October 25, 2014, 12:30:51 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 53
Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:44:06 PM »
The unsurvivable maximum and minimum temperature, the radiation, no stars in photos of the sky, shadows not parallel.  There is only one logical conclusion, Man has never landed on Earth.


Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:40:32 PM »
[...if the moon landings happened recently...]

Those photos are fake! The EXIF says they were shot with Canon DSLRs but everyone knows that Canon sensors do not have enough DR to capture everything in that scene! Look at those shadows...where's the shadow noise??? What, did they take a Sony Exmor to the moon??? And that spot right over there...CLEARLY PHOTOSHOPPED. What are they hiding? Studio lights???  ;D

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 03:37:40 PM »
Who was panning the camera when they took off from the moon to come home? Was that remotely controlled by NASA?

Yep, NASA, by remote control - the techician who did it having practiced before the event with a simulation into which the comms delay caused by the Earth-moon distance was built, so that he could get used to anticipating the delay.

I thought it was the aliens in Area51 who did the filming... I guess I was wrong. I am glad to read Canon Rumours, you learn something new every day.... The truth is out there :)

It WAS the aliens...by remote control from Area 51.

Man...keep up!  ;D    ;D    ;D

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:05:36 AM »
I wish you would actually read my post and realize that I never said you will see a difference by rescaling image taken by one sensor. I am talking about 2 different sensors.

Obviously. Why on Earth would you be talking about one???

Did you read my posts because I told you to actually shoot a transmission step wedge with 2 different sensors. The results will not match your predictions.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:03:16 AM »
Well, I have shot myself and seen enough images from all sorts of current Canon EOS cameras ... and NONE of them can deliver these kind of images out of cam / without REALLY HEAVY post processing.

His images are not "out of cam." It is quite evident from his review that he is post processing RAW files.

Find a portrait photographer who uses Canon and he will deliver images like those to you all day long.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:56:54 AM »
And I dislike it when people post stuff like this without actually reading and understanding what they respond to.

You made the same wrong claim and prediction that you've made before. You will not see another step in the higher MP image. I know because I've tried these things. I wish you would to.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:24:25 AM »
Actually I can't find a generic definition for DR, different fields, different definitions. However the ones I have seen for photography are engineering DR and Bill Claff's photographic DR which is something else than dtaylor's photographic DR.

I hate when people push a theory without having first observed the very things the theory attempts to explain. It seems to be a core part of human nature and is rampant from silly forum debates all the way to the leaders of nations.

Order a Stouffer transmission step wedge. Shoot it with different MP sensors at the same tech level (Sony A7 and A7R; Nikon D600 and D800; etc). Scale. Observe.

You will not see what your theory predicts you will see.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 04:10:46 AM »
All i care about is images ... And i know, i cannot get such images with the 7D or the EOS-M and also not with a Canon 6D or 5D3 or 1D-X.

Changing this post because I shouldn't hand wave the claim.

Let's take his first shot of the model in the chair with "Exceptional dynamic range, from the bright window to the deep shadows with no noise and smooth tonal trasition. No fill was added to this severely back lit shot."

* The window is blown completely out.
* The shadow to the right is lost completely to black.
* Critical point: a strand of hair on the model's head is also blown out. She wasn't as underexposed as you might imagine.

Please note that these are technical observations. The shot itself is very nice. Sometimes you want clipped highlights or shadows for contrast with the subject. He is making very good use of bright, blown out backgrounds for "glow" and contrast.

But this shot does not have "exceptional dynamic range." I'm sure the model was underexposed in the original file, but I doubt he had to push more then a stop or two, and this would not have been from the deepest shadows. She was closer to middle gray then to black.

If you cannot get a similar image under similar circumstances with one of the Canon cameras listed, the problem is not the camera.

Same thing for the next two samples. The third sample is the most underexposed, but he did not push the shadows very hard as she is not as brightly exposed in the final version. I've pulled more detail then that back from shadows like that with Canon sensors, but you will want to apply some NR when you do so.

You can come up with examples where Exmor yields more DR / better latitude (ability to push shadows around).

These are not it.

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:35:03 AM »
Now I'll expand that a little by saying, it certainly does appear that some of the images appear to have been made in a staged production environment, or in near-earth-orbit, or composited in such a way as to try make them appear genuine when they may not be.

Wait a minute...are you saying the house cat was NOT on the moon???  :o

My life will never be the same...

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 11:46:05 PM »
All we care about it getting a relative difference between sensors in an easy to test, repeatable way. Engineering DR covers that.

No it does not. It's related to it, but it does not directly translate to it.

Sure the exact numbers it claims may not agree with what you find usable which would almost certainly be a lower number, but it would be uniformly lower.

But it's not. The differences between DxO reports on one hand and step wedge tests or Imatest reports on the other are not uniform, and are not even consistently lower. As has been pointed out, Canon scores much higher on the latter tests.

If you just want to know to what degree one camera will differ from another in relative terms nothing wrong with using normalized engineering DR.

It just doesn't tell you anything about photographic DR.

EOS Bodies / Re: Exmor vs DualISO
« on: August 17, 2014, 05:49:10 PM »
First off, to raptor3x - good article and great comparisons!

Doesn't this show in real world terms just how easy, without changing any sensor tech, it would be for Canon to improve one of the most complained about aspects of their current sensor design?

Complained about by who? Geeks arguing on forums? (No offense intended, I am a geek arguing on a forum.)

Even when you do have to push Canon shadows a little hard...shove the color NR slider over, all the way to the right if you have to, and give it some luminance NR. They're still not as good as Exmor shadows. But the difference is much smaller in a large print or stretched across a large monitor, and completely gone at average print and viewing sizes. The difference is never as large as it is while pixel peeping with minimal or no NR.

Just last night I was revisiting a Canon 7D landscape file with pushed shadows, not quite as hard as this test but hard enough. Pixel peeping on screen I can see the noise and it annoys me a bit. Printed to an Epson Ultra Premium Luster 17x22 sheet for one of my portfolio albums? I can't find any of that noise with my nose on the print.

Speaking of landscapes...high end professional landscape work is not produced by pushing Exmor shadows 4-5 stops. Landscape photographers bracket and HDR. Compare a HDR image to a heavily pushed image, even from Exmor, and the difference in tonality and fine detail will jump off the print at you. With AEB you can easily hand hold a 3 frame bracket.

All that said...I do find it puzzling that Canon went through the effort to make this possible in the sensor hardware but then never exploited it in the firmware. Are they afraid that it might be confusing to users, especially with the HTP mode option? Just add an Extended Dynamic Range (EDR) mode for RAW only and clearly state it's for pro users who are going to manipulate the tone curve in RAW.

It's dumb for Canon not to do this. But it is a much smaller issue, with far less impact on their bottom line, then any of us seem to realize.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 05:13:25 PM »
First of my examples yes you will same DR, second of example wrong, you will see different DR

Please actually try this experiment some time.

If signal to noise performance per pixel is equal, a higher megapixel sensor will always capture more information.

Spatial information != luminance information.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 05:11:20 PM »
But this isn't dynamic range, it's latitude, and these two are confused, especially when comparing Canon vs Sony Exmor. The actual dynamic range is not as dramatically different as the Exmor missionaries like to champion, but the Exmor does have considerably more latitude in the extreme low lights. However most of us never have a need to lift low lights to the extent it becomes a problem with Canon.

So I would say down sampling does have a slight advantage in latitude, but this has nothing to do with dynamic range.

I initially skimmed over this but wanted to come back to it because you nailed it.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:08:50 PM »
Well now that we've concluded the discussion of a touchscreen – which might be defined as "merely trivial," it appears we can get back to the discussion of dynamic range, which would fall into the category of "manifestly trivial."

But Canon hasn't updated their sensors since 1969 and Sonikon sensors get 9,001 more stops of dynamic range and some say if the 7D mkII sensor isn't revolutionary Canon will die!

Or so I read in a forum on the Internet last Thursday  ;)

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:06:38 PM »
In case someone doesn't get it:

You won't see more steps in a shot of a transmission step wedge by downscaling, the downscaled image will look exactly the same unless you downscale so much that you see pixelization. If  you compare a shot taken with a 8mpix sensor against shot taken with a 36mpix sensor where each pixel has exactly the same DR in both sensors however...

You will see the exact same DR in both shots. No different then if you shot 8x10 Velvia 50 and 35mm Velvia 50 and compared them in terms of DR.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 53