September 01, 2014, 04:06:47 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 26
61
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:32:04 PM »

No one has ever claimed this. The pixels themselves will have greater dynamic range when properly downsampled however. I fail to see why DxO is not relevant in the real world, it is not like pixel DR downscaled to a certain mpix count or DR at native resolution are independent values as I have tried to explain above.  How should DR be compared then, at native resolution and just disregard the fact that a high megapixel sensor captures more information than a low megapixel sensor? That sounds more like BS to me.

It is far to use resampled data to compare cameras. Using it to specify individual camera capabilities, however? Not so much. That's why DxO provides Screen DR as well as the resampled Print DR.

62
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:15:07 AM »
If I lived on the West Coast nothing would bring me East to dive, not the Caribbean, not the Red Sea, nothing, it would have to be your local cold water, though I am not a cold water diver, and all the Pacific opportunities going round to Indonesia.

I've done most of my diving locally. The kelp forests are pretty, but I'm mostly a wreck diver, and the Los Angeles area is littered with them. Since becoming a father I've had to stop the deep (helium costs have gotten out of hand - breathing gas and diesel for a two dives on a wreck like the Sacramento will cost as much as trip to Cozumel) dives, which means the really cool wrecks are out of my reach these days.

The red sea looks amazing (again, I count wrecks as my passion), but Chuuk is better. My bucket list includes Bikini, but that's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

63
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:46:43 AM »
The whole point here being it is completely disingenuous to claim that more stops of DR are wasted because they can't be used on the screen or on paper.

I've seen him say on numerous occasions that he'd like more dynamic range, and that he appreciates exmor technology. I think pretty much everyone does. Here's an example:

Well, for landscapes, I really want that extra resolution. A low resolution of 12mp really doesn't interest me much, and I was hoping the 5D III would land with 28-32mp. The D800E with 36.3mp and its incredible DR is about as close to the holy grail of landscape photography as I think it can get these days. I'd much prefer if Canon could reciprocate with their own megapixel/DR monster, though.

And another:

This kind of night photography is another area where more DR is certainly an enviable trait to have. Your the type who could probably benefit from a full 16 stops of DR with a true 16-bit sensor, even.



There have been times when he's impeached the notion of using DXO's "print DR" values to quote camera specifications, maybe that's what you're referring to?

More DR is better (up to the point that the camera DR exceeds the scene DR, which many of us use lighting, ND filters, etc to achieve), just as more resolution is better. Even if it doesn't make its way to the final format, it gives latitude to workflow.

If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.

You don't honestly think that bit-depth is the only advantage to RAW, do you?

64
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:26:48 AM »
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

Right angle, but not really an Atlantic coast! Never got to the ABC's, only to Trinidad and Tobago and St Vincent and the Grenadines that far South.


Impressive call nonetheless.

I've not been to A nor B, but can't recommend C unless you're a diver. The water is phenomenal, but the land is arid (except the north east), desolate, and littered with half-completed structures. It may be worth going to if it's not a pain, but I am from California and I won't be back unless with dive buddies.
















65
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:49:36 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?

I just add noise using Photoshop's "Add Noise" filter. That adds noise with a pixel-level frequency...or, in other words, per-pixel noise. It's a VERY minimal amount, you have to squint to see it, as it really isn't supposed to be obvious, and as such, is effectively meaningless in the midtones through highlights/whites.

The general point of this is to smooth out the harsh transitions that usually occur in the shadows due to low bit depth and quantization error during ADC. If you examine lifted shadows, from any camera (including, and maybe even particularly, a D800 or other camera with a Sony Exmor), you will very often notice a bit of posterization. Adding a very light amount of noise breaks that up, which helps improve gradient transitions and such in the shadows. It can also help artificially enhance detail that may otherwise look like smooth blobs due to noise reduction algorithms (this can especially be a problem if you did any noise reduction with masking, so you could apply NR more heavily in the shadows than in the midtones and highlights).

Gotcha, I just wondered if you had something more sophisticated. I suppose it's not really noise insofar as it isn't random, but close enough I guess? Interesting idea.

66
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

67
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:20:24 PM »
Not water I'd care to find myself in...

68
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).

69
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

70
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.

71
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.

72
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

73
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?

74
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:28:24 AM »
Battery grips.

75
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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 26