December 19, 2014, 08:18:49 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 190
376
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.

377
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.

378
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.

379
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.

380
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

381
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.........

382
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.

383
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...........

384
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.

385
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.

386
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:48:01 PM »
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.

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 know many consider me to be as rude and bad tempered as anybody, I don't, not really, I am reactionary by nature and need provocation to rise to make a counterpoint and bother with the time to post, and my posts virtually always come from the perspective of hands on experience or personal observation. I also post if I just like people, I post to genuinely help people often hence my hundreds of strictly illustrative image posts and several videos.

387
EOS Bodies / Re: No EOS-1D X Replacement in 2014 [CR2]
« on: September 29, 2014, 01:38:54 PM »
Just curious – why would Canon need to replace the 1D-X? It looks to me that the Nikon D4-S has similar or lesser specs. No other camera competes in this market segment, so why do people think it will be replaced anytime soon?


Because long time Canon 1 series users have been forced into a choice that doesn't sit well. When the 1Ds MkIII came out it was the sensor king, the resolution has proven to be good enough for many but the bodies are old and in need of replacement. There is a market for a high MP 1 series, but there is also a market for a true 1Ds MkIII replacement, a 24MP 1 series with a now attainable high frame rate with all the modern touches like metering, AF, full RT flash integration, iso capabilities, etc etc.

I believe those after a high MP 1 series wouldn't care too much for the form factor, they would take a regular body design and additional grip option, whereas the core 1 series market has now gotten used to the battery power and rugged functionality of the all in one design.

To be sure, a 1Dx MkII if it were 21-24 MP and 12 fps would be a true 1D MkIV and 1Ds MkIII replacement, the 1DX was not, that there are many out there that would buy into a high mp body, they will do that whatever the form factor.

I also believe the days of the $8,000 DSLR are over though the ten years it worked were pretty cool, it makes much more sense, which means it won't happen, to have a high MP D810 competitor with a similar form factor around $3,500 heck just stick the sensor in a 5D MkIII and change the top plate, and a single 1 series with 24MP and 12fp for $6,000.

388
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 29, 2014, 01:18:38 PM »

Hyper sync - long duration flash over the entire curtain movement

True high sync speeds - standard sync method but @ above 1/250th. (Which is still the best and most efficient but expensive.)

HSS - pulsed flash over the duration of the curtain movement.


Agree on all counts, I'd just point out the often overlooked problem with flash duration and power output for "True high sync speeds", at this point in time full power flash pulses are not that fast, the Einstein for instance, which is often used as a perfect example of short flash duration, has a full power discharge duration of 1/588 of a second, and when we are opening up our lenses for narrow dof and balancing ambient and flash that full power can easily be used.

389
Lighting / Re: Speedlites - How many are enough?
« on: September 29, 2014, 10:29:10 AM »
We really need to stop calling lights with long durations and tuned to cover the time the shutter blades are exposing the sensor HSS, the two work in a fundamentally different way, long duration is not HSS, and both cost a massive amount of power.
Hah! Interesting point. HSS...strictly technically no but practically yes. What is it that defines "true HSS"?

We may have strayed from the strict HSS definition, but it's a useful terminology that people understand.
Think of it as living language. The acronym HSS communicates a function....High Speed Sync. Simple enough.

So what do we call it? We're achieving flash sync at a high shutter speed. We understand the limitations such as significant power loss, but it's still a very useful, relevant creative tool. Sounds a bit HSS-ish to me!

-pw
That is a grey area but let's call it what it originally was called Hyper sync. That version of sync causes you to lose tremendous power out of the strobe, flash duration and will eat through your VMLs quicker. In a sense, it's a work around but not a solution if you still need maximum power and short durations.

True high sync speed out of a x100/leaf shutter cameras is actual HSS. One pop within the full opening of the sensor and closing at above normal sync speeds.

Only if the flash duration happens in the time that the shutter is fully open, which at close to full power is never the case. Leaf shutter sync above "normal" speeds relies on very short flash duration. It is easy to prove because raising the flash power won't increase exposure (or even worse uneven exposure/heavy vignetting), leaf shutters work like an effective second aperture.

And I'd probably disagree with your definition of HSS, because it isn't "one pop within the full opening of the sensor", HSS is multiple flashes timed such that the exposure is even across the frame. I am not looking for a fight, just laying out the way it works.

I think the key is the difference between relying on very long (hypersync) or short (leaf shutters) duration flash, and pulsed "HSS" flash via modern IGBT circuitry. Hyper sync relies on long flash duration and no flashes give off even light across the duration of the exposure, though it is often even enough to be good. Leaf shutter sync relies on very fast flash duration which doesn't happen with high flash outputs.

This core difference in newer and older flash tech is where so many doors have been opened, but they have been workarounds and kludges. The plethora of new battery powered "studio" strobes like the Profoto B1 and the Phottix Indra 500 TTL, a Yongnuo version etc, all have genuine HSS IGBT pulsed flash capabilities, as could the Einstein if PCB ever decided to write the firmware.

390
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS-1D X Body $4799
« on: September 29, 2014, 08:33:21 AM »
When I see sales like this I always wonder if the cameras/lenses are returned items?

Well if they are, which I am sure they are not, they would be breaking the law. They are advertised as new, which means they have to be "new".

Canon sells the refurbs.

Most big retailers like B&H and Adorama have a resale clause in their purchase agreement, I suspect if they still have zero shutter counts, something only resetable by Canon, then most retailers will sell as new a previously sold and returned item.


No dealer would sell an item in loss, especially a current model. So even if the dealer is selling it for the price they bought the item from Canon for would it be a correct assumption that the dealer's mark up is $2000? And ASSUMING Canon made a profit of $1000, then would it be correct assumption that the mark ups on the camera is around $3000?

No dealer would, but an importer or distributor would. If, for instance, Canon Thailand had 400 sitting around not moving, and they knew they were not going to sell more than 100 a year then they might easily sell 200 at a reduced price to get most of their money back before a newer version comes and the value drops even more.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 190