November 22, 2014, 04:19:21 AM

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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 268
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:48:24 PM »
I mean, I have printed like 40 files of size 8x10 and nothing bigger. So if I can get cleaner images that will print at that size amazing ... Awesome.. 

here you go way off track though. Shooting at a tiny size and then printing does not get you a better image than shooting at a large size and then printing (well I mean it depends, if you really hate noise and don't mind less detail and don't want to bother with more advanced do it yourself NR and targeting to the output size, etc. in a quick and dirty way maybe you might say it gives a better print, but not for most and don't forget that whatever noise you do have left will be all at a larger 'grain' size which tends to bother the eye more, sometimes some little bitty noise on top of that can actually look better as you print to the same size....).

And at 8x10" you'd be giving away, with a shot taken with decent technique in a reasonable scenario where you were able to get details reasonably close to the max that the sensor can handle, details by doing this and not gaining much.

As I said if noise really bothers you more than loss of some details, then you can use advanced NR software and end up with less noise and more detail than simply shooting small image sizes. If you crank NR way up the noise goes down but so does the detail. Lots of NR algorithms can tend to head towards a waxy, plasticky look if dialed up much, so it's easy to end up with a result weirder than shooting small if you just use the NR tool in an unpracticed way. OTOH it can also allow you to retain a smaller 'grained' look which tends to look better to the eye even if noise were even to be left higher.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is IQ better with smaller files?
« on: November 18, 2014, 06:32:03 PM »
I read a comment or a post recently which inferred that a 7D II file shot as a jpg at one of the smaller sizes was inherently cleaner than a larger file at similar settings (ISO etc).

Is there any truth to that statement?  If this is crazy talk just say so.

  I bring this up because I own a 7D and if someone can tell me that a Medium Jpg is 10x cleaner than a Large or Raw ... I'm locking those settings in today.  Moreover, is that the case with all cameras?  Is this phenomenon a jpg exclusive or is it the same with Raw?  I mean, I have printed like 40 files of size 8x10 and nothing bigger. So if I can get cleaner images that will print at that size amazing ... Awesome.. 

Why isn't this 'feature' advertised?

It does filter away a lot of the high-frequency noise and average noise away. Of course you trade off spatial resolution for that so you also get less detail and detail signal so there is no free lunch of course (unless the original image was so blurred it didn't have any actual detail signal at those higher frequencies anyway).

(Of course if you shoot it at larger dimensions and then use fancy software out of camera you can use advanced NR which could do a better job than this simple quick and dirty squish down and it might also preserve a bit more detail with a bit less aliasing so you could do better shooting max RAW in camera and then scaling down later. Of course there isn't a reason to scale down per se other than to fit an output if the output is lower res or you need to transmit files taking up less space or don't want to share the full resolution.)

Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 16, 2014, 09:46:07 PM »
Too bad this rumor didn't pan out this year.  We saw another patent for an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM in April of this year, but no additional hints as to whether Canon plans to expand its 24-70 offerings any time soon.

The first part of the rumor came true, an IS, variable aperture, STM, non-L 24-105 arrived or is about to.
But yeah not the second part.

EOS Bodies / Re: what is the body you want to see canon release next ?
« on: November 15, 2014, 03:26:25 PM »
the D810 in Canon mount (with 4k video 10bit and 4:2:2 10bit 1080p) and since it will probably take another 5+ years better up the specs over the D810 too for stills

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 03:23:42 PM »
No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm.  I can't see them going to 82mm.  It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.

I was always curious about that.  I see many folks running the math on a minimum front element diameter necessary to be able to allow a certain max aperture, but I rarely see talk about oversizing the front element for the job at hand.

Yet we've seen some 'Mk II' versions of lenses go +5mm bigger than their predecessors (e.g. 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 ).  So that only helps with vignetting?

- A

add the 70-300L to the list too.

(it does seem like the 70-300L maintains a wider open aperture higher up the focal range than the non-L or old 100-300L, it also has sharper edges on FF than those too)

oh and also add the 100L to the filter size went up list as well (this one seems to be able to retain more cross AF points than the older ones)

Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 05:52:00 PM »
What about the 50 1.4???? THat is the one that is broken (literally). I'm surprised Canon doesn't have a class action against them on that lens yet. They have known about a fundamental design flaw with the AF system for like two decades now.

Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.

did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".
so what if it can? can it magically make the full set of incoming photons re-hit after each sift?

"Positive effects of such a sensor design are:
– 4 times bigger pixels compared to same resolution Bayer sensor. This means more electrons captured and therefore higher dynamic range and lower noise (crazy ISO possible…even crazier than those of the Sony A7s)."

The whole 4 pixels of foveon is the same as 1 of Bayer is QUITE an exaggeration.

– No moire issues anymore. No Anti Aliasing filter needed (increases per pixel sharpness)."

Absurd claim. No BAYER COLOR moire. But sure as heck you can still get moire and you sure as heck still need AA filters at the counts they are talking about.

seems potentially interesting.
Perhaps a way to get in on B+H quality now for half the price.

Sports / Re: Post your best Football shot (American Style)
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:42:03 PM »

lettherightlensin....absolutely fantastic shots!!   Are you a sport shooter?



Not exactly. Although all of those were shot for a paper and I was one of the main sports shooters then. I hadn't ever shot sports before that. Unfortunately I haven't shot a real lot since then other than for some surfing.

Guess what, I can't program like you, I can't shoot astro like you. It seems you can't take normal pictures with current gear and get results like me, I am not special and most of my images are boring images for commercial clients, I just did the 10,000 hour (and then some) bit, so did Sporgon and a host of other shooters here.

First, the highlighted part is entirely incorrect, and demonstrates how much you guys have entirely missed the points that have been made. I can take "normal" pictures with gear and get the results I want. That has never been the point. By now, you should know that.

It's about the effort you have to invest in order to get the result you want. I haven't put 10k hours into my photography yet...simply not enough time since I started to have achieved that. That said, I do put in a TON of hours. I also know that when I work data that comes from a better device, I don't have to invest as many hours doing the same old mundane things to get as good or better results. <-- THAT is the point. That's what matters to me. I can spend countless hours doing the same old things, not because it's part of the craft, but because it's simply necessary, because the data is lacking in some way. That isn't the kind of work that increases your's just busywork.

I can create great photos. I just don't like having to invest so much time in making my photos great, because something is wrong with the data. I understand such things don't matter to you. However it's just flat out rude to claim all the rest of us are "crazy" because it matters to us. It doesn't matter if the issue is with DR, or with AF, or anything else...sometimes the minutia matter to some people, because they've experienced better, and loved it. My photography is not clinical, it's not just a IS my art. I don't want to have to be clinical about it, I don't want to have to deal with all the minute extra details that Canon equipment often makes me deal with.

Same thing goes for astro CCD cameras. I wanted to buy a camera back during summer. I've put it off. I had picked a camera that I thought I liked, then had a couple people demonstrate to me the issues with it. I've been given the option of working the data from that camera, as well as a few others. Some of them, ironically, use Sony sensors, which again are better than the Kodak (or now TrueSense, I think, as Kodak sold the unit) sensors. For narrow band work, the higher sensitivity and ultra low dark current of the Sony sensors are again significantly superior...and it matters when you get down into the minutia...which in the case of astro, it's ALL minutia...every fraction of an e- more read noise has a huge impact to the end results.

Maybe we are just "measurebaters" to a "craftsman" such as yourself. Fine. However that doesn't invalidate how we do's simply different than how you do things. Some people care about minutia...even if their viewers don't see these small differences, we do. Maybe we couldn't just pick out a D800 image from a 5D III least, not until we were sitting in front of a computer working the data. Then I guarantee you the differences would be blatantly obvious to many of us.

So, you call us crazy for caring about minutia. I can't help but think someone such as yourself is crazy for caring so much that we care...and constantly reminding us that were crazy because were not like you. Can you not simply leave us be in peace, and let us care about the things that we have decided matter to us?

He'll leave you in piece the second Canon does it as well or better and not a minute before.

Just like Keith Reeder. The guy who helped drove some people away from posting and bashed everyone a thousands times over bring up the 'nonsense' about banding and how only lab bound fools look for banding and blah blah blah, well guess what, now that the 7D2 fixes up banding super well, he is going around ragging on anyone who doesn't bring up banding and trashing DxO for penalizing the 7D2 for not reporting that it has a lot less banding! :D

Pretty rich. He slammed and trashed and tried to get people banned if they mentioned banding and he'd go on and on about how it makes no practical difference and is meaningless and now suddenly that a couple Canon models, especially the 7D2, handle banding super well again now he suddenly is all for bringing up banding and he trashes anyone who fails to mention how important is and how fails to mention that it's an incredible major improvement from Canon. :D

EOS Bodies / Re: Interesting Article on DXO Mark Ratings
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:46:56 PM »
Generally good stuff, but I strongly disagree with his claim that 2-3 more stops over Canon doesn't make it enough for many shots. I find that 2-3 more is exactly what is needed to get away without needing to combine multiple shots. So I think he downplayed the utility of it a lot.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:44:25 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.
They are very conservative... this might be a case of step one - get the photodiodes/microlenses/support circuitry transferred over to the new fabrication run, and step 2 being to implement the A/D on chip. Don't forget that they are currently using A/D chips from a third party and that might complicate the move as they have no experience designing them... it could be a licencing of the design problem... or countless other reasons. It will come, but with Canon expect it to take time and when it does arrive, to be good.

Perhaps, but I still tend to doubt that.

I doubt the bit about licensing the ADC. Canon already has their own patents from in-house R&D that describe how to do dual-scale on-die CP-ADC. They patented the technology, they own it, and one has to figure they've prototyped it as well. I think they implemented it on the 120mp APS-H...given the frame rate, and the wording of one of the press releases about that sensor, I honestly cannot think they achieved those results in any other way than some kind of on-die hyper-parallel ADC.

I think it seems logical that Canon would still take it a step at a time. It would probably be more complex to move to a new fab and start cranking out a brand new design. Moving an existing design onto the new fab without changing it, then refining it later to take advantage of the new fab's increased capabilities, seems logical to me.

Seems foolish to me. A new fab costs tons of money and if they are using the newer but already existing copper pipe fab they are pushing some small sensors off of that and why do all of that if they get only a small benefit out of it? The fact that they are conservative would make that less likely I'd think. Since they are making a big switch and not even having much to show. I think if they really went to a new process, they'd take full advantage.

Although maybe their patents and designs turned out to be a mess and they had to go to an old design last second? (rumors of 20MP vs 24MP sensor, etc.)

Who knows. it seems doubtful to me. but of course i can't be sure.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:42:24 PM »
Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.

The low color measurement on DxOmark does seem to indicate they may have picked up a little QE from a looser CFA.

I don't think one has to do with the other.  I've been told in the past that the QE modeling approach makes it effectively ignore the CFA.

Agreed. I believe the Q.E. is referring to the actual response of the silicon itself (that's usually how sensor manufacturers report the silicon's response to light). That is the Q.E. of incident photons that make it all the way to the sensor.

So, to be clear, that means that even if you had a 100% response in the silicon itself (at 565nm, green light...the Q.E. is usually for green light), you could still increase overall light gathered by improving your filtering, or by eliminating filtering and going with MCS, or by improving microlens design, or by using ISOCELL in a BSI design, etc. Anything that increases the incident photon count at the photodiode will still increase overall efficiency...for whatever Q.E. you have.

well if they screen out the entire CFA effects then the 59% level seems even less believable

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:40:55 PM »
Regarding data, he regenerated it all recently. After the site went down, a lot more data was brought over. I think there is a bug in whatever code brings the data over, because some sensors have wild read noise values and several hundred percent Q.E. I don't believe any of those numbers are valid...I think they are flukes generated by a buggy algorithm.

There's evidence to support this.

Yeah now 23% makes a lot more sense.
The new site is totally messed up and lots of the data seems to be nearly random.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 268