April 18, 2014, 02:56:40 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 34
31
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:22:29 PM »
When it comes to identical framing, more pixels will always win,....
Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Quote
in which case full frame sensors with larger pixels will trounce an APS-C sensor with smaller pixels. TROUNCE.

Try to stay on topic.  We're talking about smaller pixels, not larger sensors.

Quote
The images above actually prove my point. The smaller pixels are considerably noisier. They do have more detail, but they are a lot noisier. Your original comment was that smaller pixels were less noisy. That is completely false. Your own images clearly prove they are far noisier.

My point was that smaller pixels on the same size sensor, make better images, even in noise performance.  And my image does show that.

When it comes to identical output magnification, again your images prove my point.[/quote]

The right-column is at the same output magnification too - and the smaller pixels have obliterated the large pixels.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:29:57 PM »
And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.


Noise reduction software applies to all images, regardless of pixel size.


And it works way better when there is more detail in the original.

Quote
You can't bring software into the hardware equation here.


Sure I can.  The entire process, from optics to processing, works together to produce the final image.

Quote
Sensors are hardware. From a hardware standpoint, smaller pixels/bigger pixels, so long as the total sensor area is the same, it really doesn't matter.


Then why not have just one enormous pixel?

Quote
As for the pixels. I've never said they are bad. Small pixels out-RESOLVE large pixels, they do not necessarily out-PERFORM large pixels.


Not necessarily, but usually.

Quote
But small pixels can only out-resolve large pixels in certain circumstances.


Virtually every circumstance.

Quote
Smaller pixels will always outresolve larger pixels, but they do not normally outperform larger pixels. The only case where smaller pixels might literally outperform larger pixels is if the smaller pixels had considerably better technology than the larger pixels.


Nope.

Quote
Pixel performance is a fairly complex thing. I challenge you to pit G15 sports, wildlife, and bird photos against the same kinds of photos from the 1D X.


The 1DX will win because of a bigger sensor and bigger optics, not because of larger pixels.  If it had the G15's pixels, it would do even better.


33
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:34:14 PM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

Hmm strange then that the Canon 5D and 40D were both approx 10mpx cameras of the same generation but the IQ, noise and DR of the 5D is clearly better than the 40D (at a given ISO). Or if you prefer the Nikon D300 and D3 both c. 12mpx cameras of the same generation and guess what the D3 has better IQ, noise and DR! So regardless of the maths or anything else, when the chips are down large pixels seem to outperform small ones

Large sensors out-perform small sensors.  Small pixels out-perform large pixels as long as you don't get so small that the smaller pixels are too small for the manufacturing technology making them.

The 70D, even with 40MP out-performs the 7D with 18MP.  The G15 with its teeny, tiny pixels out-performs the 1Dx in DR even with its enormous pixels.

The idea that small pixels are somehow bad is long, long out-of-date.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:30:38 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

That's a misconception. If you account for noise as a factor of total sensor area, it doesn't really matter how large or small your pixel are. The expectation is that you are downsampling any and all of those sensors to some common output size...i.e. the same magnification.

And noise reduction software is dramatically better at removing noise and preserving detail than block averaging is.  Plus, smaller pixels mean a higher-corner-frequency AA filter.  Both effects mean that the smaller pixels give you lower noise and better resolving power in the same light and exposure.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 03:44:04 AM »
I would prefer the 16-18mpx low noise, high DR option myself.

For the millionth time, lower pixel counts do NOT mean lower noise and higher DR!  In fact, the other way is more likely.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:31:27 PM »
Seeing as the D4s is coming with a 'new' 16 mp sensor, I'm going to be brave and guess the 7DII will also be 16 mp, aps class leading low light performance, very fast and no pop up flash. See you in the second quarter.
Please God hear our prayers. Only 16 megapixel camera with ISO 3200 without noise bothering, costing less than $ 2000.

I'd rather have 24, 32 or even 72MP.  More resolution and less noise that way.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement in Q2 of 2014 [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2014, 05:29:26 PM »
So, this is a rumor that there will soon be a rumor?

38
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:48:13 PM »
The Zeiss Otus was the first retrofocal normal lens for full frame cameras and it showed there was a night and day difference compared to the double gauss design.

(snip)

There is no prime that exists that's f/2 or faster below 150mm besides the Otus that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing.

If the whole way it got so good is that it's retrofocus, shouldn't the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 also have those same benefits, since they have to be retrofocus?

39
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:22:54 PM »
There's no amount of good reviews that will get me to part with that much money for a 50mm.

Agreed.  A manual-focus 50/1.4 with perfect optics would be worth, perhaps $69 to me.

40
Lenses / Re: New EF-S 24mm & USM Motor Coming? [CR1]
« on: February 18, 2014, 11:40:17 AM »
Is there a particular reason that makes EF-S cameras need (dedicated) 24mm lenses?

Can't think of one, unless it's f/2 or faster.

What EF-s really needs is a better-built, 15-60/2.8 IS.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 17, 2014, 02:38:12 PM »
Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation.  Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light.  I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.
Only 25ms? That's faster than I would have expected.... relatively minimal processing of the signal?

Me too.

Quote
So you are seeing 6 frames delay at 240hz...... How do you know it's 6 frames? It could be anywhere from 5.1 to 6.9 frames delay, or a range from 21ms to 29ms....but yes, that's fast.

I counted frames for a whole bunch of transitions and averaged the result.

Quote
It does not rule out a 30hz refresh rate (33ms) as latency and refresh rate are different things. For example, say the refresh rate was 60hz.... you would get a new frame each 17ms....but if the latency was 25 ms, that means that every 17ms you get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before. if the refresh rate was 30hz, then every 33ms you would get an updated frame from what happened 25ms before.... the latency can be higher or lower than the refresh rate, the two are not inter-dependant.

I think it does, the way I did it, though I can't find my original video right now so I'm not certain.  Since I was averaging, the frame period would have been included.

Quote
If you film something changing quickly with the SX50 and shoot video of the back display of the SX50 at 240hz, how many frames of 240hz do you get per changed frame on the back of the SX50? If you got 8 frames the same on the 240hz recording, that would be a 30hz update rate, 4 frames would mean a 60hz update rate.

I don't know as I didn't try it.  I was using the SX50 in regular, still-frame mode and just using a separate camera at 240fps to video both the LCD on the SX50 and the thing it was looking at, which was a fast-running clock (ms).

42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: February 17, 2014, 08:54:36 AM »
No stabilization?  Not interested.

Bring on the Sigma 24-70/2 OS!

43
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 10:23:05 PM »
The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

Interesting. So the camera is essentially generating 60 or more JPEG images per second, plus adding overlay data to it. Amazing.

Not even close, at least on Canon P&S cameras.

For live view (either on the LCD, or EVF), the sensor image is converted to an 8 bit, 4:1:1 YUV image.
This has a luminance (Y) resolution of 720 x 240 pixels on most Canon cameras; but only 180 x 240 resolution for each of the chrominance channels (U & V).

Some cameras, such as the G12 & G1X, double the vertical resolution to 480 lines.

My understanding is this is done using a special read-out mode on the sensor; but I may be wrong there.

The live view is normally done at 30 frames per second, except in low light when the camera will lower the refresh rate to capture more light per frame.

There is no JPEG processing being done.

Phil.

Obviously there's no JPEG encoding as that would be pointless, but some processing is done because you can change it by changing things like contrast and saturation.  Further, I measured my SX50's lag by shooting 240fps video of both its output and of what it was looking at at the same time and I got right at 25ms in good light.  I don't see how this is possible if it's running at 30fps.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 06:04:55 PM »
... (rather than 8-bit JPEG DR, which tops out at 8 stops at best).

Straying a bit off topic here; but I thought the DR of a JPEG image was a function of the tone curve / colour space of the image file.

It is.

Quote
I thought the JPEG format was quite capable of recording 12 or more stops - the main problem with having 8 bits per channel is banding (and compression artefacts of course).

Phil.

Correct, but most out-of-camera JPEGs are 8 stop or less because camera makers like them to "pop" which means high global contrast and thus lots of crushed blacks and clipped highlights.

You can put 30 stops into a JPEG, and I've seen it done.  But camera makers don't do that.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 16, 2014, 12:43:13 PM »
It's lower by around 6-8 stops.

Proof?

I've tried it.  The EVFs are showing what is in essence the out-of-camera JPEG, with about 1 stop clipped from each end.  And as we all know, the out-of-camera JPEG contains several stops less DR than is available in the raw data.

The out-of-camera JPEG would probably contain considerably more resolution than the EVF requires, or are you talking about something like the JPEG that gets embedded in the Raw? Could you provide more details about how you "tried" it?

Yes, it's a low-res out-of-camera JPEG.

Shoot an EVF camera (or even most SLRs in Live View) in raw+JPEG.  Watch the scene (high contrast) carefully through the EVF (or on the LCD, though LCDs tend to be better than EVFs) to see where the whites are clipped and the blacks are crushed.  Now look at the JPEG and see the same things.  Now look at the raw, use a lot of highlight compression and shadow expansion and look again at the same thing.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 34