December 22, 2014, 04:01:28 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Neutral

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Here is simple example when sensor DR and sensor  IQ are very useful.

If you think the second image is an improvement then we are talking about different things.

+2, the second image is why HDR also stands for Horribly Divergent from Reality.

1.   Interesting enough that all who replied did not get to the main point of the post and immediately started to tell how ugly the second image is))).  But second one was not main point of the message but just previews of how initial image  was pushed in processing and preview was done by windows snipping tool and was not supposed to illustrate anything – just to give idea to which extent initial image was pushed in processing.
     Main point of the post was different and was illustrated by 3 image and that was that when sensor has good DR and IQ it would allow to get similar results as multi-shot HDR images without any efforts and time spent and allowing to push hard processing limits without introducing any visual processing artifacts like noise, halos etc.  even when image is “overcooked”.

  So this was illustrated by 3d image (100% crop of the second image) showing that even when image processed to the limits it does not have noise, halos on extreme contrast transitions and it resolves details up to the every pixel.
2.  Example itself was just “Technical example” using image which mostly contains small details with uniform colors across the frame  not clearly seen on small image especially on preview done by windows snipping tool. 
This is kind of images are most difficult for HDR and could be seen well only with high enough resolution. 
Best for HDR are shots with big enough objects of different colors  in the frame.
So now I attach better preview of the second image in the first post   - directly exported with better resolution.
The same is for 100% crop which is the illustration of the main point of the post explained above- now directly exported from image processor
Also one more image that was not pushed so far and processed to have more realistic look – just compressed DR to fit visual limits – no black or white clipping and a little bit of contrast added in shadows.
Probably most will find that more pleasant for their eyes.
 And also 100% crop of it – to illustrate once more that was explained above about absence of visual processing artifacts usually found on muli-shot HDR images 
Click on any image to open it and see with better resolution.

  In any case all that images should not be considered as final images - that is just first step of processing   -  DR  compression to fit visual range.   After that person could adjust it  to personal taste by doing selective color editing (contrast/saturation/luminance) differently on highlights, midtones and shadows and doing other kinds of tone mapping  processing using most suited tools for that.

Hope all that would clarify what I was trying to say in my previous post

Here is simple example when sensor DR and sensor  IQ are very useful.
Just simple shot in autumn forest.

This is single shot exposed for the sky.
Done by using A7R with Canon TSE-17

First image – as shot, no adjustments in LR5 snapshot on LR5 screen (full image).

Second one is one processed in DXO PRO 10 – done without any efforts just in few seconds to do few adjustments. This snapshot of the processed file as seen on the windows image viewer
 For me DXO Pro 10 it is much better tool than LR5 for such kind of images – it is has separate adjustments for micro contrast, fine contrast (in LR only clarity)  and it also allows to adjust contrast separately in highlights, midtones and shadows. In LR5 it is much more difficult  to get result close to this

Third one is 100% crop from the most contract image area to see image IQ and quality of shadows recovery.
Image DR and IQ matters much for me as it save my time and efforts in getting quickly required result.

For low light all around camera my current favorite is A7S - it make possible to do things that were almost impossible before.
For events/sport and action 1Dx is still the best. All cameras just complement each other in different situations.
I have a feeling that many 1DX owners following the same route. 

 As Jrista mentioned in his previous post   it would be interesting to see comparison of normalized to 8mb images from NX1, 7DM2, 5Dm3 and A7S.  Attached are ones at ISO6400, ISO12800 and ISO 25600.
  Normalized images comparison just illustrates what was said before about NX1 noise characteristics  which are better than 7Dm2  and  on normalized images comparison  it is even more obvious that NX1 is much less noisy at high ISO than 7Dm2 and not very  far behind of 5Dm3.  To my opinion for general photography NX1 is much more advanced camera and has more potential than 7Dm2 and I definitely I would recommend NX1 in favor of 7Dm2 if someone asks my advice.  Also NX1 AF tracking capabilities looks much more advanced to me than 7Dm2 AF system adopted from 1DX.   NX1 AF tracking system looks like something borrowed from military object tracking systems used in optical weapon object recognition and targeting system on missiles and military jet fighters. Maybe Samsung does something this area and they used that experience this in NX1
    I have feeling that now when semiconductors giants like Samsung and Sony are on the market with the latest imaging sensor technologies and their resources in R&D and manufacturing capabilities and the rapidly increasing speed of new technologies development and implementation Canon just cannot compete any more on the sensor market (which is also semiconductor technology).  Even if Canon would develop something in their R&D LAB they still need to manufacture that and this is where is their big weakness (manufacturing processes/technologies etc.) which is very difficult to overcome and they cannot run long in semiconductors technology race (as this is not their primary business), unless they ask some other big player (e.g. Samsung) to manufacture their chips, like Apple was doing for their iPhones and iPads.
   I would be interesting to see (just my wish) Samsung coming on MF sensor market and possibly build up their own affordable ML MF camera.  They just can buy one of the MF makers (e.g. Hasselblad) and enter market easily with top-notch sensor technologies.
  On comparisons shots is also could be seen that 1Dx and A7S are almost on par with each other, maybe A7S a bit better.   But practically (from my experience) A7S images are easier to clean and they have more margin for post processing (could be pushed more) before exhibiting any problems.
  Also there are couple of comparisons with P645Z.
   Images from P645Z almost looks one stop better that 1Dx or A7S at ISO 12800 and ISO25600.
So far nothing can compete with latest MF sensor from Sony for low light performance.
Hopefully we will see soon ML MF camera from Sony.

That's my point. Statistically, the NX1 has lower noise, which leads to richer color and contrast (hence the reason the parts of the NX1 image that are supposed to be dark look dark! :P)

It does have very slightly lower noise, but that is not the reason it's a darker image which is what leads to the difference in our perception of color and contrast.

Again I'll note that with color NR the 7D II ends up looking a tiny bit cleaner, i.e. lower luminance noise. But in the end neither requires a different work flow or more work. Neither has "better data."

My perception is a bit different and I tend to agree with  Jrista.
   My comparison of RAW samples (no NR at all - no Chroma no Luminance  NR)  at DP comparison tool   which I posted a bit earlier shows that at  ISO3200 NX1 RAW samples visually  look better/cleaner/crisper than ones from 7Dm2  and as I also noted NX1 noise pattern is visually better and more pleasant than noise pattern of 7Dm2. NX1 is less blotchy , has a bit more higher noise frequencies and a bit more regular  - so should be easier to clean up compared to 7Dm2 . Blotchy noise pattern from many Canon Cameras is something that was always irritating  me as well as low performance at low contrast details in red channel - just smearing them away. 1Dx fortunately is better in this respect though also suffering a bit.   
Also on this samples NX1 is not downsampled/normalized  to 7Dm2 resolution which would also add more difference in favor of NX1.

  I was interested to see if NX1 could compete with A7S - but so far A7S is far ahead of all the competitors.
Just see here  as an example one of  test picture done handheld by A7S in extremely low  light  conditions at ISO20000.
One small screen snapshot and also  full image exported from LR

When I read Lula review of Samsung NX1 sensor I was really impressed and I was much interested to see how it compares with other cameras (including FF). I am also as much impressed as MR and Jrista about NX1 sensor technology, not only low noise level but by AF capabilities and the fact that AF points cover 95 percent of the screen.
   This AF tracking technology is my dream for many years for sport/action medium format camera – especially for acrobatic events. With Canon 1Dx and tele zoom lens I can get close to the performer but movements are so fast and so erratic that it is not possible to track that manually – performer always jump out of the view. With MF camera (around 80mp) and NX1 tracking technology it is possible to have much wider angle of view , camera will track object without need to move camera and then you can do required crop  of the shot and get high quality resulting image .  With this it would not be required to use long tele lens. I hope to see that in a couple of years in coming Mirrorless MF cameras
Now back to NX1 sensor noise levels at high ISOs and comparisons with Canon 5Dm3, 7Dm2 and Sony A7.
I did that using DP Review studio –shot comparison tool and below are screen snapshots for comparisons of Samsung NX1, Canon 7DII, Canon EOS 5D M3 and Sony A7S, and also one with Sony A7 at ISO3200 from.
-   At  ISO3200 NX1 is very close to 5Dm3, a bit more of luminance noise but noise structure is better than 5Dm3 – less blotchy and easier to clean up.
-   At ISO6400 5Dm3 looks better than NX1 which could be expected for FF compared to APS-C sensor.
-   At both iso3200 and ISO6400 NX1 is better that Canon 7DM2
-   King of low light in FF segment is still Sony A7S, at ISO6400 it has less noise than Canon 5Dm3 at ISO 3200..
At ISO 12800 A7S is also noticeably better than 5Dm3 at IS06400.
From comparison it is easy to see that A7S is about 1.5 stop better than Canon 5Dm3.
   I bought A7S recently (could not resist temptation) and since then enjoy it to great extent – it makes impossible possible especially in combination with DXO Optic Pro 10 PRIME noise reduction. Getting very clean images (in shadows areas) that were shot in very dim light at ISO up to 20000 which was almost unbelievable even 1 year back. Now using 1Dx much less than before.

 What is interesting and bit surprising that at ISO3200 and especially at ISO6400 and ISO12800  Samsung NX1 crop sensor is significantly less noisier than full frame Sony A7 sensor.
Good for Canon 7Dm2 owners - at ISO3200 and ISO6400 it also has less noise than FF 24mp Sony A7. And in general it is not far behind 5DM3 in noise performance. So Canon really did some improvements in 7Dm2 sensor technology.

I think this technology could make it possible to create affordable compact mirrorless medium format camera using optimized pancake lenses which would require less optical elements in design (e.g. 3-4) elements instead of typical 10 -17 elements). So lens could be much smaller and cheaper which would result in significant cost reduction of overall medium format system. This could be breakthrough in medium format cameras design and could allow MF to take more market share from FF DSLRs

Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 10, 2014, 05:03:37 PM »
Though TS-E is perfect optical system it need to be used with care.
I've seen many images with TS-E when it was not used properly.
It like working  with HDR - if not use carefully than it easy to overcook.
Some people are overcooking prospective correction with lens shift  and make vertical lines  on image strictly vertical  and parallel to the picture sides and this breaks overall image prospective  - image does not look natural   - as if turned upside down.
When you look at the image upper side looks bigger than down side though they are equal .
This is optical illusion  because our mind uses it's own prospective correction .
So it is important  always to leave some prospective proportions on the  image and do not do it fully square

Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 10, 2014, 04:48:48 PM »
Neutral, that second crop is downright scary.  Wow, insane detail.  Very, very impressed with your work, technical skills, and the Sony+TS-E 17 combo results.

+1 on privatebydesign's comments, TS-E require a completely different style of shooting.  LiveView has made it a lot easier, but it's no substitute for the 16-35 unless you're using the 16-35 like a TS (i.e. architecture and other slow, deliberate type work).

Such kind of combo  TS-E 17+ Sony a7R  combo was always my dream.
Now it became reality. Thanks both to Canon and Sony.

 As for 16-35 I do not think it is really needed for anyone  who  already has Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 which is also perfect on both bodies.   
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2  is enough for most of short zoom needs, and  TS-E 17 is perfect complement to that when high quality wide angle shot is required. And both work perfectly on 1DX and a7R.
Here are also some image samples of   Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 on a7R and 1Dx:

  With this set  EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2  and TS-E 17 I  really no need  16-35 any more  and to my view  IQ from 16-35 is far below  compared with IQ from EF 24-70 f/2.8 M2 and TS-E 17  even on 1Dx body let alone a7R, so I was never  fully satisfied with 16-35

Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 10, 2014, 03:50:31 PM »
Canon TS-E 17  is perfect optical system in all respects.
Once I bought it I stopped using my older 16-35 II 
It is easy to use, even handheld.
I used it initially with 1Dx but  1DX resolution was not enough ,so  I bough Sony a7R specially to use with TS-E 17.
Together they give amost MF IQ.
Here is example of TS-E 17 on a7R with Metabone MIII adapter.
First image - is almost all frame - just a little bit of cropping.
The other two are 100% crops from different image area.

Sony/Zeiss don't seem to have figured out how to make a first rate zoom for their A7s yet.  If you compared the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 you would have seen a significant difference too (the 35mm 2.8 as well, probably).  But you don't need to attach Canon lens as new/expensive as the Canon 24-70II - you can get fantastic images from many much less expensive Canon lenses on the A7r, even such bargains as the 40mm pancake and 85mm 1.8 - if nothing else, the A7r shows just how good many Canon lenses are!
Fully agree  that "Sony/Zeiss don't seem to have figured out how to make a first rate zoom for their A7s yet"
Sony 24-70 proved even worse than I saw in my initial tests.
Did some walk around with this lens on a7R, looked at the images  and found that at short focal length images get blurry at the sides of the frame  though more or less OK closer to the center of the frame.
I am very disappointed with the  Sony 24-70 - seems that this lens more or less could be good for  NEX7 and similar but not a good fit at all  for a7R.
But Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8  is just perfect on a7R .

 As for using other cheaper than  EF24-70 F/2.8 M2 Canon lenses on a7R I agree with you  that  excellent results could be achieved with cheaper Canon lenses.  For many people with a7R as second to Canon body  this could be good solution. I just do not have them.  Some of the Canon lenses though  not expensive but are the best in their class
For me my EF24-70 F/2.8 M2  is the mostly commonly lens that was used on my 1DX  recently and now it is also perfect fit for a7R

It's the old dpi/ppi thing again
Yes , agree there are a number of confusions about that

 In fact relation between  printer output image  pixel resolution  (PPI_print) and  printer Dots Per Inch (DPI) resolution could be expressed in general  (not going deep into details) as follows:

PPI_print = Function (DPP, DPI, Paper_Quality)
DPP (Required Dots Per Pixel)  = Printer_Driver_Mapping_Function(Required_Pixel_quality, Number_of_inks_in_Printer, Avaiability_of_Variable_Droplet Technology, etc. )

  Modern printers (e.g. Epson Stylus Pro 3880  or 4900 and others ) can provide final print resolution above 720 pixel per inch (required output PPI  is set in print settings  dialog box in imaging editing program).
  Here is discussion of printer PPI ( not to be confused with DPI)  - printed images final resolution  using HP 932c
"I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720."

   So the argument  that using Canon EF24-70 F/2.8M2 on a7R   does not give any benefit for printing compared to Canon EF24-70 F/2.8M2 on Canon 1Dx is not correct.
   Though difference would be almost not noticeable when downscaling a7R file to 1Dx size (details are lost in downscaling)   but  when full-res a7R image would be printed  on  A4 or A3  then  difference will be visible especially on A3 print which could not be considered large - if you want to put picture on the wall in your room the best minimum size would be A2
. Also higher quality higher res image gives more flexibility to cropping.

Here are A4 and A3 printouts resolutions at fine 720dpi and superfine 1440dpi
  So from above it is clear that in fact even most Buyer sensor MF cameras can not over perform standard quality 720dpi A4 printing resolution.
I dont think you understand what those 720dpi & 1440dpi means
Are you really sure of that ?  :)

DPI means exactly what it means - print spatial resolution  - dots per inch)

  "Dots per inch (DPI, or dpi)[1] is a measure of spatial printing or video dot density, in particular the number of individual dots that can be placed in a line within the span of 1 inch (2.54 cm)"

So what I said above is 100% true for BW prints, for color prints it is a bit different depending on  printer model, number of different ink cartridges in printer resulting in required number of dots to reproduce full color in single image pixel.
So for color print pixel to dot mapping is a bit different - more printer dots required per color pixel
But actual printer resolution for fine printing is 2880x1440dpi , so you can redo calculations above for this DPI density and see equivalent BW  resolution for A4 and A3 prints and estimate color resolution

In general these details do not  change much the main the point  - modern color printers are outperforming most of the digital cameras in print resolution even on A4 prints, let alone A3 or A2 prints.
So you can see difference between high MP and average MP image printouts  even on A4 format, but this difference will be almost unnoticeable if high MP image downscaled to average MP image resolution . There is no lossless downscaling - if you downscale image in resolution you will loose fine image details.

The A7r user is gonna want to print some big pictures to gain an advantage.

  This is most common confusion and misunderstanding repeated all over different forums from person to person and this resulted that this is taken as granted by majority of the of people who are arguing about value of high MP sensors

In fact this is totally wrong.

Downscaling high MP image to the lowest resolution camera image in comparison and viewing results will never demonstrate how high MP image will look on real print. Viewing this results on the PC monitor is the same.
This is actually what many people are complaining about DXO sensors comparisons when they are normalizing  images to 8mb.  At these days it would be better to normalize images to 24mpx which is de facto common reference point now.

Now coming  to high MP image printing.

Here are A4 and A3 printouts resolutions at fine 720dpi and superfine 1440dpi

A4  8.3 x 11.7 inches
Pixel size  for 720 dpi   = 11.7x720  x8.3 x720    equal to  8424 x 5976 =  50.34 MP
Pixel size  for 1440 dpi   = 11.7x1440  x8.3 x1440  equal to  16848 x11952 = 201.367 MP

A3 11.7 x 16.5 inches
Pixel size  for 720 dpi   = 11.7x720  x 16.5 x720 equal to  8424 x 11880  = 100.077 MP
Pixel size  for 1440 dpi   = 11.7x1440  x 16.5 x1440  equal to  16848 x 23760 =400.3 MP

  So from above it is clear that in fact even most Buyer sensor MF cameras can not over perform standard quality 720dpi A4 printing resolution. On printout every dot is compete pixel . For Buyer sensor effective resolution is about 60-80%  of actual pixel count. So only Phase One IQ180  image could match in resolution to  fine quality 720 dpi A4 printing  resolution  and far below of fine quality 1440 dpi A4 print  let alone A3 printouts.

So difference on IQ and resolution between 24mp and 36mp will be clearly seen even on A4 printout.
Even on small screens difference in resolution is very noticeable.
This is why people want to have retina displays on their smartphones  and now new trend is 4K screens on the smartphones , let alone TV set.

 As for big prints at very high resolution  - they give you feeling of the real reality. From far distance you see overall image, when you get closer and closer you see more and more  details - the same as in real life. On big landscape print  from 400mps image you get very close and you would be able see even bee on the flower and flower petals texture and fur on the bee belly.  And you will fill  this as it is real reality

How about posting the A7 with EF 24-70 sized the same as the 1Dx.
OK, here is comparison  of A7R with EF 24-70 sized the same as the 1Dx with Canon EF24-70F/2.8 M2 on 1Dx
a7r with Canon EF24-70F/2.8 M2 looks a bit better even if  downscaled to 1Dx size

Fair enough.
How about posting the A7 with EF 24-70 sized the same as the 1Dx.
I already posted  a7R with Canon EF24-70F/2.8 M2  which shows how much it is superior compared to Sony 24-70 on a7R
It could be  easily downscaled  to the 1DX size in any photo editing program to see the difference.
Result of normalizing image to lower resolution is obvious - perceptually it will be the same or bit better  IQ only with less resolution.
So it would be a bit  better that 1Dx with Canon EF24-70F/2.8 M2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8