September 20, 2014, 04:21:22 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 ... 49
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:24:35 AM »
Maybe photos will help explain terminology.

This is the same (or similar as we shall see) total DR: http://s9.postimg.org/utzoq40rz/same_dr.png

This is what less total DR would look like if there was a large difference in total DR: http://s10.postimg.org/d004zl1nd/less_dr.png

And this is similar total DR, but with less shadow latitude because one has color/banding noise that the other does not: http://s14.postimg.org/d39sl03w1/less_latitude.png

I say "similar total DR" because there is clipping in the upper left corner of the Canon image pushed. This is a total DR difference. It's that 1 stop difference that IR measures, though we have to push the shadows to realize it's even there in this case.

(Note: these are SMALL screenshots for illustration only. So please, no one flip out over some artifact of size and start screaming that the Nikon RAW file is really better or the Canon RAW file is really worse. These tiny screenshots have diagonal banding that's not in the RAW files for example.)

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:08:01 AM »
When I actually started planning a rental next weekend of a D810...the guy who originally demanded I prove my claims with actual data then turned around and pleaded that I simply not bother.

Where was that again? Must be your imagination since 'the guy' has been begging you to rent a D810 and do real world testing since long before this particular DRone thread.

Honest question here: why do you feel the need to twist words and misrepresent?

Quote
I think Dean's raws were quite good...I think they were properly exposed and demonstrated the issues well. They weren't extreme in any way, not like some of Mikael's "examples"...but they still demonstrated the issues well. Even those were dismissed.

They were not 'dismissed.' But they are not like 99.999% of real world shots in exposure or processing.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:03:26 AM »
Nice. Way to fan the fire, man. You just can't stop. You even managed to throw in another equivalency with Mikael in there. Very nice. There is a reason these threads drag on forever...and a reason they get so nasty. You.

That is rich coming from you, especially when directed at Neuro  ::)

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:59:20 PM »
It's also clear that there are different definitions of DR. Your definition of DR is incongruent with everyone else's definition of DR.

No there is not, and no I am not. And I have fully documented the correct definition in the past with enough citations to fulfill college level writing requirements. That you refused to read the links and books and learn is not my problem.

Worse for you, the only two samples provided so far, Fred Miranda's and Dean's, are congruent with my definition and in-congruent with an "engineering" or sensel definition. In both FM's and Dean's photos the total DR is very nearly the same. There are not blocked up shadows on the Canon where there are details on the Nikon. It is the shadow latitude that is different because as you push the Canon shadows noise becomes an issue.

To be clear, Exmor usually does have a bit more total DR as well. But not 2 stops as predicted by looking at the SNR of a sensel. You are not looking at a sensel or a film grain, but a 2D matrix of many sensels or film grains.

Quote
It's more than just editing latitude...We can prove this with a little math.

Yet not with photographs, the only thing that matters.

You know what you call math that can't predict real world observations? Falsified.

Quote
Actually, the theoretical limit in a 14-bit ADC is 14 stops of DR.

In a simple, perfect, theoretical world perhaps. This is the real world.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:09:29 PM »
Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

In my capacity as self-proclaimed ML ambassador: Their dual_iso module outputs 16bit dng raw files because 14bit wouldn't do it.

Dual ISO is like having a non-linear ADC. So yeah, you can easily break the 14-bit barrier and achieve more then 14 stops.

I've always wondered why Canon hasn't redesigned/redefined HTP to be dual ISO. From what I've seen resolution losses are minimal and DR gain, both in terms of total DR and shadow latitude, is quite impressive. It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:05:08 PM »
Here's an offer for you:
Why don't you just conceded that Exmor has 2-stops of DR advantage over Canon.

Because it doesn't have 2 more stops of total DR. Unless, of course, you're comparing the oldest 18 MP generation to the latest 24 MP Exmor generation. Same generation? The 70D is behind Exmor by 0.1 stop of total DR. I believe the 5D3 is behind by about 1 stop of total DR.

Depending on the bodies being compared, you will find pairs where there's 2, or even more, stops of additional shadow latitude. That is to say if you push the shadows the Canon is showing excessive noise or banding at +2 or +3 and the Sony can go to +4/+5.

But DR and latitude are two separate things.

Quote
And also that this is helpful and meaningful for a lot of users.

It would be more accurate to say that Exmor shadow latitude is helpful in terms of work load, and produces observably better shadow detail in print, in some cases. The work load envelope is wider then the print difference envelope. Put another way, with a little extra work there's often (not always) no difference in the final print.

Quote
And yet again: think about what you are going to say when a Canon sensor has 14-stops of DR - same as the Exmors.

Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

If Canon changed their ADCs and achieved Exmor level shadow noise/latitude tomorrow I would be happy with the improvement. Doesn't mean I believe it's a massive difference that negatively impacts my work today.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:28:13 PM »
Better data is better data.

This is the crux of the argument. Most of the time there is no difference in the quality of data between the two systems. The difference only manifests itself in specific and quite extreme circumstances.

dtaylor's example is a good demonstration of an extreme EV range + dark coloured subjects in the under exposed area that still isn't extreme enough to cause much of a problem even for an old 7D, yet your reply is to basically say it's not under exposed enough.

If you love under exposure get a camera with an Exmor sensor.

Someone gets it...thank you!  ;D

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:22:29 PM »
The irony is that while certain immature individuals like you staunchly refuse to acknowledge the advantages of having more DR,

Yet another strawman  ::)

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:44:06 PM »
DTaylor, on the other hand, seems utterly incapable of even acknowledging that there IS a meaningful difference between Canon data and Nikon or Sony data.

Do not lie about what I have said again.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:22:51 PM »
Since I've shot scenes like that and not had a problem: pictures or it didn't happen.

I'm sick of words. I'm sick of opinions. I'm sick of theorizing. I'm sick of people misremembering underexposure tests as "real world normal exposure and there was banding!"

Pics or it didn't happen. If I was a mod it would be: pics or you are banned for a week  >:(

Since you claim all of these things are possible, why don't you lead from the front and show us how it is done?

Where are your pictures showing that Canon doesn't have a problem with keeping highlights and shadows?

Lots of people saying Canon's cameras can't do it and you're insisting that they can.

Show us.

Quick and dirty screenshot comparison: http://s28.postimg.org/6t5fhmhe5/7d_dr.jpg

Crop at 50% with additional LCE in PS: http://s7.postimg.org/oli4obisr/7d_dr_2.jpg

+1 exp and +80 shadows. This equates to +2.5 exp (I matched using just the exp slider to be sure), but if you do it that way you lose the sky.

For sky: -60 highlights which recovers the same highlight detail as -0.5 exp (again I checked with just the exp slider to be sure).

NR was L35 and C50. You can just start to pick up a bit of color splotching at 100%, and of course the 7D can be a bit 'grity' at 100%, but at 16x24" I do not believe that would ever be a problem.

I did process/print a 2 exposure blend of the same scene. But the reason was not due to noise but due to superior tonality/fine detail in the shadows. You get superior tonality/fine detail by blending on Exmor as well. I certainly would have been happy with the single frame version had I not had 2 exposures to blend.

I certainly do not see a 'problem' with Canon's highlight/shadow retention here, and this is the first generation of their 18 MP crop sensor.

Again, Exmor is better. If I ever order an A7 I'll put the time in to do a proper, side by side test. If I order a 7D2 at the same time then I can do old crop, new crop, FF, and Exmor FF. Having had the chance to test shoot Nikon and Sony Exmor bodies I know from experience Exmor will be better in shadow latitude.

But I also know from experience that a real world test will not show the drama difference that you get when severely underexposing and/or turning off all NR. The differences are simply not worth all the words the DRoners have posted in this forum. Canon sensors can handle the majority of contrasty scenes just fine. And the difference between being forced to HDR with Canon and forced to HDR with Exmor is much smaller then the DRoners would have anyone believe.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 03:14:43 PM »
How about a dedicated PDAF system with 65 cross-type spread all across the frame?  Or the 150K-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor?  Oh, wait...no one cares about that sensor.   ::)

Baby 1DX down to the iTR AF for $1,800. Yeah...who would call that innovation? You can shoot your lens cap at 10 fps but if you can't push the images +5 stops without noise then it's all for not, isn't it?  ;D

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 03:09:43 PM »
You are trying to redirect the debate here. Your trying to undermine my credibility by making claims I don't know what I'm talking about. I repeatedly back up my claims with actual evidence.

You don't know how to interpret the 'evidence' because either a) you don't know what you are talking about here, or b) you are so stubborn and so bent on proving what you've already decided to be true that you will defend any and every silly thing.

It's like when you posted a bunch of links to HDR images on 500px as 'evidence' of Exmor shadow recovery in landscapes. Multiple people told you they were rather obvious HDRs. Instead of having some humility about it you went off on a long (surprise!) rant about how irrelevant details proved...just PROVED...they were not HDR. "When you see EXIF info that means it's NEVER HDR." So sure of yourself. So positive. Right up until I pointed out some of the tools which retain EXIF info  ::)

As for your credibility, it's long gone. You are a DRoner who has never spent any time with an Exmor camera even though it would be cheap for you to add one and even though supposedly it's the holy grail of IQ. In other threads Exmor owners have said essentially the same thing I have. Shadows are better, that's sometimes useful, would be nice if Canon changed their ADC arrangement...but it's not the dramatic difference in real life as you imagine it to be. But even though they OWN the cameras their words mean nothing to you.

Listening to you talk about what Exmor means is like listening to a lecture by a teenage virgin on what sex with a porn star is like. When you've actually touched one...an Exmor that is...let us know.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 02:46:35 PM »
Quote
LOL! You would get fired for doing a studio product shot and delivering a file that underexposed  ;D

Not if I used a D800. :P

Go ahead and put together a portfolio of product shots exposed like that and see who hires you  ::)

Quote
Yes it is. If you blow your exposures that bad Exmor might be able to save you.

Please, explain to me how it's a "blown" exposure. How, exactly, would you perform that exposure on the 5D III, and perserve both the highlights and the shadows?

I already pointed out that he could have shot +2 or +3 with recovery and produced a far better image. You're grasping at a thin little line on the histogram generated by the pixels in the white label which are gray in his underexposure and which have no detail to speak of in any case, and claiming its ETTR. I actually laughed out loud when I read your histogram analysis. It's no wonder you are having trouble with noise and banding.

Nearly the entire image is bunched up in the left 3rd of the histogram. +2 would have been vastly better. I would imagine that +3 with highlight recovery would have worked as well if the shadow was that important or going to be pushed later.

He clearly shot to expose/emphasis banding. Which is fine. We all get it. Canon sensors have deep shadow noise and banding, Exmor do not. It matters...a bit...sometimes. But it's flat out dishonest for you to pretend that this was 'proof' that normal Canon exposures which aren't even pushed will have banding. There isn't even banding visible in that shot until you bump exposure in ACR!

Quote
How about you explain to me what you think ETTR is, or how it works?

How about I'm not paid to teach you and I already provided a Google link.

Quote
For the edification of all of us here? Also, please explain how these exposures are not properly ETTRed?

I can sum that up with 3 words: Your other right.  ;D

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:24:41 PM »
Ah, there it is, the most predictable of human behaviors: denial. The data is now directly refuting your claims,

I think you better check the data again  ;)

Quote
The Coke box data (which is a real-world studio example)

LOL! You would get fired for doing a studio product shot and delivering a file that underexposed  ;D

Quote
The Coke box example IS a real-world example...

Yes it is. If you blow your exposures that bad Exmor might be able to save you.

Quote
It's ETTRed

I hope you spend some time reading about ETTR tonight. It would solve...so many problems.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:20:25 PM »
Anyway it's useless responding to you, so that was the last one.
Write whatever you want.

And yet, three minutes later, your are back posting. Don't promise to leave and then keep posting. It raises our hopes too much.

#SickBurn  ;D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 49