April 16, 2014, 03:21:15 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New monitor
« on: April 27, 2012, 01:29:36 PM »
Thanks for links/ideas.

Another question:

Once I buy a monitor, I need to calibrate, right? What is the easiest way to do it? (I know there are special calibrators, but i dont want to buy it for a one time job)

They come calibrated for whatever environment the manufacturer thinks is appropriate. However, that likely doesn't precisely match yours. Also, LCD's degrade with time, thus the profile needs to be updated on a regular basis.

I like the ColorMunki tool that profiles monitors as well as printers (and projectors, but meh).

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 27, 2012, 09:31:41 AM »
A high megapixel 10fps camera is coming. It's not some distant future but probably just a couple of years. Nikon could make it right now if they threw in an extra processor or two into the D800.

That would be on the order of 700MB/sec, so I think they'd have to change memory formats or add a huge buffer too.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New monitor
« on: April 27, 2012, 09:19:35 AM »
I use the U2410 ultrasharps as well. They're great for the buck compared to other builders - like apple - who use the same LG IPS panel.

Note however that it's an extended gamut monitor, and out of the box may give you wonky colors unless you calibrate it, and all the software in your workflow will have to respect color profiles.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 26, 2012, 03:18:13 PM »
Sensor density will more than likely continue to get cheaper with time. But no matter how advanced the tech of the wafer, a 22X15 frame sensor will always be 40% of the size of a 36X24 sensor, which cuts two ways. Even if they were perfect and larger sensors weren't more likely to have defects, fewer sensors can be made for the same material cost.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 26, 2012, 09:22:03 AM »
It's probably cost prohibitive. They get significantly fewer sensors per wafer with FF dimensions.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600
« on: April 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM »
Actually the only reason I bought the 5D3 was that I was really waiting for what I call the 2DX.  A full frame camera with 44 mpx, 2 digilogic 6 processors, USB 3, uncompressed HDMI out for digital recorders and field monitors, 1D style with the vertical grip built-in for around $4,500 (maybe $5,000).  I think 6 fps is sufficient and of course the 1dX autofocus that the 5d3 already has.

I guess they could call it the 4DX.  I at first thought it would be called the 3DX but then I realized that calling anything as the 3D anything might be misleading....  Unless they actually build a .....

Calling it the 10000X would be more appropriate given the price point a camera with those specs would likely come in at.

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« on: April 24, 2012, 12:27:31 PM »
Knowing that, say, a 400mm telephoto lens produces an effective field of view similar to a 640mm lens on a full-frame due to a 1.6x crop or a 520mm due to a 1.3x crop is very valuable

How is that valuable? Do you care how a 100mm lens frames on medium format?

If you routinely use multiple formats and want to equip to frame similarly, great. If you don't, you're in the majority, and it doesn't buy anything.

EOS Bodies / Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« on: April 24, 2012, 09:45:31 AM »
Man, I'm getting really tired of "100mm = 160mm effective" and all that noise.

Those numbers are only useful to someone who on a regular basis shoots simultaneously with an APS-C body and a FF body and wants lenses which will frame the same.

Beyond that, it's useless. 100mm is 100mm.

It's especially absurd in the world of DSLRs when more people than ever are using SLR cameras and most have never so much as picked up a full frame body. If anything, they should go the other way (crop equivalent framing, not the other way around).

BRB, building an adapter for my SD960 so I can turn my 300mm into 1700mm.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d3: NR/Abberation Correction affect on RAW files
« on: April 12, 2012, 04:27:55 PM »
Interesting, thanks!  Perhaps someone can weigh in and report if it's actually true...

Here's a not-too particularly helpful link:


DPP v3.11 includes a new Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) tool that is designed to improve image resolution. DLO imitates lens performance, with a series of mathematical functions replicating each stage of the journey of light through the optical path. Using this information DLO can correct a range of typical optical aberrations and loss of resolution caused by a camera’s low pass filter, by applying an inverse function to each shot to take the image nearer to how the scene appears to the naked eye. This creates detailed, high-quality images with manageable file sizes, providing photographers with maximum image quality and greater flexibility.

Maybe they do indeed say "this lens causes this to happen at this pixel, so if we adjust the reading at that pixel by this amount, it will correct it" and actually re-write the RAW. They could also embed the original untouched raw for archival purposes (which would directly double file size).

From the CW interview, it isn't limited to 5D3. Anyone with a camera from the 30D on up should be able to try it out. I think I'll install DPP 3.11 when I get home and see if it outputs raw or raw-like files (i.e. not bitmaps).

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d3: NR/Abberation Correction affect on RAW files
« on: April 12, 2012, 04:12:58 PM »

AH: What new improvements are offered in the new Canon DPP software in combination with EOS 5D Mark III?


Chuck Westfall: We targeted three new features for the new version of DPP that will be released together with the EOS 5D Mark III:

· Support for the 5D Mark III’s HDR mode.
· Support for the Multiple Exposure mode of the 5D Mark III and EOS-1D X.
· A new feature called Digital Lens Optimizer processes RAW images to achieve ideal optical characteristics for all types of optical aberration or diffraction, effects of a low-pass filter in front of a CMOS sensor, etc. This function improves image quality particularly in the image periphery in addition to the image center. This function is made possible because the entire design-through-manufacture process, for camera, CMOS sensor, EF lens, and DPP, is carried out entirely at Canon. Images are processed optimally using lens information in the image files (focal length, subject distance, and aperture) and lens data specially for the Digital Lens Optimizer. (However, the size of a .CR2 file will be two to three times larger after applying the Digital Lens Optimizer.) Adjustments are made for such aspects as spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, astigmatism, curvature of field, sagittal halo, chromatic aberration of magnification, axial chromatic aberration, diffraction, and the effects of a low-pass filter in front of the CMOS sensor. DPP’s Digital Lens Optimizer will be usable with any of 29 compatible lenses initially. It works with .CR2 files from EOS models released since 2006 (EOS 30D and forward).

Maybe they are just packaging a lot of additional combination-specific processing information within the CR2 file format, but I find it hard to believe they'd need >20MB. Or yah, like you suggest maybe it must be rastered in the process and at highest quality that will yield much larger files, and the .CR2 in that bold sentence was a mistake.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d3: NR/Abberation Correction affect on RAW files
« on: April 12, 2012, 04:07:33 PM »
In one interview, it was stated that the lens corrections in DPP will double the size of the RAW. Makes me suspect it's doing something other than adding metadata.

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$
« on: April 11, 2012, 05:00:02 PM »
However, if you are in Manual mode, then you cannot dial in EV compensation. Take the above scene again. ISO=100, you choose aperture f/4.0, shutter speed 1/500th sec. Since that was exposure level chosen at either AV or TV mode with 0 EV compensation, therefore, the meter indicator will be in blinking at the middle of the scale. You want to overexpose the scene by +2/3 stops, then you need to either go for f/3.2 (you are on manual mode) or 1/320th sec (or 1/3rd stop larger aperture and 1/3 stop slower shutter speed or any such combination)

Bottom line is in AV/TV mode you can dial in the Exposure Compensation and camera changes the shutter speed/aperture; in Manual mode to get a higher exposure you need to choose the shutter speed or  aperture or both yourself.

Yes, I shoot M and was thinking that maybe Exposure Compensation would shift what the light meter displays.

thanks for the info

Never housed an SLR or invested in lighting, so these are a bit dull:

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$
« on: April 08, 2012, 08:30:38 PM »
Thanks for the tips. Is there any difference between using EV comp and simply metering slightly left or right?

I'm assuming it merely shifts what the meter displays and doesn't adjust shutter/aperture or ISO.

EOS Bodies / Re: is the 40D still a good one for 400$
« on: April 06, 2012, 09:15:08 AM »
Love my 40D, have used the hell out of it since 2007. I would possibly say the step from 350D to 40D was more significant than the step from 40D to 5D2 (which I only made last week after canceling pre-orders on the "3" and D800).

One of these is a 40D. One is a 5D2. Both are the EF50mm f/1.4. Without pixel peeping (or EXIF cheating), I would be hard pressed to tell which was which.

I would say the first is the 5DII

Nope. :P

Would be interested to know how you got more bg grain with the 5D2 then - bigger crop, higher iso??

Substantially higher. 40D @ 100ISO, 5D2 @ 1600. Both at f/2.5. 1600 wasn't necessary, though, just playing with the camera. 5D2 was 1/500; I generally aim for 1/125-1/250 when shooting my boy, and not so wide that the tip of his nose goes OOF.

Again I was picking a 5D2 image to try and match DOF to eliminate it as a giveaway. Something like this makes it more obvious (400ISO, f/2.8 )

Also, I'm driving the 5D2 the same way I drive the 40D (manual exp, generally half a stop left of center in the exposure meter - don't want to deal with ETTR). Perhaps with time I'll pick up a better way to get more out of the 5D2. Either way, I think that the 40D is still a viable camera. It has its weaknesses (ISO gets silly in a hurry), but can deliver.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13