October 30, 2014, 01:34:05 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 - dtaylor

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 54
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:09:06 PM »
Naive and simplistic. What does crop 'win'?

I've made 16x20" prints of surfers where I ended up with 8-9 MP after cropping further into 7D files. FF couldn't have done that.

Agreed if you don't have to crop any further then the initial crop to match 1.6x and/or you don't print large it really doesn't matter.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:00:33 PM »
There's a lot to like about the D750. For me, the kickers are the price, WIFI, and tilt screen. Some people consider WIFI and a tilt screen to be "consumer grade" items, but there are many times I'm on assignment that both would come in handy. The extra DR is merely an added bonus.

Absolutely, and I certainly don't want to come off as biased against it. IMHO the D750 means Canon should drop the price on the 5D3 until the 5D4 is available.

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:58:57 PM »
No it's not. Generally you have to get into 3+ stop push territory before there's a difference.

even with 2-3 stops the canon will not look as clean.
you can see that in examples all over the web.

You can see that when people turn off all NR.

Quote
mabye, but i often wish i could somehow get just 1-2 stop more DR out of my canon RAWs.
would not give me a proper exposed outside but made things way better.
it´s seems nikon can do that without a problem.

then look at the 5D Mk3 picture in the review, they are unusable.

They are not 1-2 stops underexposed.

You can routinely push Canon RAW files 1-2 stops, but you will want to play with the NR sliders in ACR when doing so. People seem to be afraid of those things. CNR hardly affects detail, and there's room on LNR before detail starts getting smudged.

19
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:55:25 PM »


Meh, another DR war...

Well I was hoping somebody would explain to me how making something smaller increases its luminosity recording capacity, which is the common way of determining 'photographic DR' as per my earlier link, it seems all posters seem to want to do is come back with 'sensor DR'.

Because last Thursday at DxO many scientists did science stuff and proved it with science. So stop misinforming people because clearly you do not understand science like the many scientists...at DxO...who are all about science.

I said SCIENCE!  ;D

20
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:50:10 PM »
Meh, another DR war...

Best point made so far  ;D

21
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:49:32 PM »
Quote
Quote
In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.

Very small?

Yes. Canon sensors are not blocking up a lot sooner then an Exmor sensor (though they do block up a little sooner). But the noise makes detail in the lowest tones unacceptable, when pushed higher on the scale, for most photographic purposes.

Quote
Yes, let's refer to Ansel Adams to talk about sensor DR. Because sensors totally existed back then.

They did. They were called "film."

Quote
But the reality of it is that you measure dynamic range of sensors in a different way.

The definition and model of photographic dynamic range does not change based on capture medium.

Quote
Quoting Ansel Adams is particularly ironic, given how scientific and quantitative he was.

I think it's ironic that you praise him in one breath, then use a false statement to hand wave his entire body of work with the very next breath.

Quote
I think I understand what the actual problem is. You're not actually talking about camera DR.

Wrong again.

Quote
Please stop knocking what you clearly don't understand.

Please stop committing fallacy after fallacy after...why even waist the keyboard strokes, you won't.

22
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:25:53 PM »
And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?

Oh, I see. I suppose we should appeal to... you?

I gave you a specific experiment to try. Try it.

23
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:24:54 PM »
Observation trumps theory. Every. Time.

Not when you're observing completely wrong.

LOL! That's a new one. "My theory is right if you just observe the way I want you to."  ;D

Quote
You're not even looking at the darker patches of the wedge, are you?

Of course I have.

Quote
Many photographers have already observed the stops upon stops of difference in DR.

"Stops upon stops"...kind of like appealing to "scientists upon scientists who do science stuff so you're wrong BECAUSE SCIENCE!"

In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.

Quote
How, prey, do photographers measure it, then? Please, enlighten us.

http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868

Quote
Like I said, it's *you* who has something to prove, not the image scientists at DxO,

Who? Names? Credentials? Published papers? Who critiqued their papers? Who replicated their experiments? Did they succeed? Does any of that matter if we're talking about two different things?

We have to get past your fallacies before we can make any progress on your misunderstanding of DR as it applies in a photographic context.

24
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:11:52 PM »
What's grey? You know it depends on your monitor, right? Or your processing?

In this context? Recordable tones, which does not depend on a monitor.

Quote
So what do you mean there's not much noise at base ISO?

Noise does not obscure patches that would otherwise be distinguishable.

Quote
Are you doing any statistical analyses? If you're not, you're not actually measuring DR. Period.

Guess Ansel Adams never measured DR  ::)

Quote
dtaylor: Also, by calling DxO wrong consistently, you're arguing that you're more right than a bunch of image scientists. You have a lot to prove there, my friend.

And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?

25
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:03:04 PM »
K, I'm with msm. I just give up. It's not about black squares turning grey. DR is measured from statistical analysis.

Photographers do not measure it this way. And it's not a simple matter of semantics because your "engineering DR" model fails to predict what photographers observe in the field.

Quote
DxO's definition of DR is correct.

Observation trumps theory. Every. Time.

Quote
Just stop. Stop completely misinforming people.

Were you typing to yourself?

26
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:33:08 PM »
No, again, the definition of engineering DR...

...is not the definition of photographic DR. DxO should not be publishing graphs that are labeled in Ev or stops if they are using a model which is different from the model that predicts what photographers will see with their own two eyes.

Quote
Whether or the sensor accurately recorded the tone or not...

...is a separate question.

Quote
Wait, what? How do you do a SNR analysis - which is the proper way to measure DR quantitatively - if you throw away the signal??

Re-read this until you fully understand the implications: You are confusing signal (tone variations across 2D space) with dynamic range (the brightest and darkest tones that can be recorded). So is DxO. Down sampling lets you confidently say that yes, in this tiny region of 2D space we really did detect a tone variation and not just noise fluctuations. It does not mean you recorded a lower min tone.

27
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:22:36 PM »
Yes it does. It changes the range of usable tones by making darker tones more usable.

No. I'm not sure if...when you wrote this...you needed to read my next post, or simply need to try the test I described.

Quote
It'd help if you properly understood what dynamic range is, and how it's calculated, before you went around misinforming people here.

Kind of bold of you considering you are the one who is misinforming people.

Quote
Clearly you've never shot an actual 13 stop wedge with a Canon DSLR,

Clearly you never have if you think black squares turn gray with downsampling.

Quote
Clearly you've never shot an actual 13 stop wedge with a Canon DSLR, if you haven't seen any unusable patches with so much noise that SNR drops below 1 or 2.

LOL! The patches are patches for a reason, and the test is not subject to your opinion of "pixel level" usability.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:15:54 PM »
Perhaps, but as a general rule, as Neuro and others have pointed out, any given lens (assuming you can attach it to both) generates better images on a FF body than it does on an APS-C body;

Eh...it produces sharper images OOC and often images with more local contrast, but unless noise is a factor (higher ISOs) it's trivial to match this in post.

Quote
there are some ridiculously cheap old manual prime lenses that make amazingly good photos when attached to a mirrorless FF body (perhaps they do on dslrs too, but mirrorless bodies make it incomparably easier to use such lenses). 

They generally do the same when attached to a crop body.

Quote
Anyway, in terms of sheer image quality, other things being equal, FF wins, for the reasons given by others (Sporgon's point is especially good). 

At lower ISOs it's a wash. I've often said this, but my last FF vs. crop / higher MP vs. lower MP print test stunned even me, and silenced a friend who loved to debate this.

In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.

29
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:06:06 PM »
Perhaps a good exercise would be for you to actually measure DR by doing some SNR analyses from wedge shots yourself before you so confidently talk about this stuff? I'm being serious, not trying to be rude. You seem to almost have a grasp of this stuff, and feel you would finally 'get it' if you did some analyses yourself.

I'm being serious when I say that every single person at DxO needs to shoot a transmission step wedge and then print it at different sizes and observe (as opposed to running it through a black box algorithm they designed before trying this test).

It would clarify some things for them, and we might end up with a usable model of DR from their existing database of measurements.

30
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:03:30 PM »
Here you're not considering that when you downsize, you average pixels, which increases SNR for the area of pixels averaged.

And you do know that areas with SNR < 1 can reach SNR = 1 with enough averaging, right? Therefore, darker tones can be pulled up to SNR = 1, and therefore calculated DR can increase.

You are confusing signal (tone variations across 2D space) with dynamic range (the brightest and darkest tones that can be recorded). So is DxO.

Down sampling lets you confidently say that yes, in this tiny region of 2D space we really did detect a tone variation and not just noise fluctuations. It does not mean you recorded a lower min tone.

In the transmission step wedge example I always throw out the signal...the squares in the wedge...is so large to begin with that only extreme noise could obscure it. Therefore you get a true idea of the range of tones that can be recorded.

Quote
Furthermore, I've said time and again - it's not about 'how many stops you can push'. It's about what particular tones in the 14-bit file you can and can't work with. You cannot simplify it to 'Exmor can pushed X stops and Canon can be pushed Y stops'. That's just dead wrong, if you're trying to be rigorous or quantitative, anyway.

It's over simplified, but it works for most people/situations.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 54