November 24, 2014, 04:19:06 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 - marcel

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:34:01 AM »
I disagree. I have never seen that much difference between two files without substantial differences in the various settings, sure you can make anything look as bad as that (in any program), but not without trying unless you have an issue.



There is always a first time.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 17, 2014, 05:05:59 AM »
Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without  problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is  from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

I print big all the time, you are doing something wrong for there to be that kind of difference between the two.

In my experience DPP can be very slightly better than ACR on some files, but the difference is so small I practically never bother using it. For there to be such a noticeable difference, not just in the noise but in the contrast and detail as well, means there is something wrong.

I think the problem is that certain things happen to certain parameters of certain cameras. The criterion can not be applied to everything in ACR. It is logical because Canon do not want to release the official specification of the format, must be understood until about Adobe and others have gotten interpret or guess what is a CR2 without the collaboration of Canon.
The contrast and detail feeling in the tests is given by the grain noise generated by ACR.
I also have Raw Photo Processor 64 and Raw Therapee ( more complete than ACR ), but DPP is always better!

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 16, 2014, 07:34:01 PM »
This is what I thought before having the printer in my house.

Indeed, I don't doubt you've spend some though on this - but the apparent immense difference from your screenshots is worthy of a troll posting :-p. I hope we'll get more input into this, I never used dpp and can only tell about the acr side. It's not like Canon has some secret anti-noise weapon hidden in their cameras or post software.

Edit: Imho you should open a new thread in the postprocessing section about it, few people will this off-topic issue in a "cr2 structure" thread.

if I were a troll would write in the Adobe forum. :)

I think  is not off-topic.  From the page linked in the first post:
"Why writing a document to explain the CR2 format and why not just asking to Canon ? Canon do not want to release the official specification of the format for "Intellectual Property" reasons."

People think adobe can not go wrong, it is taken for granted. It is much easier to accuse me to be a troll.


4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 16, 2014, 03:34:47 PM »
Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without  problem.

You're definitely doing something wrong there. ACR has very good denoising, as far as I remember it has even improved in the latest version(s). Denoising and sharpening parameters cant take some trial&error tweaking, and you might to have the denoise brush for some areas. And DxO's PRIME might be better for high iso. But having said that, I'm sure dpp cannot be that superior.

I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

As far as large print go - yes, I guess for 90x135cm (~a1+) 12mp is bordering on too low resolution, but it really depends on how much detail your scene has and from how far away you view it. Lucky me I never go beyond a3, so my 18mp is enough even after some amount of cropping.

This is what I thought before having the printer in my house.


5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 16, 2014, 03:13:05 PM »
Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without  problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is  from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".


6
He use the cameras in APS-C. If he use the A7S in crop mode for stills the result is a 8 mpx camera. Like a Canon Eos 350.

7
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 02:30:42 PM »
With google translate:

"At 80 years after the birth of the brand, Canon raises and introduces a new payoff to accompany their market challenges, "come and see." The principle is very clear: the world of smartphones has created a huge user base, with a few taps on a touchscreen, snap and share photos trillion every year; hesitate to consider a risk this dynamic would be counterproductive, so Canon has embraced the opportunity and want to aim precisely this type of users to convert them into customers than one type of photography more advanced and qualitative".

I do not understand. If you do not understand the translation, I do not understand the original text in italian, what they want to do?
reminds me  Nikon with its "true photography"......

8
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 02:10:42 PM »
is a new ad campaign, as is explained in this article in italian:

http://www.webnews.it/2014/09/18/canon-come-and-see/


9
The best solution is a Sony A7.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Ye Olde Film Photography
« on: June 17, 2014, 02:46:02 PM »
"The one I'm aware of is that as film was an expensive medium, that offered limited shots, the photographers took their time composing a shot, thinking through all aspects before pulling the trigger."

For the limited shots you can always use only a 256 MB cf card on a Eos 1 DX, with the possibility to shoot only 4 frames you need to think and rethink before pulling the trigger! I have a 4 MB cf card, only one photo! This must be the top of the thinking think. I think.....






11
Canon Eos 300d

12
more Powershot G1

13
Canon Powershot G1.

14
Lenses / Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« on: January 31, 2014, 08:10:43 PM »
Canon FL 50 1.8 and FD 50 1.8 chrome nose.

15
Lenses / Re: Found Canon 28-80mm f2.8 and Canon 80-200mm f2.8, thoughts?
« on: January 05, 2014, 02:04:33 PM »
I have both lenses. They work very well in digital cameras and quality is like the new ones. The 28 80 is USM and focus work manual or auto all the time without the need of change the slider button. Quality is better than the 24 70 2.8L that have many problems with the alignment on the camera sensor: one side is out of focus.
The 80 200 i use mainly for video, always at 2.8, and manual focus is very easy and smooth. In autofocus mode it is not an USM lens, but is very fast. And is black! Is for this reason i never changed it for a new one.
If the lenses worked well on film work well on digital.

Pages: [1] 2 3