August 23, 2014, 03:13:57 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
31
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:45:54 PM »
Not water I'd care to find myself in...

That looks like Sombrero, and nobody goes to Sombrero! Maybe another Caribbean Atlantic coast?

North east Curacao

32
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:20:24 PM »
Not water I'd care to find myself in...

33
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 10:51:19 PM »
Possibly add in a very fine amount of per-pixel noise to improve DR

How do you add noise on a per pixel basis?

And you do all this on windows or osx?

My workflow isn't nearly as exacting as his. I process in LR, export as tiff, open (prophoto) in photoshop, downsample (i can not print larger than Super B), apply a paper- and ink- appropriate profile (I use a colormunki to calibrate across a wide range of photos), softproof and print. If I'm using fancy paper (which for me usually means inkpress metallic gloss), I'll do a small test print before committing. I do it in Windows. I have tried on my OSX machine, but it doesn't play well with my epson 1400 drivers (surprisingly).

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 06:06:16 PM »
I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.

Basically the point at which one concludes that sensor size is irrelevant because incremental steps down in size are regarded as irrelevant. But I fully admit that my commentary is worth less than the amount you paid to read it :P

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:36:47 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

Sure, but where does the "very small" end? If the difference between FF and APS-C is very small, and the difference between APS-C and m4/3 is very small, and the difference between m4/3 and 1" is small, is the difference between FF and 1" some degree of small?

Maybe it is, but without quantifying what "small" is, it's a bit of a useless comparison, and in a world where people report for example dynamic range in tenth-stop precision, maybe small from the general lexicon doesn't apply.

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 01:14:36 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

37
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 12:40:13 PM »
I am not using  my color checker passport anymore.

Wanna offload it?
Will keep it for now, never know.

*snaps fingers*

Fair 'nuff :P

38
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 12:12:58 PM »
I am not using  my color checker passport anymore.

Wanna offload it?

39
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:28:24 AM »
Battery grips.

40
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 01:05:03 PM »
You realize this argument will be pointless when the 7D2 comes out with the 120Mpixel sensor, ISO 204,800, and 18 stops of dynamic range.... :)

Imagine how cool 18 stops would be!

As the Alexa, Red Dragon, D810, A7s etc all seem to top out at 14.5 to 15, I do fear that barring some new tech, that is the limit.

When Canon, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung etc all hit it, it will be great, and we can all talk about photos again, and not dynamic range :-)
24 bit ADCs and RAW files ;).

The D800 is nice. That would be difficult to deny. If i felt like incurring the expense of a system change, I'd likely look towards the d600 first, until Nikon's lens infrastructure catches up with the sensors. Granted, any increase in detail is a good thing, but when on average across the lens lineup (per DXO) the 23MP 5D outresolves the 36MP d800, it makes me wonder about the efficacy of changing systems at this point.

41
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 06:32:35 AM »


...
Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain.

When something is presented without a qualifier such as "I think that .." or "In my opinion ..." then it is as if someone is stating a fact.

"What can you come up with other than...?" doesn't serve as a sufficient qualifier? You honestly read one of several possibilities presented in the context of a question as a statement of fact?














42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:31:02 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Of course it is easy to claim anything after the fact but the fact remains that your initial public attempts to explain something were built around alleging misbehavior by DxO.

Quote
Seriously, look into some remedial education.  Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read.  Until then, it's merely a waste of time.

I love how you pick and choose which questions to answer that are put to you! You'd make a great politician in the way that you evade questions and queries that are put to you.

Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

Why would you want someone to explain how something is true that he has clearly stated above (I am not privy to whatever history you two have) he believes to be untrue?

Playing Devil's Advocate is a useful tool in learning formal debate, but what exactly are you looking for in this discussion? To improve Neuroanatomist's debate prowess?

In case you haven't noticed, the bit you are asking him to explain "how DxO is accomodating..." wasn't an allegation, it was a possible explanation.

Quote
"What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?"

Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain. Further, as stated, he doesn't even think the "joined at the hip" part is the most likely reason. He thinks Canon didn't permit it. I tend to agree. One possible reason for that possible reason is that Canon doesn't like how its products stand up on the scoring metric, and thus aren't willing to imply approval by permitting their logo. I hope you don't ask for evidence of a possible reason for a possible reason.

43
Weird. It's as if the shutter got hung up (open) briefly. If so, send it to Canon. I'll be interested to see if there are other explanations.

44
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:03:54 PM »
2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.

This is the one that often comes up that I believe PBD is attempting to shed light on. Forget everything that requires side by side constant lighting to compare, and just point out which of the images in his collage are 50L dreamy. I can not. Can you?

Side by side yes, I'm sure most people could pick out differences. But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?

45
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 17, 2014, 03:22:03 PM »
The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.  I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

If someone can offer me an EVF with zero distinguishable lag and a dynamic range and color gamut matching the sensor, I'd eat the battery weight. I suspect producing a 12+ stop display may be challenging, however. They may be able to do it with clever back- and side lighting, but that would jeopardize the accuracy.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24