December 22, 2014, 10:52:08 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 322
46


I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR.


I have been testing out CaptureOne Pro. CaptureOne does seem to render a better quality noise with Canon files than LR does. I'm not going to say it's groundbreaking, but it doesn't seem to exhibit that horrid blotchy color noise that I loath so much in my Canon files with Lightroom. Sadly, C1 does not seem to have any support for Samsung cameras... :(


I am beginning to think now that Adobe's algorithms in Lightroom are indeed becoming rather dated. They don't render the data in the RAW files as well as they could be. I don't remember who asserted that in the past, but I think they may be right. Here's to hoping Lightroom 6.x gets a much-needed rewrite of the rendering pipeline, one that eliminates the color blotch with Canon files.


I did notice that LensRentals.com now has the NX1 on preorder:


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/compact/samsung/samsung-nx1


Woo! Not sure that I'll have a chance to try it out before the end of the year, but I'm glad they have it. They have a number of lenses as well. I think I'd give the NX1 and the 16-50 a try at the very least...but since this is something I'm curious about as an alternative to a 7D II for birds, I may hold off until Samsung releases their 300mm f/2.8 lens first. One thing I did learn recently is there do not seem to be teleconverters for the NX line mount yet. That might be an issue for me...if I picked up the 300mm f/2.8 lens, I would want both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and not having them would probably be a deal breaker. Maybe if Canon lenses AF well on the NX1 with an adapter...but I suspect that wouldn't be the case for a while. :'(

I know they've had the NX1 up for pre-order for at least a month or two as I almost tried to order one for testing before an event I shot over the thanksgiving weekend.


Hmm, odd. I only saw the Samsung entry in their list of brands show up recently.



As for the weird NX1 noise, I can definitely believe that it could have something to do with the LR conversion although I'm not quite sure how DPReview arrived at their DNG files.  The craziest part of those results to me is that before color noise reduction the NX1 definitely looks better but after you remove the color noise the 7D2 looks better, at least to my eye.  I don't think I've ever seen that happen before.  I've seen cameras become essentially equal after you remove the color noise but never swap positions like that.


The thing about the 7D II is that after color noise removal, as in the more speckled finer grained color noise, you have that blotchy color left behind. Again, though...maybe that really is just poor demosaicing algorithms. C1 doesn't seem to do that. Kind of funny, to think that Adobe's RAW engine is now old and potentially less effective than it could be today...but I think that may be the case.


Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.

47

I have exactly the opposite experience. Per-pixel color noise isn't difficult...the real difficulty with color noise is the blotches...the stuff that spans 50-100 pixel areas. I believe Neutral knows what I'm talking about. It shows up in shadow areas and at high ISO, and it is nearly impossible to clean up without obliterating detail. I've tried using TGVDenoise as well as several multiscale noise reduction routines on it within PixInsight, and it is just NOT easy to clean up, and impossible to clean up without a visible cost to detail (due to it's scale...you have to factor in large pixel areas, so of course it's going to affect detail.)


This is what surprised me about the comparison I posted above, the 7D2 is on the left and the NX1 is on the right.  From the DPReview low light samples what I'm seeing is that at 6400 (and 12.8K although I didn't post it since the NX1 seems to fall apart more significantly over 6400) the 7D2 definitely looks worse before chroma noise reduction but then the 7D2 looks considerably better after a small amount of chroma noise reduction.


Are you reducing the noise on Neutrals screen captures? If so, the NX1 has been downsampled. Reduce noise at full size then downsample, and no matter what you do to the 7D II, the NX1 still look better.

I applied the standard chroma noise reduction to the RAW files and then downsampled to JPGs.  The 7D2 definitely looks better at 6400 and 12800; the NX1 has a kind of funky quality to the noise.


I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR.


I have been testing out CaptureOne Pro. CaptureOne does seem to render a better quality noise with Canon files than LR does. I'm not going to say it's groundbreaking, but it doesn't seem to exhibit that horrid blotchy color noise that I loath so much in my Canon files with Lightroom. Sadly, C1 does not seem to have any support for Samsung cameras... :(


I am beginning to think now that Adobe's algorithms in Lightroom are indeed becoming rather dated. They don't render the data in the RAW files as well as they could be. I don't remember who asserted that in the past, but I think they may be right. Here's to hoping Lightroom 6.x gets a much-needed rewrite of the rendering pipeline, one that eliminates the color blotch with Canon files.


I did notice that LensRentals.com now has the NX1 on preorder:


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/compact/samsung/samsung-nx1


Woo! Not sure that I'll have a chance to try it out before the end of the year, but I'm glad they have it. They have a number of lenses as well. I think I'd give the NX1 and the 16-50 a try at the very least...but since this is something I'm curious about as an alternative to a 7D II for birds, I may hold off until Samsung releases their 300mm f/2.8 lens first. One thing I did learn recently is there do not seem to be teleconverters for the NX line mount yet. That might be an issue for me...if I picked up the 300mm f/2.8 lens, I would want both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and not having them would probably be a deal breaker. Maybe if Canon lenses AF well on the NX1 with an adapter...but I suspect that wouldn't be the case for a while. :'(

48
Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: December 07, 2014, 07:44:06 PM »
Does anyone know if the Dell 5k will use a hardware LUT or not? Some of their previous screens used a 12-bit LUT, which was pretty decent. I'd rather have a 5k NEC with a 14-bit LUT and all the other graphics-grade features their paXXXw screens had in the past, but there hasn't been any news from NEC about even delivering 4k versions of their paXXXw line, let alone a 5k version. I like the idea of a 5k screen, as it would let you edit 4k video at full resolution (no scaling) while still providing room to display a UI around it. ;)

49
Sensor dynamic range is effectively a measure of the impact of noise. More DR, less noise. Less noise affects the signal overall, and it is not just beneficial for pushing the exposure around. If your midtones in a boke background expose to a level of say 8000e- on average, that's ~90e- shot noise.


Now, noise is additive...so, anything additional, dark current and dark current noise, read noise, are added to the shot noise. With a Canon camera your adding 15-38e- RN (depending on whether your APS-C or FF, and which specific model), and on most your also adding a few electrons worth of dark current and dark current noise as well. On something with an Exmor, Toshiba or Samsung sensor, your adding maybe 3e- or so noise, an a fraction of an electron dark current.

Dynamic range is just a measure of how much room you have in your signal to put useful content. Since noise is additive, it affects the entire signal, top to bottom, every single level. When you add in noise, it's removing potential levels where you could have real data. That's why generally speaking there is little benefit to Canon cameras having 14 bits. You don't really get 14 bits of information out of their cameras...your getting at most 12 bits. Using 14 bit data gives you a finer granularity to noise, but overall, your the usable range of information is lower...the extra information is still just noise. You don't have to lift shadows or compress information into less space by moving exposure sliders around to benefit from higher DR. You benefit from it period (unless you exclusively shoot high key scenes at low ISOs...). Less noise is less noise.

50
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 04:37:40 PM »
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.

I tend to tweak processing by shot, but I prefer to over sharpen at full size, then reduce the size, than reduce and then sharpen. Not sure if anyone else does it this way.


For final web versions, I usually use this technique. The oversharpen/reduce technique is fairly old, and often applied to landscapes in conjunction with one of the various soft contrast techniques. I think it gives better results. You do have to get a handle on background noise first, though...otherwise the sharpening enhances the noise.

Lol, I don't claim to have invented it, but I did arrive at it by myself :) 


Sure. I know that...  ???



I would usually use a high threshold and wider radius, so it applies above the level of noise grain, if that makes sense. I prefer to avoid denoise wherever possible, as it reduces image quality too much oftentimes.


Sharpening noise reduces image quality as well. That's the problem with noise....the more you start out with, the tougher it is to process without experiencing a degradation in IQ. Denoising is valuable, even if it is a light application. At the very least, lightly denoise then process, and you might end up with the original noise you started with, rather than more.

51
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 04:30:14 PM »
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.


Unnaturally bright? I'm not sure I understand that...the processed image is actually darker overall than the original. Contrast was increased slightly, globally and locally, and saturation was boosted slightly. Other than that...I think it got darker overall, not brighter.

To be more precise, the colours look a bit too bright or vibrant.


LOL. Remember, it was a TEST! :P I wasn't interested in processing this thing to perfection. It's a junk photo that I simply snapped to see how well the 2x TC really performed. I think I spent about 2 minutes processing it. The color is immaterial...it's the sharpness that I was interested in.

52
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 03:28:37 PM »
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.

I tend to tweak processing by shot, but I prefer to over sharpen at full size, then reduce the size, than reduce and then sharpen. Not sure if anyone else does it this way.


For final web versions, I usually use this technique. The oversharpen/reduce technique is fairly old, and often applied to landscapes in conjunction with one of the various soft contrast techniques. I think it gives better results. You do have to get a handle on background noise first, though...otherwise the sharpening enhances the noise.

53
Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: December 07, 2014, 03:14:40 PM »
Two ultra wide monitors?

54
And the point is?

I could do this with a single shot from any Canon camera I own - it's not remotely a "high" dynamic range shot as DRones mean the phase - "something a Canon is (supposedly) incapable of doing..."

I agree.  And the final shot needs more contrast anyway.


This is entirely a matter of personal taste. High contrast, low contrast, high saturation, low saturation, better local contrast, or not, black and white, or not. That is all a matter of taste, style, art. It blows my mind how much the members of this community feel they can just decide for everyone what is valid art or not, or what is valid artistic technique or not, or what is valid processing or not, or how much no one knows how to use a camera if they find a use for more in-camera DR. WOW.


Personally, I think the photo is great. It wouldn't matter to me if it was done with a Canon or not. It's a great photo. It's probably better than I would do if I was standing in that guys shoes.

55
The difficulty you encounter when you have the sun literally in-scene is that with HDR, you usually end up with some kind of haloing and/or posterization around it when doing an HDR blend. You can mitigate that by using a lot more of more closely spaced exposures, but it is not perfect. HDR is not a DR panacea...it's a tool, and like any tool has it's limitations and proper use cases. You could also do a manual blend with two exposures, however that is really not much different than what's been done here.


Same goes for having and using more in-camera DR. I think it is ludicrous to say that this image is borderline on a badly tonemapped HDR image. This image is worlds better than that, and I think everyone who is trying to say otherwise behind thin veils is simply grasping at ways of backing up their preferred brand. The depth of the brand loyalties on this site are immeasurable... This is a great image. Is it perfect? No, but how many photos are? Does it make effective use of the DR the camera offers? Yes. Is this technique 100% absolutely essential? Depends!


With the sun in-scene, I would prefer to extract as much as I could out of a single frame, than to deal with the extra levels of work around blending an HDR that is likely to have integration artifacts around the sun or any other ultra high contrast areas.


I'd also be very curious to see this communities reaction when a future (hopefully) high DR Canon camera captures something similar, and an article similar to this is written about the photographer's technique.

56
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 02:15:45 PM »
I might submit that it would have made more sense to install the feeder set-up closer to where you
shoot from or...move the tripod closer to subject and shoot tethered.


Getting too close means certain birds never show up at all. That said, I am already fairly close, and this was just a test. I wanted to see how big and sharp I could make a songbird from where I usually sit. I usually use the bare 600 for larger birds like jays and woodpeckers, and the 600+1.4 for smaller songbirds.

57
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 02:05:52 PM »
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.


Unnaturally bright? I'm not sure I understand that...the processed image is actually darker overall than the original. Contrast was increased slightly, globally and locally, and saturation was boosted slightly. Other than that...I think it got darker overall, not brighter.

58
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 02:24:21 AM »
For the noisy background try this: Apply noise reduction at 100% in LR (with brush). The blurry background should become much more smoother. Try to do this also with two layers (2 brushes at 100%).


Sure, I've done that in the past. It's a lot of work, though, and I think a couple proper-order applications of NR and sharpening should do the trick without having to paint. I'm just lazy right now. I haven't had much sleep, haven't been getting any tonight, and I'm just futzing around...I don't really want to do any real work. :P

59
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 07, 2014, 02:22:57 AM »
Looks great jrista

Been thinking:
1. Add 600mm f4 IS II to use with my current FF bodies
2. Cheaper approach, add 7D II and shoot with my current 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III. I know my 400 + 2x tc is great on FF at f7ish. Not sure how it will come out with 7D II.


I think it'll be fine. That would be just about the same as 1200mm on FF from an FoV standpoint. In terms of resolving power, it should actually have a much larger image scale (angular size to pixel size ratio). The more pixels you put onto each piece of detail, the better it should end up being.

60
For sure. Don't even need to improve that much from 1DX and I'll drop $10k easily. 2 stops on ISO performance, 2 stops on DR, 2 stops on MP. Sold.

You think adding 2 stops here and there is worth a $3500 bump in price?

Even the first two, totally. And for MP, 1 stop would be good enough, 2 stop add on MP would be already to much in my mind.

You guys make me laugh, a one stop improvement means twice as good, two stops means four times as good, we are well into product maturity and small incremental increases in performance. What do you think could be done to give you 400% more performance in key areas with a mere 45% price increase?

And what is a stop of MP?

Like you said, it's twice for each stop. So e.g. 2 stop increase in MP from 20MP would go to 80MP.

And like others mentioned, 2 stops extra DR is not 400%. Increasing from e.g. 12DR to 14DR is not 400% more performance.


Stops don't really apply to megapixels. At least, I've never heard them applied that way.


Stops apply to anything involving the light entering the camera. Two additional stops of dynamic range means two doublings of the range of brightness sensed by the sensor. Two additional stops of ISO means the ability to shoot in two stops darker light at the same shutter speed. Stops also was originally applied to aperture settings, as you usually "stopped down" the aperture with manual lenses before taking the shot. A full "stop" was a reduction in aperture area by a factor of two...doubling or halving the light passing through the lens.


Stops apply to light.


But for megapixels...I wouldn't apply the term stops to that. It doesn't really work there.


As for dynamic range, two stops of additional dynamic range IS a 400% increase. It's two doublings of contrast range (or tonal range). One doubling (200%), then another doubling (another 200%).

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 322