanks for the cool image, I just wish it would look really sharp and clear across 2560 pixels.” Time to get yourself the 5D. I think that is a good business decision, just tell your other half I said so. That way I can get a nice, sharp image of a silicon wafer.

          -LS

    • lyc
    • 12 years ago

    how awesome! thanks ๐Ÿ˜€

    • zqw
    • 12 years ago

    neato, I cropped one from the closer orig. Where’s the pic from?

      • Damage
      • 12 years ago

      My camera. ๐Ÿ™‚

      A wafer?

      Oregon?

      Not sure what you’re asking.

        • zqw
        • 12 years ago

        How/when did you camera come into close proximity to said wafer?

    • Jigar
    • 12 years ago

    Thanks Scott ๐Ÿ™‚

    • data8504
    • 12 years ago

    And this is why TR is so great.

    Thanks, Scott!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This