November 26, 2014, 07:38:07 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 268
16
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 14, 2014, 05:52:00 PM »
What about the 50 1.4???? THat is the one that is broken (literally). I'm surprised Canon doesn't have a class action against them on that lens yet. They have known about a fundamental design flaw with the AF system for like two decades now.

17
Great. So each colour is sampled at a different time, as the colour filter physically moves in front of the pixel. This will be great for tripod based static scene shots, but will result in colour tearing - much like a field sequential display does. Bad news for video, bad news for stills of anything that moves as there will effectively be three exposures taken at different times for red, green and blue, and then all merged into one.

Plus the exposure time for each colour cannot be more than 1/3rd of the total exposure time, so I'd hazard a guess that the sensitivity isn't increased either by these larger pixels for the same resolution. And as the filter can't transition instantly between the colours, its less than 1/3rd of the exposure time available to each colour.

did you read that the sensor is able to readout 16000 times a second?

i wonder how you will see color smearing.... especially when bayer sensors are all about "smearing colors".
so what if it can? can it magically make the full set of incoming photons re-hit after each sift?

18
Quote
"Positive effects of such a sensor design are:
– 4 times bigger pixels compared to same resolution Bayer sensor. This means more electrons captured and therefore higher dynamic range and lower noise (crazy ISO possible…even crazier than those of the Sony A7s)."

The whole 4 pixels of foveon is the same as 1 of Bayer is QUITE an exaggeration.

Quote
"
– No moire issues anymore. No Anti Aliasing filter needed (increases per pixel sharpness)."

Absurd claim. No BAYER COLOR moire. But sure as heck you can still get moire and you sure as heck still need AA filters at the counts they are talking about.

19
seems potentially interesting.
Perhaps a way to get in on B+H quality now for half the price.

20
Sports / Re: Post your best Football shot (American Style)
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:42:03 PM »

lettherightlensin....absolutely fantastic shots!!   Are you a sport shooter?

north

Thanks!

Not exactly. Although all of those were shot for a paper and I was one of the main sports shooters then. I hadn't ever shot sports before that. Unfortunately I haven't shot a real lot since then other than for some surfing.

21
Guess what, I can't program like you, I can't shoot astro like you. It seems you can't take normal pictures with current gear and get results like me, I am not special and most of my images are boring images for commercial clients, I just did the 10,000 hour (and then some) bit, so did Sporgon and a host of other shooters here.


First, the highlighted part is entirely incorrect, and demonstrates how much you guys have entirely missed the points that have been made. I can take "normal" pictures with gear and get the results I want. That has never been the point. By now, you should know that.


It's about the effort you have to invest in order to get the result you want. I haven't put 10k hours into my photography yet...simply not enough time since I started to have achieved that. That said, I do put in a TON of hours. I also know that when I work data that comes from a better device, I don't have to invest as many hours doing the same old mundane things to get as good or better results. <-- THAT is the point. That's what matters to me. I can spend countless hours doing the same old things, not because it's part of the craft, but because it's simply necessary, because the data is lacking in some way. That isn't the kind of work that increases your knowledge...it's just busywork.


I can create great photos. I just don't like having to invest so much time in making my photos great, because something is wrong with the data. I understand such things don't matter to you. However it's just flat out rude to claim all the rest of us are "crazy" because it matters to us. It doesn't matter if the issue is with DR, or with AF, or anything else...sometimes the minutia matter to some people, because they've experienced better, and loved it. My photography is not clinical, it's not just a craft...it IS my art. I don't want to have to be clinical about it, I don't want to have to deal with all the minute extra details that Canon equipment often makes me deal with.


Same thing goes for astro CCD cameras. I wanted to buy a camera back during summer. I've put it off. I had picked a camera that I thought I liked, then had a couple people demonstrate to me the issues with it. I've been given the option of working the data from that camera, as well as a few others. Some of them, ironically, use Sony sensors, which again are better than the Kodak (or now TrueSense, I think, as Kodak sold the unit) sensors. For narrow band work, the higher sensitivity and ultra low dark current of the Sony sensors are again significantly superior...and it matters when you get down into the minutia...which in the case of astro, it's ALL minutia...every fraction of an e- more read noise has a huge impact to the end results.


Maybe we are just "measurebaters" to a "craftsman" such as yourself. Fine. However that doesn't invalidate how we do things...it's simply different than how you do things. Some people care about minutia...even if their viewers don't see these small differences, we do. Maybe we couldn't just pick out a D800 image from a 5D III image...at least, not until we were sitting in front of a computer working the data. Then I guarantee you the differences would be blatantly obvious to many of us.


So, you call us crazy for caring about minutia. I can't help but think someone such as yourself is crazy for caring so much that we care...and constantly reminding us that were crazy because were not like you. Can you not simply leave us be in peace, and let us care about the things that we have decided matter to us?

He'll leave you in piece the second Canon does it as well or better and not a minute before.

Just like Keith Reeder. The guy who helped drove some people away from posting and bashed everyone a thousands times over bring up the 'nonsense' about banding and how only lab bound fools look for banding and blah blah blah, well guess what, now that the 7D2 fixes up banding super well, he is going around ragging on anyone who doesn't bring up banding and trashing DxO for penalizing the 7D2 for not reporting that it has a lot less banding! :D

Pretty rich. He slammed and trashed and tried to get people banned if they mentioned banding and he'd go on and on about how it makes no practical difference and is meaningless and now suddenly that a couple Canon models, especially the 7D2, handle banding super well again now he suddenly is all for bringing up banding and he trashes anyone who fails to mention how important is and how fails to mention that it's an incredible major improvement from Canon. :D

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Interesting Article on DXO Mark Ratings
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:46:56 PM »
Generally good stuff, but I strongly disagree with his claim that 2-3 more stops over Canon doesn't make it enough for many shots. I find that 2-3 more is exactly what is needed to get away without needing to combine multiple shots. So I think he downplayed the utility of it a lot.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:44:25 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.
They are very conservative... this might be a case of step one - get the photodiodes/microlenses/support circuitry transferred over to the new fabrication run, and step 2 being to implement the A/D on chip. Don't forget that they are currently using A/D chips from a third party and that might complicate the move as they have no experience designing them... it could be a licencing of the design problem... or countless other reasons. It will come, but with Canon expect it to take time and when it does arrive, to be good.

Perhaps, but I still tend to doubt that.


I doubt the bit about licensing the ADC. Canon already has their own patents from in-house R&D that describe how to do dual-scale on-die CP-ADC. They patented the technology, they own it, and one has to figure they've prototyped it as well. I think they implemented it on the 120mp APS-H...given the frame rate, and the wording of one of the press releases about that sensor, I honestly cannot think they achieved those results in any other way than some kind of on-die hyper-parallel ADC.


I think it seems logical that Canon would still take it a step at a time. It would probably be more complex to move to a new fab and start cranking out a brand new design. Moving an existing design onto the new fab without changing it, then refining it later to take advantage of the new fab's increased capabilities, seems logical to me.

Seems foolish to me. A new fab costs tons of money and if they are using the newer but already existing copper pipe fab they are pushing some small sensors off of that and why do all of that if they get only a small benefit out of it? The fact that they are conservative would make that less likely I'd think. Since they are making a big switch and not even having much to show. I think if they really went to a new process, they'd take full advantage.

Although maybe their patents and designs turned out to be a mess and they had to go to an old design last second? (rumors of 20MP vs 24MP sensor, etc.)

Who knows. it seems doubtful to me. but of course i can't be sure.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:42:24 PM »
Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.

The low color measurement on DxOmark does seem to indicate they may have picked up a little QE from a looser CFA.

I don't think one has to do with the other.  I've been told in the past that the QE modeling approach makes it effectively ignore the CFA.


Agreed. I believe the Q.E. is referring to the actual response of the silicon itself (that's usually how sensor manufacturers report it...as the silicon's response to light). That is the Q.E. of incident photons that make it all the way to the sensor.


So, to be clear, that means that even if you had a 100% response in the silicon itself (at 565nm, green light...the Q.E. is usually for green light), you could still increase overall light gathered by improving your filtering, or by eliminating filtering and going with MCS, or by improving microlens design, or by using ISOCELL in a BSI design, etc. Anything that increases the incident photon count at the photodiode will still increase overall efficiency...for whatever Q.E. you have.

well if they screen out the entire CFA effects then the 59% level seems even less believable


25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:40:55 PM »
Regarding Sensorgen.info data, he regenerated it all recently. After the site went down, a lot more data was brought over. I think there is a bug in whatever code brings the data over, because some sensors have wild read noise values and several hundred percent Q.E. I don't believe any of those numbers are valid...I think they are flukes generated by a buggy algorithm.

There's evidence to support this.

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140715194150/http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

Yeah now 23% makes a lot more sense.
The new site is totally messed up and lots of the data seems to be nearly random.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:38:07 PM »
That's nothing: we should all be still using Nikon D70s, QE two hundred and something percent !

Pfft.  D2Xs is 476%.

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2Xs.html

Hmm the site seems to be riddled with typos or is not being very clear at all what they now mean by QE since many of the numbers are beyond patently absurd.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:36:32 PM »
I don't think sensor QE tells us much. Consider the following Nikon camera models:

Camera    QE
D3   90%
D3X   42%
D3s   57%
D4   52%
D4s   52%
D610   51%
D800   56%
D810   47%

90% with the D3?! That can't be true...

But otherwise, a nice improvement! :D

Yeah, something is wrong with those numbers, at least the D3 one for sure.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:34:29 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.


Highly, highly doubtful it has anything to do with the CFA. The CFA "color blindness" might have a minor impact on color noise, but overall the primary source of read noise is the off-die stuff.

But this didn't improve the late stage read noise at all. The 59% rating would be on photon shot noise, not read noise.



29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:33:33 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.
They are very conservative... this might be a case of step one - get the photodiodes/microlenses/support circuitry transferred over to the new fabrication run, and step 2 being to implement the A/D on chip. Don't forget that they are currently using A/D chips from a third party and that might complicate the move as they have no experience designing them... it could be a licencing of the design problem... or countless other reasons. It will come, but with Canon expect it to take time and when it does arrive, to be good.

Perhaps, but I still tend to doubt that.

30
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Need Best Monitor for Photo Edits
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:25:13 PM »
Word of warning.

The industry making screens and panels jumped the gun and has been producing screens that are not capable of displaying the full 4K/UHDTV gamut. Avoid paying a premium for anything that is "4K" unless it is also "Rec 2020 compliant."

That aside, any monitor that has inbuilt calibration (e.g. NEC Spectraview) is a "best fit" for photo edits.

nothing is fully rec. 2020 compliant though at the moment

If you wait for that you probably wait for a number of years and lose out on incredible 4k+ for all that time.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 268