Show Posts
1306
EOS Bodies / Re: Any thoughts on how the 5d3 will compare on dxo mark to the Nikon D800?
« on: April 02, 2012, 05:27:49 PM »
1. If your highlights are blown it means you over-exposed, simple as that. No sensor will ever bring back details blown to nothing even if it has 100 stops. You always expose to not blow the brightest part of a scene that you care about and then the darkest parts fall where they do, either above or below a usable noise floor.
2. It's not important to think of the exact print DxO numbers in absolute terms, they will only be correct for viewing an image at once particular scale. The more generally meaningful part is their relative values between various camera bodies.
3. Canon potentially (assuming this is all true and there were no legit hidden technical reasons) does deserve to get blasted for this, because, from what I've heard whispered about, while they have gone around trumpeting how infinitely far ahead in sensor design they were and how they could just sit around and rule the roost doing nothing or react, if actually need ever be, the real story is that they have been doing things like brushing aside IN-HOUSE (although in the DSLR or camera division) developed patents that would have increased dynamic range by 2 stops because they didn't care to bother, they just want to milk their old designs and fabs and charge more for it, their goal for the 5D3 was to first, insure increased profit margin per copy.
And they probably could've had a true 1920x1080 res video, at least in 1.6x crop mode, out of the 5D3 as well, but either didn't think of it in time or chose to leave it out in the end to protect the C300 and cinema line, never mind that their revolution was with the 5 series for video.
Yes, word is they had the tech to make it 2 stops better dynamic range, developed by an internal, but outside of Japan, division of Canon, but Canon DSLR Japan division wanted nothing to do with it and blew off their other division and here we are with Nikon/Sony looking in their rear view mirror at Canon DSLR sensor tech. One group was willing to put in the effort to build a better sensor an done group couldn't have cared less apparently.
I don't know if they still have access to those patents, whether they will look into them again now that they are getting blasted for being left behind in DR or how long it would take to get them into a working sensor at this point or if something was lost in translation and there was some sneaky little techincal thing that made the thing infeasible and they actually turned it down because it wasn't realistically workable.
4. If they made use of the internal patents and given it the cropped true 1920x1080 I bet this thing would be getting nearly universal praise even at $3500 and been one of their most universally praised releases. A few might still gripe a bit about MP, but I think the better part of that crowd would've been made happy enough with the 2 extra stops of dynamic range.
2. It's not important to think of the exact print DxO numbers in absolute terms, they will only be correct for viewing an image at once particular scale. The more generally meaningful part is their relative values between various camera bodies.
3. Canon potentially (assuming this is all true and there were no legit hidden technical reasons) does deserve to get blasted for this, because, from what I've heard whispered about, while they have gone around trumpeting how infinitely far ahead in sensor design they were and how they could just sit around and rule the roost doing nothing or react, if actually need ever be, the real story is that they have been doing things like brushing aside IN-HOUSE (although in the DSLR or camera division) developed patents that would have increased dynamic range by 2 stops because they didn't care to bother, they just want to milk their old designs and fabs and charge more for it, their goal for the 5D3 was to first, insure increased profit margin per copy.
And they probably could've had a true 1920x1080 res video, at least in 1.6x crop mode, out of the 5D3 as well, but either didn't think of it in time or chose to leave it out in the end to protect the C300 and cinema line, never mind that their revolution was with the 5 series for video.
Yes, word is they had the tech to make it 2 stops better dynamic range, developed by an internal, but outside of Japan, division of Canon, but Canon DSLR Japan division wanted nothing to do with it and blew off their other division and here we are with Nikon/Sony looking in their rear view mirror at Canon DSLR sensor tech. One group was willing to put in the effort to build a better sensor an done group couldn't have cared less apparently.
I don't know if they still have access to those patents, whether they will look into them again now that they are getting blasted for being left behind in DR or how long it would take to get them into a working sensor at this point or if something was lost in translation and there was some sneaky little techincal thing that made the thing infeasible and they actually turned it down because it wasn't realistically workable.
4. If they made use of the internal patents and given it the cropped true 1920x1080 I bet this thing would be getting nearly universal praise even at $3500 and been one of their most universally praised releases. A few might still gripe a bit about MP, but I think the better part of that crowd would've been made happy enough with the 2 extra stops of dynamic range.
@LetTheRightLensIn:
Your still missing the point. So lets use an example to demonstrate. Say you shoot a scene with 14.4 stops of DR, and blow the highlights, since the camera is only capable of 13.23 and your trying to preserve as much shadow detail as possible. You THINK the camera is capable of capturing all of the DR in the scene, because you believe what DXO claims about the D800's DR. However, once you get to it, you realize no amount of POST-PROCESS SPATIAL AVERAGING is going to RECOVER those blown highlights. They were blown well before it ever got to the point of averaging them down...they were blown in the photodiode, amplified in the sensor, converted at maximum level by the ADC. Those pixels hit their maximum saturation and then some...by 1.17 stops (2.25 times more than the sensor is capable of.)
Do you agree or disagree with that point?
Lets agree that downsampling can produce a result that is a perceptual improvement over a similar image from another camera at the same dimensions (because on that point, I do agree!) When you downsample, you average noise across pixels and therefor lose noise, you sample detail from multiple pixels into fewer pixels and lose resolution and detail, you collapse more information into less total area to produce an image of smaller width and/or height so you lose pixel density at a similar print size. Etc. etc.
Downsampling incurs a LOSS OF INFORMATION, not a gain of information. The only improvement, the only gain, is on a perceptual basis, in comparison with other images that started out at smaller sizes. Since a downsampled image is based on a similar image of larger size, every pixel in the output image has more information to work with than the source image...however the grand total amount of information remains the same! There is no increase of data in the output image, it simply makes more effective use of the information that was available. An increase in DR cannot actually occur, because if the original source information contains blown highlights, no amount of multisampling or averaging can change that.
?? 
they 'magically' make ALL of the cameras that have more than 8MP do better, not just the D800 and not just Nikons, note the 5D2 is like 11.2 unless you look at the print plot and only then does it hit the 11.8-11.9. No black helicopters here.