February 01, 2015, 04:11:04 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 135
1591
EOS Bodies / Re: digic 4 vs digic 5
« on: December 06, 2011, 10:13:39 AM »
Note that there are two 'flavors' - Digic5 and Digic5+.

The new Digic 5 processor is 6X faster and creates 75% less noise than the Digic 4 processor.

Compared with the predecessor, Canon's DIGIC 4 Image Processor, the Dual DIGIC 5+ Image Processor offers approximately 17x faster processing speed, and feature new algorithms that promote greater noise reduction at higher ISOs.

Neuro... in a prior thread you mentioned that the ADC creates/applies the noise whether it be analog or digital depending on ISO and the digic just processes the files to create the cleanest files possible given the situation...  Given the above statement about the digic creating the 75% less noise compared to digic 4, I'll take it that this is Noise Reduction, but would it also be an improved ADC as well to work in conjunction allowing a 75% reduction in noise or ?   

1592
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mkII - 7D
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:13:19 PM »
If you are pleased with your 30D and t2i quality files, then the benefits of the 7D will be a huge improvement, if not in image quality but handling, AF, etc... The 5d2 is a great camera, but in low light, without using 2.8 or faster lenses, will hunt as much if not more than the 7D and the responsiveness of the 7D cannot be overstated.  ISO quality as neuro suggested is better on the 5D2 but probably not as much as one could expect, but better nonetheless.  7D would suit you well for the time being and whenever the 5d3 comes out, by all means you aim for that camera then. 

1593
From what i recall, a 6-8 MP camera can pump out a nice 8x10, which most 35mm negative B&w and color film were printed at... I've heard/seen arguments that depending on the best color slide ISO 50 film had enough detail to equate up to 24MP give or take... You should get great 8x10 prints or smaller with 6-8MP but if you got slides, you could even try upping the MP to 24 if you really want to print large, but that's your call... Digital 300 DPI vs film printing are kinda 2 separate animals but in a jumbled mess, there you go...

PS... the only reason why a lab would scan 2MP is because of speed and lack of corrections needed on the labs part to make good files.  Scanning lends to a lot of messy dust and scratches if not done with the most pristine conditions and it makes the lab look bad sending back files with white specs everywhere and retouchers time are precious unless they are billing specifically for that job, so yeah...

1594
EOS Bodies / Re: How to Lose $2400 in 24 Seconds
« on: December 01, 2011, 03:15:54 PM »
awesome... =)

1595
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera Release Model
« on: November 30, 2011, 01:58:49 PM »
One of the things why a brand new car drops several thousands of dollars when it drives off the lot is because it's now used (plus all the mark-up they add to it... )  I think if they start pumping out pro cameras every year, incremental or not, a few problems arise... A higher defect/recall/QC concern and with a more saturated market of pro cameras, it's going to drive down the price they can demand for their top cameras... when I had my 10D and when I sold my 10D, I was able to resell it for a good chunk of what I bought my new camera (at the time)... Now adays, with my 7D for instance, because the market is saturated, I could sell it for maybe a $500-600 hit if not more... and it's only 2 years old.. If there's a higher saturation in the market, fewer and fewer people would be buying new and getting used gear 1-2 years old... That could drive down prices on fewer models sold new... Plus when you tack on costs of production, research and development, etc... It probably doesn't make sense for them...

One thing I wouldn't object to is option upgrades/firmwares which could (at an owners expense/option) purchase an upgraded firmware that adds even more functionity/goodies to the camera or maybe offering cameras with basic software packages at a cheaper price and having additional add-ons/packages for new software or firmwares that unlocks certain features or expands upon the camera... I could see that more as a possibility that over-saturating the market with pro cameras...

1596
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: November 30, 2011, 10:43:51 AM »
Hi,
    IMHO, you should compare using camera with different pixel size, but with the same technology and image processing unit. My suggestion will be using 5DII and 60D as both basically use the same technology and image processing unit... the only different is the pixel size.

   Basically, took a similar image using under similar shooting condition and camera setting (should not be a problem since both are current Canon DSLR). Crop out 3479 x 2324 from the image shoot using 5DII... this should simulate a 8MP APS-C sensor (with pixel size 6.4um... a 350D using current sensor and image processing techology). Now resize the 7D 18MP to the same resolution (3479 x 2324) and compare the noise performance.

   Just my $0.02.

   Have a nice day.

Naw... then you're getting into the Full frame/crop sensor debate... crop vs crop, full frame vs full frame... 5d2 and D700 or if you want to stick with canon, 7d vs rebel xs?  Heck even the 5d vs 5d2.. but then you got 2 different generations of cameras all together... but you get my point. 

1597
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 29, 2011, 03:39:59 PM »
** On the digic5 press release I vaguely remember a key note at reduced noise... Canon claims in the above statement that the digic processes the image, hence controlling the noise...  So it make perfect sense that the digic, if you take the statement above at face value, that the digic controls the noise better than the intel computer in this regards.

Awinphoto, yes absolutely the DIGIC processor "processes" or "develops" the image from the original read out values coming out the sensor.  It also creates the RAW file which is more than just the pixel values and is a proprietary format.  However, in terms of processing or developing an image, I believe that has more to do with producing the JPEG rather than creating the RAW file.  Good point about "if we believe" as certainly anything we read from Canon has marketing spin (not that they're lying but could be exaggerating).

The DIGIC processor only sees the output from the A/D converter... in other words it's already digitally encoded and therefore no more noise will be added (processing artifacts possibly, but again that's more about producing the JPEG).   DIGIC5 is getting quite powerful but in general an in camera processor is subject to constraints (speed, power) that the computer is not and because of this some noise reduction algorithms, etc. that are too slow for in camera use could be used in post processing allow additional tools but not less.

Other than the fact CR2 is proprietary and Canon might know things about the data in the file that a 3rd party application would not be able to access, I doubt the DIGIC processor can do anything that can't be done on a computer and even then Canon would build that functionality in to DPP.

For the most part, I get your question but to be honest, i'm not that geeky to pretend to have have that answer... I could pose a question to canon's cps reps next time we meet however i'm sure there's information there where they could tell me but then they would have to kill me.  =)  All i know is, in practice, in camera ISO boosting is cleaner than pushing in post production... I cant quite tell you why but it is what it is, for now.   

1598
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 29, 2011, 01:17:46 PM »
Just to add another factor and confuse everything a little bit more!

The other unmentioned issue is that of shutter speed, and all of this will be a little less accurate if shutter speed isn't considered.  a 1/500 sec exposure and a Push, or high Iso is going to have very different results to a 5 Sec exposure.  In most cases a 1 stop on the shutter speed will not have as large an effect as a push or Iso stop, but then that assumes that you're photographing a still subject with a tripod, if it's moving and you need fast speeds it's not of as much importance, but still needs consideration in the round.

Are you referring to reciprocity and or long exposure noise referring to shutter speed?  In the past with leaf shutters there used to be wide varaitions of speeds hence you had to have your leaf lenses with shutters built in tested regularly to insure your exposure was correct (wrong exposure could add noise especially if you had to correct in developing and or printing) but I'm just trying to get on the same page here....

1599
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: November 29, 2011, 01:02:16 PM »
Please understand this was my experience with my copy i received of the lens and sometimes, it did produce incredibly sharp images, however to be fair, i would almost have to shoot a few duds to get the great focus shot... My 7D never has had problems with focus on any lens 17-40, 50mm macro, 50mm 1.4, 24-70 and 24-105, 70-200's, etc... but this one my camera gave me fits... I dont know if it's the AF focus motor that was weak or needs to be warmed up, but in the professional world, I need my gear to work when i need it to work and cant afford to miss that shot because my lens isn't warmed up.

1600
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: November 29, 2011, 11:54:48 AM »
I borrowed the 1.2L from canon and the 1.4 from canon before I made my purchase... I love the build and durability and USM of the 1.2L, but when it came down to practice, to me, even after MA, even after a lot of playing with it, it isn't that reliable....  On my cameras, my AF struggled with it for whatever reason... some photos would be spot on focus, and others (even after focus confirmation on) the photos were off...  It kinda gave me a weird "warmup" period where if i let the camera sit for a few moments and pick it up and start firing... the first 5-10 shots, the AF would be horrid... but once the camera and lens got warmed up the focus would target on and nail shot after shot after shot...  This was on my 7D.  I would be swayed in ruling a problem with MA if it wasn't for the fact that once it warmed up and had shots fired, it would eventually nail focus and be consistent from that point on... I also experienced problems with live view and manual focus showing focus and then taking the picture, the focus would be off... The lens just had too many quirks... the 1.4 is a lot older, archaic, clunky, sometimes hit and miss even with the halation, but it is a lot more consistent shot to shot and I frankly cant afford such a temperamental lens if I'm going to be plunking down that much money... I just feel canon whiffed on this lens even though i really did truely want to love this lens. 

1601
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: November 29, 2011, 10:07:21 AM »
I think the DPP processing looks better than GIMP.  But I'm not sure the comparison is entirely valid.  The in-camera conversion to sRAW isn't just downsampling the image.  As the image is downsampled, it's increased from 14- to 15-bit to prevent quantization error, then 4:2:2 chroma subsampled (i.e., color detail discarded).  That's done because just downsampling isn't enough file size savings for sRAW - before downsampling, the file must be demosaiced (in camera), so even downsampled, without the chroma subsampling it would be larger than the original RAW file

That's exactly what I thought... You need to seperate cameras/sensors shot at full res and then downsample so they match... maybe a 7d vs rebel?  Well maybe a lower res rebel...

1602
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 29, 2011, 09:07:49 AM »
Meh,  I did a quick search and this is what Canon says about the current digic 4 processor:

The performance of a digital camera is largely determined by three key components: the lens, the image sensor (CMOS or CCD), and the image processor. The image sensor, which takes the light entering the camera through the lens and converts it into electrical signals, can be compared to the film used in a traditional film camera, while the image processor "develops" the image. If any one of these three components is of substandard quality, it will negatively affect the images that the camera produces. Canon, which has been making cameras for over 70 years, develops its own lens units and CMOS sensors in-house, and has for some years now also been designing its own image processors: the DIGIC digital image processors.

The evolution of the DIGIC image processor has been the result of an ongoing search for higher and higher levels of image quality and faster speeds. DIGIC 4, which Canon began using in its camera products in the fall of 2008, represents the sixth generation of DIGIC processors. Compared with first-generation DIGIC processors, device performance has improved 50-fold in the space of just 10 years.
Today's DIGIC image processor does more than mere image processing: It controls a wide range of functions and circuits, including automatic exposure control, exposure mode control, image file compression/playback control, LCD display control, and more. All of these functions are contained in a single-chip system large-scale integrated circuit (LSI), and the same image-processing platform can be used in any Canon digital camera, including the Digital ELPH/IXUS and PowerShot series of compact digital cameras, and the EOS digital SLR (single-lens reflex) camera series.

One could say that DIGIC is the "brain" of Canon digital cameras. DIGIC 4, the latest version of the DIGIC digital image processor, provides dramatic improvements in terms of image quality and processing speed. So how have these advances in processor design been achieved? We talked to four members of the DIGIC 4 development team to find out more.

** On the digic5 press release I vaguely remember a key note at reduced noise... Canon claims in the above statement that the digic processes the image, hence controlling the noise...  So it make perfect sense that the digic, if you take the statement above at face value, that the digic controls the noise better than the intel computer in this regards. 

1603
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 09:52:28 PM »
Great advice as usual neuro.  Noise will always be minimized by getting the brightest image you can get without blowing any highlights.  One line of your response is what actually answers the OP...

But, if you've got the aperture and shutter speed you want for the shot, you're better off bumping up the ISO in the camera rather than in post.

But why is that the case?  In other words, why does the camera do a better job of increasing the exposure (by ISO setting that is applied after the exposure) than adjusting the exposure in post (DPP, DxO, LR, etc.)?

I'm not going to pretend i'm an expert at sensors, neuro may provide a better explanation, but I would have to say it's because the camera/sensor is the first to see and process the file and can do what it needs to do with those beautiful digic processors and sensor to provide the best image possible... where as when you do it in post, the computer is pretty much blind in the essence that all it "see's" is code and information of the digital file that your camera CREATED... Then when you do heavy post to it, it's amplifying the information of the digital file but basically it's creating information where information wasn't there to begin with, so your left with the noise as a result...  It didn't/doesn't know exactly what was there so it does it's best to guess for you.  It was kinda the same in film... you could underexpose and push the film in development or overexpose and pull the film, but it never was quite the same as nailing your exposure the first time... and even at that, like digital, you didn't want to push/pull your film more than 1 stop max unless you wanted some funky effects.

Ok, yes the RAW file as written to the card may have been already manipulated/processed and that could be an explanation why an ISO increase is superior to a post exposure increase, essentially that's what I'm asking... I don't know much about what is written in a RAW file vs. what the actual photosite measured values are, is there some data that is lost/changed/hidden/discarded by the time the RAW file is written.  But I'll disagree that the camera's processor (DIGIC for Canon) can do anything an Intel CPU can do.  DIGIC is in part optimized for certain Digital Signal Processing directly in hardware whereas your computer CPU is truly general purpose and relies on software so it is possibly slower but not worse.

I'm not saying that the digic can do miracles the intel CPU cant, but what i am saying is the digic, at the time of capture, can have access to information that the CPU just cant, such as information about how much light is hitting the sensor, any extra tidbits of information the sensor can pump out in certain areas, etc... The computer in dark areas just recognizes dark areas with little to no information in the dark areas, hence when you try to then increase the lightness, the camera is essentially guessing at what should be there whereas the digic doesn't have to guess, it just reads the information from the sensor and processes it directly in real time... no guessing really needed. 

1604
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 06:52:49 PM »
Great advice as usual neuro.  Noise will always be minimized by getting the brightest image you can get without blowing any highlights.  One line of your response is what actually answers the OP...

But, if you've got the aperture and shutter speed you want for the shot, you're better off bumping up the ISO in the camera rather than in post.

But why is that the case?  In other words, why does the camera do a better job of increasing the exposure (by ISO setting that is applied after the exposure) than adjusting the exposure in post (DPP, DxO, LR, etc.)?

I'm not going to pretend i'm an expert at sensors, neuro may provide a better explanation, but I would have to say it's because the camera/sensor is the first to see and process the file and can do what it needs to do with those beautiful digic processors and sensor to provide the best image possible... where as when you do it in post, the computer is pretty much blind in the essence that all it "see's" is code and information of the digital file that your camera CREATED... Then when you do heavy post to it, it's amplifying the information of the digital file but basically it's creating information where information wasn't there to begin with, so your left with the noise as a result...  It didn't/doesn't know exactly what was there so it does it's best to guess for you.  It was kinda the same in film... you could underexpose and push the film in development or overexpose and pull the film, but it never was quite the same as nailing your exposure the first time... and even at that, like digital, you didn't want to push/pull your film more than 1 stop max unless you wanted some funky effects. 

1605
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:56:20 PM »
It's also worth noting that the lower ISO image in my test came out warmer than the ISO 2500 image which came out cooler... both shot with AWB and my lights are constant output lights so nothing color wise changed... For what it's worth (the cooler color was more accurate to the actual sceen) albeit the warmer color was more pleasant to look at. 

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 135