September 19, 2014, 10:05:48 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 - dtaylor

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 48
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:48:58 PM »
This is what I was referring to:

I don't care. He underexposed by 3 stops. You have to underexpose then push the scene 3 stops to see the problem, or analyze a single color channel in the underexposed RAW. Red is the worst channel...even on Exmor...and has 1/4th the info of the total pixel, so it's really no different from amplifying the entire scene to see a problem.

There's noise in the deep shadow region of a 3 stop underexposure which you will see if you amplify the exposure in post. WHAT A SHOCK.

Quote
I linked his RAWs on my onedrive. I encourage everyone to download and take a gander themselves. The banding in the Canon file is obvious. Without any adjustments.

I think you better open them again  ;)

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:43:48 PM »
...
No. The times people do things they WOULD NEVER DO WITH A REAL WORLD PHOTOGRAPH like turn off all NR, push a properly exposed photo 5 stops, or severely underexpose a photo then push it 5 stops with no NR, are artificial because YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT WITH A REAL WORLD PHOTOGRAPH.
...
Now it might make a noticeable difference in some scenes. If I wanted to play devil's advocate I bet I could illustrate in a real world scene where it would be noticeable. But I could still get the shot with the Canon with a little work. But the DRoners...the DRoners seem incapable of actually showing where it matters at all.

You would appear to have a very narrow experience of the world.

You have my sympathies.

Spoken by someone with lots of words and no photos.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:42:57 PM »
sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure

Waiting for real world examples of what we are all missing  ;D

Go shooting in mountains where you've got snow and sunshine hitting the snow and shadows deep in the valley. There you want to keep "detail in the snow" (so that you don't just have big white areas) plus you also want to keep shadows from and in trees, etc.

Is that real world enough for you or are you going to say "Post a picture or it doesn't exist"?

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  >:(

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:40:45 PM »
Hell, let's just head this off:

http://1drv.ms/1pUWUGT

Dean's RAWs. Have at it.

Time for you to revisit his post:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg431159#msg431159

And time for you to open the RAW files yourself and view the histograms. The values are literally compressed to the left third of the graph. You have to give a 3 stop push in order to even out the histogram. Which means he underexposed by 3 stops.

Now I find it impressive that Exmor can handle this situation with grace. But you would never do this. You would never underexpose a scene with a deep shadow area that has no detail, then push that shadow area hard. There's zero reason to do this in the real world. You want that Coke box with a smooth run off into the shadowed corner? ETTR and pull down. Silky smooth on any sensor.

See how these conversations go? See why we get so frustrated? An artificial 3 stop underexposure/push test turns into "Canon has terrible banding even in properly exposed photos with no pushed shadows!" It's like that game kids play where each kid whispers something to the next and you see how much the original sentence has changed by the end. You would think people could accurately repeat a sentence, but at the end you realize the final sentence is nothing like the original.

You saved the RAWs...but forgot the test!!! And are now telling people how it proved something it clearly did not. You even emphasized it...JUST TO BE CLEAR...so sure of yourself and your opinion.

This Exmor mythology has become ridiculous.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:17:23 PM »
Um, he did not underexpose.

I would call it underexposed.

Quote
To be very, very clear here...there was ZERO PUSHING OF ANY KIND in those Coke box images, they were strait out of camera

Oh really? Here's the link to his post:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22422.msg431159#msg431159

Here are the labels from his posted images (which no longer appear). Emphasis mine:
Quote
Mk3 pushed 3 stops in ACR
D800 pushed 3 stops in ACR
Mk3 pushed 3 stops in ACR 100% crop
D800 pushed 3 stops in ACR 100 crop

Just to be clear  ;)

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:07:42 PM »
And when Fred posted same shots, same time, same cam and showed a big difference then you just had more excuses for why the differnce was not really there.

Fred who? Miranda? When you use NR on the Canon RAW the difference is inconsequential. While pixel peeping the hard pushed sample the Nikon file had a little more detail and less noise. But the actual DR range was the same, and you would be hard pressed to notice detail/noise differences even in a large print. Especially since the scene was artificial as you would never push the shadows that hard in that example.

Your side by side redwood examples that are evidence for your conclusion of a 2-3 stop shortfall, please. Because absent those you are wasting everyone's time.

Yeah artificial. Right.

In that case, yes. Pushing shadows that hard...with no NR...might be fun in order to see differences in the shadows, but the entire scene becomes a blown out mess. That's not how you would actually prepare an image for print.

Quote
So the times people actually do bother to take the same shot the same way are artificial

No. The times people do things they WOULD NEVER DO WITH A REAL WORLD PHOTOGRAPH like turn off all NR, push a properly exposed photo 5 stops, or severely underexpose a photo then push it 5 stops with no NR, are artificial because YOU WOULD NEVER DO THAT WITH A REAL WORLD PHOTOGRAPH.

So where is the real world photograph comparison? Where is the optimum exposure and processing to produce the best possible artistic print from each sensor? I would like to see that. I would like to see if Canon is "2-3 stops behind" in that case. (It wasn't in the FM case. Roughly the same DR, maybe 1 stop less shadow latitude.)

You have that test ready yet?

Quote
And sure, apply NR and this and that to the Canon file and THEN compare it to the Exmor, that is really fare (plus it still looks like junk in comparison anyway and lots of details are not there, even if the smoothness is much closer at that point).

Best possible print is fair because that's what real photographers do when producing real photographs for real clients as opposed to sitting in a room measurebating. And the difference in the FM test was not nearly as dramatic as any of you make the differences to be. Yes, the Exmor sensor had better shadow latitude. No doubt. Just not enough to really matter.

Now it might make a noticeable difference in some scenes. If I wanted to play devil's advocate I bet I could illustrate in a real world scene where it would be noticeable. But I could still get the shot with the Canon with a little work. But the DRoners...the DRoners seem incapable of actually showing where it matters at all.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:57:22 PM »
Quote
Photo up or shut up.

SOme of us even have put up the exact same shot at the same time and you still made excuses and said it didn't count. So bye.

Really? Because I don't remember that. You have links to these photos? Or is this just another baseless generic claim?

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:54:58 PM »
I don't know what diet coke boxes you are going on about.

In one thread someone severely underexposed and then pushed a photo of a Coke box. That was a "real world example."

Still waiting for yours....

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:53:30 PM »
sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure

Waiting for real world examples of what we are all missing  ;D

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 09:49:28 PM »
DR is driven in part by pixel size,...

If that were true, the G15 wouldn't have more base ISO DR than the 1DX:

http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html
http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html

Oh look...regurgitated DxO used dog food.

If I look it up, will the G15 have a higher score then a Hasselblad?  ::)

I get more DR from an EOS M on a step wedge then they claim for the 1DX. Hmmm...hey Neuro, if you're still reading this, want to trade my M for your 1DX? You want maximum DR don't you?  ;D

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 08:16:18 PM »
Let's wait until announcement and testing before putting such "conclusions" into the past tense.

Why should someone who's already made up their mind want to follow such logical advice?   ::)

Logic? In a thread about a new Canon product when DRoners are in the forum? INCONCEIVABLE!

I'm all for grabbing pitch forks and torches and heading to a Canon service center  ;D

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 08:11:44 PM »
Here's a real-worls example for you:

No RAW file...no notes on production...looks like he refused to nudge the color NR slider to me. And no shot made at the same time under the same conditions from a competing sensor.

FAIL.

Want to try again?

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 08:07:35 PM »
It's not a matter of having a closed mind. It's a simple matter of logic. It is completely illogical for them to create another 20.2mp sensor, if they have moved to a radically different fabrication process.

R&D costs. Not wanting to completely redesign something and risk a failure when the camera in question is their flagship crop body. Balancing pixels and CPU requirements / thermal issues, especially with DPAF. Even software could drive the decision to keep the same MP count for now if the algorithms for DPAF are tightly coupled to that MP count for performance reasons.

Quote
Smaller transistors would allow them to do so much more with a much higher resolution sensor. It just makes no sense. :P

How so? DR is driven in part by pixel size, so you want them to shrink the pixels and have more DR? 24 MP would look better to Joe Blow consumer because everything else is 24 MP, but unless they jump from 20 to 30 MP there's not a useful resolution difference. And judging from sales data Joe Blow hasn't cared yet.

Quote
The other rumor was still just that...a rumor. Was it even more than a CR1? We have real specs now...and the specs say 20.2mp. The real specs do not mention it's new...just that it's 20.2mp. Canon already has a 20.2mp sensor. Canon also has a long history of reusing sensors...over....and over.......and over.........AND OVER.................AAAAAAAND OOOOOOVEEERRRR. AND OVER! Can anyone say 18mp? Say it ten times fast. Over and over and over. :P

Except that the 18 MP sensors are not the same. How many times does this have to be said? I knew from the first day of shooting the M that it was an improved sensor over the 7D. Not dramatic, but there.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 05:49:11 PM »
And when Fred posted same shots, same time, same cam and showed a big difference then you just had more excuses for why the differnce was not really there.

Fred who? Miranda? When you use NR on the Canon RAW the difference is inconsequential. While pixel peeping the hard pushed sample the Nikon file had a little more detail and less noise. But the actual DR range was the same, and you would be hard pressed to notice detail/noise differences even in a large print. Especially since the scene was artificial as you would never push the shadows that hard in that example.

Your side by side redwood examples that are evidence for your conclusion of a 2-3 stop shortfall, please. Because absent those you are wasting everyone's time.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 05:46:11 PM »
I didn't have one with me on that trip.

Please stop making these claims until you have these shots.

Quote
But it's easy to know what 2-3 stops better looks like

No it's not. The human eye is terrible at judging scene DR precisely because it's so amazing at capturing everything and leveling out a scene regardless of DR.

Don't beg the question. Post photos. Don't have photos? Then stop complaining until you do.

Quote
Maybe the DR guys wouldn't get driven to act like such pests if you your ilk wouldn't constantly toss nonsense all over the place

YOU DON'T HAVE PHOTOS. Until you HAVE photos that clearly back up your claims it is you who is posting nonsense.

Photo up or shut up.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 48