November 22, 2014, 08:22:59 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 184
286
Given your scientific background, perhaps you could propose such a test?  It seems to me that any fair test will be contrived in much the same way that tests of similar lenses are contrived by use of test charts, which are not common "actual shooting scenarios."  Just as we extrapolate test-chart performance to real-world performance, so, I would hope, we could have a contrived test that would provide some insight regarding real-world performance.

Personally I'd just like to see real world images from regular shooting scenarios where the differences in DR make an appreciable difference to the output image quality.

We all agree there is a difference in shadow lifting capability between the Exmor and Canon, what the DRoners seem incapable of doing is posting simple real world images illustrating this making an actual noticeable impact on image quality.

It is always contrived tests that normally fall flat, seriously do you think either room shot is worth a damn?

To be sure, there are times when that 2, or whatever number of stops difference it is, will make a difference, but it seems to me, and many others, those occasions are actually very few and far between, which raises the common sense question 'how useful a feature is it?' Don't get me wrong, when I get I will be happy, but I am not seriously limited by not having it and I have seen very few images to convince me otherwise.

Ah, I see you've missed one of jrista's major points.  My reading is that he agrees with you that, in all but a few cases, you can get indistinguishable results from a Canon sensor.  What he further asserts (and I'd love to see tested in some reasonable way) is that there is a significantly larger number of cases where it's easier and much less work to achieve the desired result with a sony sensor than with a Canon sensor.  That has the potential to be much more important.  If, for example, you can achieve your desired look in 5 minutes of PP on a sony sensor, and that same (or indistinguishable) look would take 30 minutes on a Canon sensor, isn't that also important?

Again, I'd like to see this tested properly, but it requires a well-designed test to account for the variability of PP skills.

Over the course of his rantings, diatribes and lectures he has made many many claims, some of which are quite outlandish. I can't be bothered to cherry pick them, but many of them are just absurd, and that is the main reason for this ridiculous overrun on the subject.

Getting back to the actual interesting bit here is a simple example of how much it really matters. I shoot a lot of interiors with window detail like the first post, severe DR scenes, I follow many pros who do similar work and when you get to the above real estate listings shooters the vast majority of the notable shooters are shooting Canon, why when the DR is always on our minds and often a pain in the butt? Lenses. It turns out that the differences in the 17TS-E and the Nikon? and the 24 TS-E MkII and the Nikon PC-E24mm make more of a difference to full time pros than the differences in post processing.

I would be the perfect candidate for the previously mentioned "huge" and "a lot of the time", but it just isn't true.

It is yet another one of those overinflated features, the small differences between makes and models that some people seem to get so passionate about. The Nikon D750 threads are tearing up the forums with their "not a D700 successor" comments over PC sockets etc.

It won't end and we each have to make our own choices, what jrista and the DRoners seem to refuse to accept is that many of us who own Canon cameras, and use them to good effect, made our choice from the standpoint of an intelligent and educated position, all systems are compromises, I choose to compromise DR/shadow lifting capabilities because it has less of an impact on my shooting than lens availability.

287

....So I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who will disagree with the following statement. If not, there is not a lot more to say:

"Sony sensors do have measurably higher DR than existing Canon sensors. They have measurably and visibly lower read noise and banding too. The lower DR of Canons and the appearance of banding can be a factor in some photos and significantly reduce the quality of the end file. While this may not be important to most people most of the time - and here the Canons are just great - it is hugely important to some people a lot of the time because of how they use their cameras and what they use them for."

So?

The first seven points are self indulgent fluff that have been debated ad nauseum, you choose to take the Exmor "high ground" and ignore the extensive rebuttals that have been put forwards to your oversimplifications, that is your choice.

Your closing statement, like many of these comments, has broad support from both sides, but the devil is in the detail, "huge" we disagree on, two stops is two stops, most pros can deal with two stops in a variety of ways, and I can only speak from the point of view of a professional photographer. We also disagree on "a lot of the time", if that were true we'd have people posting lots of images where that difference made a difference, and we don't.

Change "huge" to small, and change "a lot of the time" to rarely or sometimes, and you might be in with a shot.

288
DR/shadow recovery is better with Exmor, well done, we have all known and agreed that for, well, ever. What we disagree on is how much difference that actually makes to most people most of the time in actual shooting scenarios, and your "test" did nothing to further that.

^^ This.

It sounds like jrista proved something to himself about actually using the a7R, so there was some utility to him I hope.

Given your scientific background, perhaps you could propose such a test?  It seems to me that any fair test will be contrived in much the same way that tests of similar lenses are contrived by use of test charts, which are not common "actual shooting scenarios."  Just as we extrapolate test-chart performance to real-world performance, so, I would hope, we could have a contrived test that would provide some insight regarding real-world performance.

Personally I'd just like to see real world images from regular shooting scenarios where the differences in DR make an appreciable difference to the output image quality.

We all agree there is a difference in shadow lifting capability between the Exmor and Canon, what the DRoners seem incapable of doing is posting simple real world images illustrating this making an actual noticeable impact on image quality.

It is always contrived tests that normally fall flat, seriously do you think either room shot is worth a damn?

To be sure, there are times when that 2, or whatever number of stops difference it is, will make a difference, but it seems to me, and many others, those occasions are actually very few and far between, which raises the common sense question 'how useful a feature is it?' Don't get me wrong, when I get I will be happy, but I am not seriously limited by not having it and I have seen very few images to convince me otherwise.

289
While I'm asking dumb questions... why aren't we just using hdr multiple exposures to capture some of our missing dynamic range... sure if the subject is moving... but it was a living room.

Because, as the example broke down and failed equally, it became about more than the room, it was about the lifting capability of an Exmor file, something we have all agreed on for a long time never disagreed about.


290
..If you're a fan of entirely predictable 'experiments' perhaps you'd like to drop an object – tennis ball, apple, your camera – from a couple of meters above the ground, and verify the existence of gravity.  Be sure to start a new forum topic to educate all of us on your findings.

Yes, I'm sure we' hear from a few anti-gravity types who will tell us that gravity is not really necessary or serves no practical purpose or that the experiments are contrived and have nothing to do with real life

And I am sure the people who conflate "anti" gravity with with practical applications of shadow recovery and the lack of tonality due to noise, or just because there is not much actual tonal value down there, will keep deliberately misrepresenting the views of the "anti" gravity crowd.

It seems the anti gravity crowds point is just to nuanced or subtle for the DRoners to comprehend.

291
Do you really believe the goal was to "preserve the view out of the window".

The goal was to do a dynamic range test BY preserving the view out of the window.

Which would be fine if he had done that. But on what planet is this crop of the widow view considered "preserving the view out of the window"? It is unmitigated garbage.

As shot both images are completely unusable in any real context, the DR was too extreme for either sensor to get a usable image in one shot let alone preserve the view out of the window, nothing was demonstrated very well other than what has been said and agreed so many times, when an image is severely underexposed the Exmor sensor will give less shadow noise. We all know and agree with that. We now also know that when the DR exceeds both sensors capabilities the results are equally unusable.

The issues your seeing around the window blinds were because I ETTRed heavily (attempting to put things in the "best light" for the 5D III). This is something I've argued against, and you can see the reasons why. If I had underexposed more, to prevent the CA from occurring around the blinds, I'd have been lambasted for not being "optimal" with my 5D III exposures. It doesn't matter how the test was done, it doesn't matter that it WAS intentionally looking for a very high DR scene. It really doesn't matter, none of it matters. Those who disagree that Canon DR suffers from their read noise will always disagree. They will always find a flaw with a test. That's fine, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

Yes, it's a contrived test. It was meant to be, as the intent was to push both cameras to the limits within the limited capabilities I had that day (I couldn't just pick up and take off into the mountains for a week looking for beautiful high DR landscapes, I still have a day job that pays all the bills.) My goal was to provide data. The data is there, the RAW images are there, they are still there and they will remain there. If people want to see the differences for themselves, contrived scenario or not, they can. That was my goal. The rest? Well, I'm really sick and tired of debating this. The attitudes people portray over this very clinical subject is ridiculous, and I'm tired of being party to any of it. It's become degrading, to both sides.

Just like always, making S___ up. Show me one person who has ever said that?

DR/shadow recovery is better with Exmor, well done, we have all known and agreed that for, well, ever. What we disagree on is how much difference that actually makes to most people most of the time in actual shooting scenarios, and your "test" did nothing to further that.

292
Do you really believe the goal was to "preserve the view out of the window".

The goal was to do a dynamic range test BY preserving the view out of the window.

Which would be fine if he had done that. But on what planet is this crop of the widow view considered "preserving the view out of the window"? It is unmitigated garbage.

As shot both images are completely unusable in any real context, the DR was too extreme for either sensor to get a usable image in one shot let alone preserve the view out of the window, nothing was demonstrated very well other than what has been said and agreed so many times, when an image is severely underexposed the Exmor sensor will give less shadow noise. We all know and agree with that. We now also know that when the DR exceeds both sensors capabilities the results are equally unusable.

293
EOS Bodies / Re: white balance issues
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:55:28 AM »
but what i mean is:

the camera set ti 2500K was still yellow (warm) under those horrible lights

i know that under those lights i will likely never get a perfect white balance,

what i am asking is, how did the camera set an even colder than 2500K white balance using the custom white balance? and why is this ability not available manually? because if i could i would have set the white balance half way between the coldest i could (2500K) and whatever setting it did using the custom WB, as one was too blue and the other too yellow

In answer to your original question. It is quite possible that the "Auto WB" settings have a wider range than the manual WB options, just like flashes in manual mode can only go down to 1/128 (or 1/64) but in ETTL they can go lower, but I doubt it, just look at the EXIF to see what the camera actually set and I am sure you will see the true difference is probably the tint value.

If you are just using the ºK value in manual WB you are missing the key Tint element to the WB equation. The camera, in auto WB, will assign a temp and tint value, in manual ºK the WB will not have a tint value applied.

As Neuro points out the capabilities of WB adjustments in DxO and PS ACR are the same, but the key to the van shot is RAW, WB corrections do not work on jpegs. If you are shooting in such difficult scenes regularly i would suggest relooking at an efficient RAW workflow, it takes no more time because you have batch and action recording capabilities in ACR/PS, they are much more powerful than in camera jpeg processing.

294
Well, Aglet's not quite as anonymous as you might suppose. http://a2bart.com/

You can browse his website and draw your own conclusions.

I like this one.  It's titled, "9th Street Bridge, SW" but I'd call it "Stairway to Heaven" because of all the artifacts in the sky.  Really speaks to having a high standard for image quality in the way one showcases their work.

I took the high quality outlets that represent him to be a true measure of his creative worth, one farm seed shop in Edmonton.

Apache Seeds, 10136 - 149 St NW Edmonton

With representation in the art world like that I find it very easy to take anything the guy says with complete seriousness. /sarcasm.

295
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 30, 2014, 03:04:49 PM »
Westcott Apollo 50"
http://www.fjwestcott.com/light-modifiers/halo-apollo/apollo/50-mega-js-apollo
Very good softbox for three or six flashes.



The Lightware forusquare
http://lightwaredirect.com/foursquare/index.html
Great modifier with much functionality.

Any Parabolic umbrella, The PCB PLM range are great value.
http://www.paulcbuff.com/plm.php

296
I wish I could go back in time and reshoot some of my images from the 1D, whilst they still stand up well there is no doubt that they would be much strnger images now with more modern gear.

Having said that, there is nothing I can shoot now that I couldn't shoot then. I think more modest gear makes no difference to your enthusiasm, indeed it seems many are just gear hounds with self described "GAS", which I find kind of pathetic. Yes this is a gear forum, not an image based forum, but surely the true pride in ownership comes from making great images not possession. The other thing that happens when people stretch to buy more expensive gear, they are less inclined to take risks with it, I have never babied any of my gear, cheap or expensive, so can't understand getting an expensive camera and being afraid of getting it wet, but that is just me.........

297
Curious about the setting... Are the walls a vibrant or subdued green?

Low ISO shots the A7 shows a more neon green while on the next set the 5DIII shows more neon green and the A7 show the subdued hue...

on boths sets something between the two would be pleasing to my eye (what little eye I have for such things)...

The colours really are irrelevant, both cameras can be used with profiles to make the colours identical.

Not exactly, color is more relevant than most other things on a camera...

Sure, you can do what you want with the colors both on camera and post. But all things being equal I wanted to know which one was spitting out accurate colors... From the pics they are each inaccurate at different settings.

Yes exactly, colour is completely irrelevant with RAW digital capture, just like WB. So which profile was set?

There is no such thing as "accurate colors" from RAW files, nothing can be rendered without a camera profile/picture style (well it can but you don't want to see it, it is green and dark with no contrast and a gamma of 1.0) choose one better to your liking, it is as simple as that.

298
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:06:25 PM »

It is a fact that Canon DR has not improved for years. Data from multiple sources corroborates that fact. IT can be derived from dark frames from any set of cameras. We can disagree as to what degree Canon's DR matters, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the same today as it was back in the 5D II days. If your so offended by that simple statement that you are going to insult everyone who brings up DR, then you should probably just extract yourself from the discussion.

The statement of empirically verified fact isn't intended to be inflammatory or insulting. It's just a fact, about an inanimate thing. If your taking personal insult at a cold, clinical statement such as that, then your taking a lot of offense at something that is NOT an insult, nor intended to be an insult. You then turn around, and say things like this:

That's exactly right. The only reason I defend the Canon sensor is to refut the outrageouse comments that have been made against it by a few people. There seem to be thousands of people read CR but aren't members, and I guess many are inexperienced in photography, and it annoys the hell out of me thinking of those people reading some of the asinine comments made here, by people who are more versed in sounding like they know what they are talking about than actually producing pictures.

You are so irate about some of the things people have said about an inanimate object, that you just have to turn around and start saying things about them? It's a freakin sensor! It cannot be insulted because it has no feelings. To be so loyal to a brand that you feel you have to take the insults to the sensor as personal insults yourself, and turn around and insult the intelligence of those making claims you disagree with (which is all this is...a simple disagreement), there is something not quite right there. As for whether the difference in DR has an impact on the quality of any given photographer's work...well that's a personal thing as well. It doesn't matter if Whiz Bang Superstar Photographer Butch Fantastic over here can make photographs loved by millions with any camera that touches his hands. That has nothing to do with Average Joe over there who has found, in their personal work, that they run into banding issues with Canon sensors a lot, and would prefer something better. It's THEIR work, THEIR photography, THEIR issue...that is limited by a CANON technology. If THEY want to discuss the merits of Canon improving DR, or their frustrations with the fact that Canon has not, they shouldn't have to worry about you coming down on their heads with a flurry of insults about their intelligence, or their skill, or their "not being as good as a pro" or anything else like that. You and that other person have different viewpoints on the issue. It's not to say that either is wrong, but when a guy like you starts personally insulting a guy like Average Joe, OF COURSE the conversation is going to get nastier.

This is a discussion about technology. It's a discussion about hardware. It's based on empirical data. Maybe we can pick apart what the word "improved" means, or how it applies to the context. The 6D gets 11.5 stops of DR compared toe the 5D II's 11.2 stops. Ok, sure, Canon "improved" the dynamic range on the 6D. But the amount of "improvement" there is completely irrelevant in the larger context of the ongoing issue with Canon DR...in that it is relevant and related to the dynamic range that can be achieved with pretty much any other brand's sensors. But it's mincing words there with the whole "what does improved" mean, or anything like that, as if for the pure sake of finding something in the words pro-DR fans write just so you can take issue with it.

We disagree. I believe it is a fact that Canon has not improved the dynamic range of their sensors for many years. That fact may change, with the 7D II, or the 5D IV, however given that I am someone who IS interested in having more DR in my Canon cameras, who has been disappointed by Canon again and again for years...I've made the choice to be skeptical of Canon's sensor "improvements" until I see the facts. Facts will change my mind, not some irate dude on a forum who takes comments about inanimate objects personally.

The tone of the DR debate can change. Everyone (on both sides) will have to decide to change though, and decide to stop insulting everyone over a discussion about inanimate things, to decide to stop taking it personally when someone says they don't like what a particular brand has done. Everyone has their opinions. If you think that someone's opinion is fundamentally incorrect, then back up your own claims with evidence that will change their mind, instead of insults. If they don't accept your evidence, then just agree to disagree, instead of flinging more insults.

I started a thread just to provide some actual RAW files so people could judge for themselves. Even that thread was run aground (almost from the start) with insults and anti-DR .... hate (many of those posts have been deleted now), so even keeping opinion out of the discussion isn't good enough for you guys. You have to crush the issue, exterminate it, eliminate it completely...that's the only thing that will satisfy you. Simple fact of the matter is, you can't eliminate it. It's THE issue with Canon cameras...and it will remain THE issue with Canon cameras until it is no longer an issue. Whether you think it matters or not.

That is exactly the kind of post I was talking about.

I am done.

Yes that is what they always talk about, but never post. They always say "but what if the scene had more DR then it would have been DR limited", then we get a post like jristas where the DR of the scene actually vastly outstrips even the Exmor.

I wouldn't say it outstripped the Exmor. The Exmor handled the 5-stop push well. Unless you intended to print that thing at 24", the only issue then would be the blooming. I think the blooming is a problem, but that is a different issue, and affected both cameras.

That is because your opinion is different to mine, and this "issue" is just down to opinions not lab measurements. You don't earn a reasonable portion of your livelihood shooting images like that for multi million dollar corporations, I do, I know they would not accept them, to me they are both useless.

Now, I really am done...........

299
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:01:45 PM »
It seems to me Sporgon and I are the only two who ever bother to post rebuffing Canon images and we are treated exactly the same way the DR's are. But yes it is very interesting the tone has now changed to the low end lifting capabilities rather than outright DR. It is also interesting to foresee the next battle ground about low end tonality, basically I don't see any whereas others suggest there is "massive amounts of useful data" down there, I then say 'there might be depending on your definition of "massive amounts of useful data" but there isn't any tonality'.


I don't get this. Dynamic range is dynamic range and it's always about the least bits and whether they are noise or signal. (or for displays about how much darker the deepest black it can show it compared to the brightest white) I don't see how anything has changed.

I know you don't.

"Dynamic range" in this  arena has a definition that is based on certain base levels, and people will set their own base levels of how much tonality and contrast before x amount of noise. Think about it, in a given bit depth the measurement variable is the same, we are talking about 14 bit files, they all have the same potential, what we actually end up arguing about is the floor level at which the signal is no longer useful, people say Exmor has masses of useful data very low down, which I dispute, they also say Canon files floor, the point at which noise overwhelms the signal, is much higher than an Exmor, which I agree with.

Our dispute boils down to how useful and necessary that bottom bit of signal is, I contend that the low Canon signal is useless because of noise and that the Exmor signal is useless because it contains no tonality. They maintain the Canon signal is useless much higher than I do and the Exmor floor is much lower than the Canon. These are all personal decisions, they are not scientific measurements. What I can sell is different to what you can sell.

If jristas image had shown he could take a single shot of an interior and hold exterior detail I would have ordered an A7s this morning, but it turned out that in my opinion, my personal one, that both files are unusable, the Canon because of the noise and the Sony because of the complete lack of tonality and blooming.

Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.



Yes that is what they always talk about, but never post. They always say "but what if the scene had more DR then it would have been DR limited", then we get a post like jristas where the DR of the scene actually vastly outstrips even the Exmor.

It turns out it is incredibly difficult to find these actual "real world examples" where the difference in sensor performance makes any real difference to the end image. That is why the "issue" perpetuates. Start posting dozens of real world images where there is a genuine real difference to the actual output image and there will be no dispute, but the pro DR base can't do that.

300
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:22:49 PM »
Yes you have the "right to discuss the topic" you do not have the right to turn every single thread, DR related or not, into your personal crusade, and in your calmer moments you would have to admit you have done that on too many occasions.

Also, you must see how "anti-DR crowd" is in itself an inflammatory comment, just like DRoners (which is at least accurate), not one person here, ever, has been "anti DR", they just are not as pro it as you are.

You have brought a lot of this negativity about the whole subject on yourself, with your lengthy diatribes berating anybody that questions any "fact" you surmise from data. No hands on experience until very recently, just data, meanwhile there have been many here who have had hands on owner experience, respected people like Mount Spokane and eml58 and others, and you have just ignored their input. Personally I print for several Nikon and Canon shooters and I just don't have the issues with either files that you seem to have.

It takes two to make a war, it takes two to make peace, and I have tried several times. Drop the insults and inaccurate epithets like "anti DR crowd", the hijacking of everybody's threads, the lengthy repetitive replies and the shouting, and we might gain some trust.

Like Sporgon said, we have moved on, the "issue" is not specifically DR, it is low end lifting and tonality along with the associated shadow noise. Shoot some step wedges and tone strips and lets see the comparative tonal lifting abilities. Drop the insanity that Canon sensors are breaking down at midpoints, because nobody believes that from looking at thousands of their own images, and concentrate on the truly weak points. But if you can't come up with illustrative images from realistic scenes that demonstrate real world problems from two optimally exposed RAW files (and that isn't where the histogram says you are about to clip highlights) you will always run in to serious push back from people that just don't have the issues you hypothesis about.

To be sure, this is not "yet another dig at the DRoners" it is a concerted effort to illustrate where a vocal rebuffer is coming from and what you need to do to better illustrate, and thus make, your point, not just to me, but to others watching the cat fights from the hills next to the CNN crew.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 184