December 22, 2014, 05:21:19 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 220
1501
the numbers are nonsense, the whole article misleading.
no word about read noise etc.

Why is that necessary?

Quote
and the sensor captures photons that don´t belong to visible light too.
so no word about how this will work for photography when you capture IR and UV light.

Filter in front of the sensor, like they do today: IR DSLR conversions are made by REMOVING the filter that blocks out IR light.

Dilbert's Law of Photographic Technology: The eventual ramification of every technological advance in photography will be the proliferation of scatological images throughout the internet, predominantly of felines.

Not quite.

Dilbert's Law of Photographic Technology: The eventual ramification of every technological advance in photography will aid the proliferation of images of felines throughout the Internet.

1502
Sounds fishy to me. The current sensors have about 50% QE. This means that one can only increase it twice, not 1,000 times.

In principle, "sensitivity" is not a well defined term when it comes to digital sensors. They are photon counting machines, missing every other photon, roughly speaking.

Yes, your thinking mirrors mine.  Perhaps its a deeper electron well that holds more photons, but that implies a longer exposure.  The description of "Wang said the key to his new sensor is the use of "light-trapping" nanostructures that use graphene as a base. The nanostructures hold onto light-generated electron particles for much longer than conventional sensors." is a bit vague and does not explain the predicted usefulness for consumer imaging. 

Imagine that the electron well actually has holes in it and that not all of the electrons that you capture stay in there - some get out or some get absorbed by the well.. Giving the well better walls/floor will help prevent that and thus result in a more consistent image being presented.

1503
Some sort of external light is always needed.  I'm hoping that the sensor becomes practical, but, there are
I'm also wondering about the property that he quoters of holding light far longer.  Actually, we want sensors that will reset more quickly so that we get more frames per second.

Well that will definitely help the numbers of cat photos on the Internet swell.

1504
Is there any trick to make 5D Mark III's in-camera CA correction support 3rd party lens such as Sigma 35? Sigma 35 is definitely a nice lens, except with very strong chromatic aberration when shot at large apertures.
Lightroom isn't function very well either... and it would be more helpful if this can be applied to jpg directly

Whether it is in the camera or with Lightroom, it is still software fixing the issue.

Which version of Lightroom are you using?

1505
Please note: the new EOS-1D C feature upgrade is only available from Canon’s authorised service facilities in Europe

And that is because they don't want the firmware being generally available for folks such as ML to examine, learn from and maybe modify.

Do Canon firmware upgrades patch the camera's firmware, or do they overwrite it in whole?

They overwrite it entirely.

Quote
If it's the 2nd case, then 1D-C owners would have to come to a service facility for each and every firmware upgrade in the future, which I somehow doubt Canon would do.

If there are only a relatively small number of 1D-C cameras sold (lets say 1000s or at most 10s of 1000s) then the number that need to be serviced by each service center is going to be small.

1506
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Now in Stock
« on: May 30, 2013, 09:56:01 PM »
In future, I wonder if Sigma will copy the idea of providing a 1.4x TC as part of the lens?

i.e. instead of 120-300/2.8, a 120-420, 2.8-5.6

1507
People I know have used redbubble - others can also buy your prints, if you choose to let them.

1508
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: May 30, 2013, 09:50:20 PM »
Yea, sounds like Canon is doing some crazy tricks. It's funny, Canon engineers clearly could have made a better/simpler output pipeline I'm sure with more or less the hardware that's in there, but I'll bet much of it was marketing & feature segmentation decisions to avoid that. Yet ML still has managed to coerce the camera into giving us this crazy high quality output.

Or maybe Canon decided to just reuse whatever work they had done for the 5D2 in order to shorten the time to market for the 5D3 by cutting out extra software R&D?

At this point in time, a very small number of CF cards work with this feature. Had Canon of brought this out in the mainstream model, it is highly likely that they would have received a large number of complaints/returns because people would expect it to work with all CF cards.

1509
Please note: the new EOS-1D C feature upgrade is only available from Canon’s authorised service facilities in Europe

And that is because they don't want the firmware being generally available for folks such as ML to examine, learn from and maybe modify.

It also makes me wonder that if there were such firmware, would it load into and update the 1DX and turn the 1DX into a 1DC?

I wonder if this firmware update will leak into the public domain...

1510
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:59:19 AM »
If you look at the graph on this page:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#D800e,EOS%205D%20Mark%20III

... when it flattens out, you no longer gain anything by using ETTR with a higher ISO to remove noise.

ETTR works well with Canon cameras because the amplification is done before the conversion from analogue to digital.

With the 5D2, it is quite clear that beyond ISO 1600, there's not much to be gained by raising the ISO and then ETTR.

Similarly, from ISO 1600 to ISO 6400 on the 5D3, there's maybe 1 stop of DR gain with 2 stops of ISO movement.

1511
EOS Bodies / Re: New AF Technology Coming in July? [CR1]
« on: May 26, 2013, 11:07:41 PM »
D = { Dynamic, Dual, Digital }

Which one? Don't know... other words? No clues.


1512
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: May 24, 2013, 10:49:40 PM »
Better examples:  Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg.  I've then included two versions of edited photos.  You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point.  This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.

At ISO 5000 with +2/3, you've introduced more noise due to the drop in IQ as a result of amplification than you have compensated for with overexposure.

Wrong.

What makes you believe that my comment is wrong?

Because you said ISO 5000 is 3200 amplified by 2/3 stops.  Did you, or did you not, imply that?  When in fact, according to my paper, it is not.

It doesn't matter whether it is ISO 3200 or ISO 6400. Once the ISO is past the point where IQ drops more than 1 stop per ISO stop, increasing the ISO and then overexposing does not result in a better picture because you lose more than you gain by moving the ISO higher.

On the 5D2 the last real ISO is 3200 and everything over that is software underexposing and pulling up.

Whether it is the same on others...

1513
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: May 24, 2013, 10:28:47 PM »
Better examples:  Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg.  I've then included two versions of edited photos.  You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point.  This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.

At ISO 5000 with +2/3, you've introduced more noise due to the drop in IQ as a result of amplification than you have compensated for with overexposure.

Wrong.

What makes you believe that my comment is wrong?

1514
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: May 24, 2013, 10:24:33 PM »
Better examples:  Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg.  I've then included two versions of edited photos.  You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point.  This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.

At ISO 5000 with +2/3, you've introduced more noise due to the drop in IQ as a result of ISO based amplification than you have compensated for with overexposure.

1515
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: May 24, 2013, 10:21:49 PM »
This is is at ISO4000, and I've seen others post at this high with no problems like I'm seeing.

ISO 4000 is not a "real" ISO.

The "real" ISO settings are 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, (maybe) 6400.

The "inbetweeners" (320, 640, 1250, 5000, 4000, etc) are all one of the above underexposed and then pulled up.

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 220