October 30, 2014, 12:08:56 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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 54
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:17:39 PM »
You might want to take a peek at the end of the "Beautiful sunsets" thread...

I'm literally shocked. If someone else had posted that from a D800 he would have insisted it was a single frame.

So we're not actually dealing with complete ignorance about HDR, just an unshakable belief that Exmor sensors can some how do the impossible and deliver similar results from a single exposure. Interesting.

Well, let him blow $3g's on a D810 and find out.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:07:17 PM »
No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable.

1,000x this. You will not get the same fine detail, tonality, or color when pushing shadows hard as you will with HDR/blending/GND. ETTR is not actually about noise, but tonality. So what happens when you ETTL and push 5 stops? Blocked up, dull tonality.

Exmor certainly does not solve this. It makes life easier when you're going to push a couple stops. And it makes substandard images when someone blindly thinks they can push 5 stops all the time.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:54:49 PM »
Fine with me, though. I'll pick up a D810 and a 14-24 at some point for my landscapes (it's really tough, buying for both terrestrial and astro photography...you really pick and choose what to buy and when...so God only knows when I'll actually buy the darn thing.)

Please. When you still don't get the shots those guys are getting, Google "HDR Tutorial"  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:50:56 PM »
The definition is incomplete and inconsistent.

MIT doesn't think so.

jrista, it's obvious you've never shot a step wedge, and it's also now plainly obvious you have no experience with HDR photography (all techniques since you recognize none of them: HDR software, manual blending, and GND filters).

You need to stop arguing and start learning. I am not going to continue to debate something that I have fully defended and referenced, something which is consistent with observable evidence including evidence you yourself posted. This is becoming worse then debating a moon landing conspiracy theorist  :(

Shoot a step wedge and learn.

Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY.

0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity?  ???

Do you need an education in basic mathematics?

So far, you, and everyone else who offers some description of "Photographic DR", has not defined how you determine the lowest level, from which  you can then define a range from that to the white point.

I pointed you to a book from MIT that defines it, explains how to test it, and explains how to interpret the results. This is no longer open for debate until you actually make an effort to learn and understand.

You can spend hours carefully reducing the noise present in a Canon image,

Hours? It takes you hours to move sliders in ACR? Or in a worst case scenario mask shadows and run a 3rd party NR plugin? Hours?  ???

Enough...you are arguing just to argue. You need to actually learn about dynamic range and high dynamic range photography. That won't happen while you're being stubborn and argumentative on a forum.

Google "HDR tutorial" and learn how to achieve the shots you want.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:36:54 PM »
Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors,

I've said repeatedly that Exmor sensors have more. Just not 2, 3, 4, or 9,001 more stops like certain people claim. How much more depends on the cameras being compared, but with currently shipping models it's generally 1 stop or less.

however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity?...Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot.

Nope.  ;D  ;D  ;D

jrista, have you ever produced an HDR image and checked the EXIF in PS? No?

Both Photoshop CS6 and Photomatix Pro include EXIF data from one of the frames in the final merged HDR file. Lately those are the only two I've been using, but when I last tried the various demos out there I don't recall seeing even one that didn't include the EXIF from one of the frames. (I'm sure some don't. There are a lot of HDR tools out there today.)

GND filtered files will obviously have EXIF, as would just about all manual exposure blends (generally you start with one of your frames when manually blending, you don't create an entirely new canvas).

It is painfully obvious that you have no experience shooting and producing these types of photos which is why you think these are single exposures. And why you're jealous of "Exmor DR." This is what the entire Exmor debate boils down to: lack of knowledge and proper testing. (Wandering around photo sites looking at Nikon HDR landscapes is also a classic case of confirmation bias.)

Looking through your links there are two which could possibly be a single exposure pushed because of haze masking the sun. In those cases Canon would have produced very similar results.

The rest are either HDR, manual blends, or use GND filters. Three are blatantly obvious.

HDR that slaps you in the side of the head. Did you really believe this was a single frame? Really?  ???

So HDR it's not even funny.

Obvious manual blend given the unevenness on the right side. (Also way over the top processing in general.)

Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...

Manual blends and GNDs do not have this. Good HDR software will generally correct for it though if you shoot fast it's rarely an issue any way.

Again, it is painfully obvious you have zero experience producing these kinds of shots. You don't need an Exmor sensor. You need to:

* Stop arguing in this thread
* Do a Google search.
* Read and watch some of the many excellent tutorials out there.
* Download some HDR demo software.
* Go out and photograph some HDR scenes.

Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s

Simply not an issue with manual blends and GND. HDR software generally has a much more difficult time correcting water movement, but there are tricks around it.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P



Remember, EXIF proves it's a single frame, and clouds or water absolutely confirm it!  ;D

And there are even some 7D frames in that list! I've clearly proven that even the old Canon 7D has the same dynamic range as the latest Sony Exmor!  ;D  ;D  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:39:14 AM »
Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.

Ker-ching! The correct answer. And it's possible to do a much better job than he did of the Canon files.

DxO claims that there is a 2.5 stop DR difference between these two cameras. If that were the case then that door and those tiles in the far back should be BLACK. No detail or image at all in those regions, just blocked up shadow.

Precisely. DR is about where the shadows block up into no detail - not about how much noise there is in the shadows.

Just wanted to say thanks for your posts.

I am simply confused as to how jrista can ignore his own evidence  :-\

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:35:08 AM »
Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this

Now THOSE are fighting words! Canon doesn't upgrade that lens I am gone...GONE!  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:33:17 AM »
The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)

The objective definition has been given, repeated, and backed up with multiple references including the textbook that is, or at least was at one time, used for teaching photography at MIT. I have more then supported my case, and my position is consistent with observational evidence that you yourself have provided.

Until you've tested the sensors in question against a step wedge I think this is done.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:22:37 AM »
Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.

Your theory does not apply to this situation in the way you think it does. Which you might understand if you would OBSERVE.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:21:30 AM »
But of course were you to push the D800 another 2-3 stops it would, of course, be impossible to apply the same sort of NR techniques.

There are not another 2-3 stops of detail in either RAW file. That's the point. Both the Canon and the Nikon faded to black (so to speak) at about the same point. The D800 just did so with less noise and therefore finer resolution, though the resolution difference was very small. The noise difference is large, right up until the point where you move an ACR slider. After that you get shadow detail that most people cannot tell apart in 36" prints.


EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:18:24 AM »
Dude, the whole reason people started looking into banding and DR and figuring out what was going on was because they noticed things when out shooting, they didn't start out in the lab.

The reason 99% of people bring this up in forums is because they saw a test a guy did once where he pushed D800 shadows and 5D3 shadows and the 5D3 had lots of color noise.

Of course they didn't realize that color noise disappears with a little NR which he had turned completely off on the Canon.

And then they confused latitude and DR. (The fact that both cameras recorded the same details in the shadows means the DR was actually the same.)

It's the little fanboys who can't handle it when anything they spend money on is not declared 100% the best in every single possible regard.

Yes, all of us saying that Exmor does have less shadow noise and that is nice to work with are Canon fanboys who can't handle it when Canon is not declared #1  ::)

It's the guys stomping their feet and saying if the 7D2 doesn't give them 36 MP with 20 stops of DR and FF high ISO that they are LEAVING Canon because Canon just DOESN'T CARE about them and is falling behind because their sensors haven't improved since the 10D.

Those are the rational ones  ;D

And the DR guys made such a huge deal because they know it takes time to fix

ACR NR sliders are hard!  ;D  ;D  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:11:58 AM »
Yeah maybe because IR uses NR!!!! of unknown and random amounts while the other measuring company does not.

Because ACR default = "unknown and random amounts...UNKOWN...RANDOM!!!"

Then again, NR doesn't make black steps gray  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:07:57 AM »
Utter lie and fabrication, even your favorite site, flat out says that the 70D feels like it has an old sensor in regards to low ISO performance and that it acts like it's more than 2 stops behind Exmor.

Please post YOUR step wedge shots for evaluation...RAWs...along with lighting details. Thank you.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:05:34 AM »
I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:57:00 PM »
The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D

From reviews and comments it simply cannot track like a 70D. What good is 11fps and 179 AF points if the subject doesn't stay in focus as it's moving?

Nice camera no doubt...but mirrorless claims of "world's fastest/best AF" are laughable at this point in time. It never really is that.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 54