October 01, 2014, 12:49:36 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 164
16
To the OP: let's see you capture a scene that includes the actual sun disc recorded in the EV range and lift shadows from a shaded area with the A7r. This is the only situation in which my Canon gear cannot cope.

Of course you will fail. I know because I have already tried with a D800. That's why myself and hundreds, nay thousands of 'landscape' orientated photographers are still using Canon.

you mean like this one?..
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888
good luck using a Digic 4 or 5 Canon for a shot like the first one, you would not be able to re-tone the image to look like it does to the eye.
How does a Canon user cope with such a shot? Cry and go home? Spend many hours in post, trying to tame the stripes and fix the muddy dark tones to have some sort of semi-realistic texture? HAHAHA!  Bracket?!?  ;D

the last 2 in that post could even be done with a 7D, not that I'd chose one if I had an ABC alternative available.

Yeh, you can't do that with a Canon..........

That example was only like a half stop or stop lift of lower mid-tones, not near black areas.

It was a +100 shadow lift, basically a two stop lower lift, plus a modest exposure lift.

If that isn't "enough" then here it is with a totally unrealistic lift, a +100 shadow lift and a 1.5 stop exposure lift on the bottom, looks kind of ridiculous even though I held the sky back with a filter in post. Don't forget this is with a 2002 4.2MP camera with a >3.5 lift in post at 100%.

17
Yeh, you can't do that with a Canon..........

HAHA!

Do you expect me to take your example seriously?!?

C'mon, in my example the "pushed" shadow areas are still darker than the shadow areas in your "before" shot!  ;D
You're not in a DR-limited scene.  Other than the sun being in frame, that's some might flat dull scenery.

A large part of the lower right corner of my before shot is rendered RGB (0-255) 0,0,0 by the camera's internal jpg engine.  In the after shot it's brought up the the mid-20s on average.
Your before shot dark area is about 11,17,20 brought up to about 22,35,42 in the after shot.

My Sol glint is not even clipped in the before shot; 248,247,218 is about the brightest pixel in the small image.  In the after shot, it's still 249,246,212 so I'm not pulling my highlights down like in your example either.
My example is a proper ETTR shot to take advantage of the Exmor capabilities; maxing out the exposure at the brightest point in the image and re-curving the entire thing to bring back the tonality that is close to how it was visually perceived.

my after


vs your before


If you want to come up with a good comparison, leave the 1DS3 at home, grab a current Digic 4 or 5 body and see if you can replicate this much DR and recovery in one shot.

Thanks for playing tho. :)

EDIT:  bonus point for picking a similar composition

Thanks for the compliment.

I posted that particular picture for two reasons, first because of the composition being so similar to yours, the second because I knew you would do the "oh but the 1Ds MkIII is the only Canon camera that could do that" so it is from a 2002 1D.

18
At the same time, I don't think anyone deserves to be called a "Canon fanboy" for discussing the practicality of this shadow latitude difference, especially in light of some of the hyperbole seen on this forum.
+1

Personally, I don't understand how someone can be accused of being a "Canon Fanboy" for pointing out that another company does something better. Could someone please explain the logic to me?

Don,

You are falling into that fault of yours, hoping that any more than 1-3% of the replies here are based on logic.  :)

I try to have "the discussion" but any attempts are derailed, disallowed, disputed, or the best one, taken in a completely different direction, to such a degree that it just isn't worth the effort.

There are some really smart people here with some very bad ways of putting things. I appreciate the effort jrista tried to make here, but the subject is so corrosive whatever approach is taken it seems doomed to failure.

From my own point of view I was genuinely interested in the topic, not least because I shoot a lot of images like the first post, interiors where I need something outside. What the files illustrate to me is the Exmor cannot do what I, personally, would need any better than my Canon, the shadow "detail", whilst being noise free, still has no tonality.

And that is just a simple issue of maths and what happens when the output from a linear capture "curve" is changed to a dramatic gamma style tone curve after a dramatic gamma tone curve has already been applied. If you take the bottom 5% of the tones and stretch it to fill the bottom 35% of the tonality then you have less than 1/7th the tonality, and that doesn't cut it for what I shoot in DR limited scenes. Further, the blooming is as bad in both images, and that doesn't work either.

So, whilst I appreciate for others the Exmor might be the answer, for me, who does regularly shoot DR limited scenes, the Exmor is not the answer and Jrista's images have proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

19
To the OP: let's see you capture a scene that includes the actual sun disc recorded in the EV range and lift shadows from a shaded area with the A7r. This is the only situation in which my Canon gear cannot cope.

Of course you will fail. I know because I have already tried with a D800. That's why myself and hundreds, nay thousands of 'landscape' orientated photographers are still using Canon.

you mean like this one?..
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888
good luck using a Digic 4 or 5 Canon for a shot like the first one, you would not be able to re-tone the image to look like it does to the eye.
How does a Canon user cope with such a shot? Cry and go home? Spend many hours in post, trying to tame the stripes and fix the muddy dark tones to have some sort of semi-realistic texture? HAHAHA!  Bracket?!?  ;D

the last 2 in that post could even be done with a 7D, not that I'd chose one if I had an ABC alternative available.

Yeh, you can't do that with a Canon..........

20
@Khalai: No, there are no screens that can natively display 14 or more stops at once. However, it is for that very reason that we push shadows. A RAW is rendered to the screen with a tone curve. That tone curve compresses the information in a RAW, crushing the blacks and bleeding out the highlights. The middle part of the image fits on the screen...the middle 8 stops.

The purpose of shadow recovery is to bring back the shadows that were crushed and the highlights that were bleed out. The highlights aren't clipped, they are just rendered such that they appear clipped. The shadows aren't pure black...they are just rendered such that they appear pure black or nearly so. In the actual RAW file, in linear space, all that information is decidedly NOT black or white. It's all non-zero/non-clipped information that can be utilized.

Having more dynamic range, such as you get with an Exmor, means that more of that information that falls outside the display range of your computer screen is recoverable. Canon sensors are eating away at a large chunk of that information, then scattering banding (a semi-random or non-random factor) into the signal that reaches right up into the lower midtones, which are already displayed on the screen.

So, no, there are no screens that can natively display 14 stops of DR, which is the very reason we push shadows. I took some photographs of what appears to be a dark room. In reality, the room was not dark at all, it was much more like the second set of photos I shared. The information all those "blacks" as rendered in the first set of photos was all there, in the raw. My 8-bit screen, your 8-bit screen, most people's screens, cannot display the entire range of information found within the RAW, so I had to push the shadows up to make it fit. I compressed a wider dynamic range into a narrower dynamic range. In the third set of photos, I compressed the data even more, bringing in another stop of recoverable information in the A7r file that simply wasn't there in the 5D III file. (Hell, the 5D III file doesn't even have three stops of recoverable data, let alone four or five.)

It's actually because of the limitations of display devices and print media that we push and pull the digital signals of our RAW images around. Even when 10-bit computer screens become common, and 12-bit screens start hitting the marketplace, we will still be pushing shadows for print.


Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but although the bit-depth of a display can limit it's dynamic range, it's mainly about the levels of color gradation that are possible. Contrast ratio is the equivalent of dynamic range and that's mostly limited by the display technology itself. My main monitor (HP DreamColor) is an IPS display with a 10-bit panel, and can display 1024 levels of gradation per sub pixel. It's measured contrast ratio is slightly over 1000:1, and that's nearly 10 stops of dynamic range which is decent. Lower end IPS displays are around 9 stops . My previous monitors were VA panels with 3000:1 contrast ratios (~11 stops of DR). Now my reference monitor, which is a professional plasma display, is 12-bit over dual link HD-SDI with 16 bit A/D converter. It has a 30,000:1 static contrast ratio enabling it to display approximately 14.3 stops of dynamic range. OLED displays, which are not widely available yet in anything other than phones are capable of much, much more.

Exactly!

There is so much bad information in this thread it is depressing.

21
I know there are a few options of accessories for Sony cameras... But is there not match any flash available? :P
Understand the scientific motivation for this comparison, and see the superiority of EXMOR sensor in this case. But in the real world these photo could only be made ​​as dark as well because of a terrible mistake photographer. :o
On the other hand, I ask if anyone can repotir this shooting at ISO 6400 test, and see if EXMOR still leading. ::)
This isn't under exposed.  If he exposes properly for the indoor environment, the windows would be totally white and unrecoverable.  If you want to preserve the outside view through the windows, you have to shoot it like this or use artificial lighting to more closely match the two lighting environments.
In the real world, if the purpose of this photo was the view through the windows, the photographer would open the windows first. ??? If he would only see silhouettes of furniture, there is no reason to lift the shadows in PP. ::)

Here's real world.  This is inside a hotel and the windows are open.  The sky was blue and I didn't want to turn it to solid white or for all of that light to wipe out the ceiling structure.  Forget the annotations.



What the hell does "approximate EVF view" mean, is it the base exposure pre processing or not?

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 09:37:30 AM »
1 Image quality most times absolutely sufficient for MY purposes
2 Very good lenses in terms of the "right IQ" as a combination of all parameters
3 Ergonomics and knowledge of its ergonomics
4 Magic Lantern - compatibility: Using FD* lenses on EF-M mount via adaptor (or EF mount after conversion) with ML focus assist systems is easy!



* Just exploring the FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. - not an OTUS but very good just at f/1.4 and excellent from f/2.8 with EOS M (equivalent to 50MPix on full frame!)

Are you using anything special for the  FD - M mount? I have a large collection of FD lenses that are crying out to do something useful and I have an M. I know there are a million FD - M convertors on eBay and most are pretty cheap and there is no glass or real engineering in them, so just wondered if you had a recommendation.

23
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:20:01 PM »
I like nine, that is three triple threats worth and means you can do HSS in most situations with enough power and flexibility as either a "two light" six and three setup or a "three light" three threes setup, I tend not to use external packs as I don't take hundreds of images. I also really like the ability to sprinkle them all over the place as accent lights individually. But that is a big financial commitment and the truth is there are some other options out there now that look good and do HSS,  especially the Profoto B1Airs.

But like RLP, once it get above that I go for the Einsteins, most of the time I'd rather use one Einstein than six 600's in a modifier anyway.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:07:36 PM »
Absolutely no compelling, or even particularly good, reason to. But I do have several good reasons to stay.

I do use the RT flash system a lot, though that could be done with Nikon via the Phottix Odins, I use the 17TS-E a lot and that can't be copied by any other system. I have a $20,000 investment in Canon that owes me nothing and I, and the clients that paid for it, are more than happy with the output from my 7 year old cameras.

If I were to switch to new gear it could only be Nikon, it would still be a DSLR, I  would have no size or weight advantages and several lens disadvantages. I would have slightly better IQ in some situations but they are not my normal shooting scenarios, if I sold my current gear and bought closest equivalent new Nikon stuff it would cost me another $10,000, if I bought used it wouldn't cost me much but I'd lose my most used lens.

I am happy with what I have, I would like a 1Dx MkII to have 24MP and then I'd replace my 1Ds MkIII's and I am pretty much set for the rest of my working career, sure there will be ever more improvements, and I'd like them, but I won't pay for them because to me this gear is nothing but tools and anything I spend on them is money I can't spend on me.

25
Canon General / Re: Square or cross shaped sensors
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:10:16 PM »
i've asked this question before. I figured that a square would also provide the most area, but smarter people than me said that wasn't correct. they stated that a 3x2 sensor provided more area. i think someone even posted a mock up graphic of the formats laying onto of each other. i never bothered to do the math, but i still think the square would be larger, or am i just missing something? more importantly to me, i just prefer a 4x5 or so ratio most of the time. for me, 3x2 is usually a bit to wide for most stuff and not nearly wide enough when i want to go wide. sure i just stitch, but sometimes things are moving and that just doesn't work out to well.
  almost forgot- cross shaped sensors? ain't nobody got time for that one. how about we settle on a square and i open a business selling cross shaped GOBOs in spin on filters! sweet!!

That was me.


26
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 05:30:49 PM »


0.2/0.2/0.1% -> 15.1%/14.%/9.6%

Very significant shift in "pixel levels as percentages."

Are these numbers unacceptable because I lifted information that looks black on screen, but wasn't black in real life, just so it would look realistic, as in "what I see with my own eyes", in the final photo? I mean, this is an invalid test of dynamic range, is it not? Oh, BTW, look at the histogram. I was fully ETTRed...there was no room left to "optimize" my exposure. The highlights were already riding up the right-hand wall. Some of them ARE clipped in these photos.

Here are both histograms:



BOTH cameras were fully ETTRed. Note, however, that in the A7r histogram...it moves inward, at BOTH ends.

For those who are interested, even though these are just "from the hip" preliminary examples, here are the RAWs:

http://1drv.ms/1ol6Km5

It isn't unimpressive, but it still has no practical value for me, the window blooming and complete lack of tonal detail in three quarters of the A7r shot makes the image unusable even though you can remove the noise. Obviously the 5D MkIII shot is also unusable.

In this particular scenario, whilst I understand is an off the hip trial, the A7r certainly doesn't convince me to get one for my real estate work as I would still need to bracket and blend, or light the room, or any number of other techniques I currently use.

I look forward to the fuller tests.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 05:24:14 PM »
No it wouldn't, a +100 shadow lift is a +100 shadow lift, it doesn't matter where the highlights are, or even if there are any. The entire image is as irrelevant as it was in sarangiman's crop which all the DR'ers thought was "amazing", see what you are doing here? Trying to make what you want/expect to see fit into what you actually do see.

This is completely misleading. A +100 shadow lift is not just a +100 shadow lift as you're implying. Whether or not you see banding/noise depends on where the tones you're pushing initially resided in the 16-bit Raw file.

It's pointless to have any other discussions until you at least appreciate that.

Unless you can explain better why that is misleading, after all the RGB values increase exactly the same numbers as an exposure slider lift does, then I agree, you and I have nothing to discuss.

What, specifically, is misleading?

It's not just about the amount of the push. It's (the signal of) what you're pushing.

And, no, I'm sorry, I don't have time to write a novel on this right now. Honestly, I'm not being snarky. Perhaps someone else can explain.

I don't need a novel, I need a cohesive thought that can be backed up with supporting information. You think you know but you don't, you think you can explain but you can't, very convincing........

What don't you understand about RGB values in the low single digit percentages being shadow detail?

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 04:55:25 PM »
No it wouldn't, a +100 shadow lift is a +100 shadow lift, it doesn't matter where the highlights are, or even if there are any. The entire image is as irrelevant as it was in sarangiman's crop which all the DR'ers thought was "amazing", see what you are doing here? Trying to make what you want/expect to see fit into what you actually do see.

This is completely misleading. A +100 shadow lift is not just a +100 shadow lift as you're implying. Whether or not you see banding/noise depends on where the tones you're pushing initially resided in the 16-bit Raw file.

It's pointless to have any other discussions until you at least appreciate that.

Unless you can explain better why that is misleading, after all the RGB values increase exactly the same numbers as an exposure slider lift does, then I agree, you and I have nothing to discuss.

What, specifically, is misleading?

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 26, 2014, 04:01:11 PM »
You can have very high contrast and no issues with shadow detail, you are in control!

It is like people who blast two lights at full power onto the background and then have all kinds of scatter and pollution to worry about, make the blacks just black and create an import profile with a touch of the "Blacks" slider and you are done. Very high contrast and as much shadow detail as you want with zero noise.

Stop thinking camera exposure, start thinking light for the optimal exposure to get the look I want when combined with an import profile, it will save you a shitload of time and money and get you the results you want with the gear you have.
This is what I do
http://robertodemicheli.4ormat.com/
I know my light modifiers and I've played with high end equipment (profoto and broncolor)
I'd rather not be patronized thanks

I am not patronising you, I am giving you a kick up the butt, there is no more than seven stops of DR in your opening page, if you are reaching into shadows to recover detail there is something wrong with your technique, that is just a fact. Take it from me anonymously or learn it in time from somebody in person, I don't care. You have 100% control over everything, hell even your beach shots have so much flash power you can control the blacks and contrast to 1/10 stop.

If you got me to "assist" I'd have you shooting tethered into Capture One and have you dialed in with limitless shadow detail in under an hour, for life.

And don't think I am acting like some internet hero, I am not, I am sure I could learn as much if not more from you, than you could from me, but that doesn't mean either of us will ever know enough.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 03:48:47 PM »
You have fallen into the first trap of comparative capabilities testing, the same exposure settings, you need to bracket 1/3 stop for a full stop either way to get the optimal exposure for highlight retention from each system.

You yourself said your 7D had better highlight capabilities than your 5D MkIII you need to explore that in the 5D MkIII and A7r if you want to conduct a thorough comparison.

You know, you guys keep blaming me for moving the goal posts. You just moved them yourself, from the position you are always preaching from: No one cares about the science, they just care about making photos.

Well, that's the approach I took here. I didn't actually set the exposures to the same thing purposely. Look at the unpushed originals...the highlights are the same. I pointed the cameras, adjusted exposure to preserve the highlights (which was actually easier with the A7r, because of the EVF...which was horribly pixelated and showed a lot of moire... :-\ I took one shot with the A7r based on the EVF. I had to take a few with the 5D III to find the point where the highlights weren't clipped), and I took the shots. Both showed -3EV...I didn't TRY to make it -3EV...that's just what they showed. Not surprising, either, give the fact that both cameras were shooting the exact same scene. If there was a large discrepancy between the cameras metering, I'd have been suspicious that one of them was metering wrong, or metering with a different mode. I'm not generalizing about the EV either...it wasn't -2 2/3 EV in one and -3 EV in the other...both showed -3EV. I can't imagine it being correct any other way.

Oh, I also just looked at the A7r image...it says ISO 80. I did not choose that ISO...I'm not sure if that's it's default, but I don't think the A7r has a native ISO 80. I don't know what that does to DR...using expanded ISOs on Nikon Exmor cameras usually cost you a little DR, so the A7r image could very well not be the best possible exposure. Still, I wasn't trying to make the exposures the same...I was trying to preserve the highlights the same.

Fault me for being scientific. Fault me for not being scientific, and just being a photographer. LOL, it really doesn't matter what I do, it will never be sufficient. But I don't really care. It doesn't really matter either way. I'll be sharing the RAWs soon here. Then you guys can pick em apart to your hearts content.

Dude, don't over react, I made a simple suggestion that makes sense, I haven't changed anything, I have been entirely consistent for years on this subject, you can't expose different cameras the same EV value to get optimal results, it used to drive Mikael mad and I don't know or understand why, but it is true.

I appreciate it is an informal quick "test" example, I was adding to the conversation to help it be more authoritative, you don't see me being all paranoid do you? Relax, if you want the conversation I'll have it, if you don't then I won't.

My honest reaction when I imported your jpegs into LR was that they are both unusably bad, I wasn't surprised at that being the case for the 5D mkIII, I did expect the A7r to be "better" than it appears via jpeg at first glance though, yes it is much better than the 5D mkIII, but it is still unusable.

If you do want to continue the conversation I am interested to see RAW's and "optimal" exposures, something none of the test sites ever do.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 164