October 22, 2014, 09:02:30 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 68
736
Hmm assistants you say? I think I just discovered where I have been going wrong. I need Kate Beckinsale as my photo assistant. Her magical glow will perfectly fill in shadows in all my scenes, no matter their scale. Hmm yes that's the ticket. Thanks. There is something somehow very appealing about this way to reach 15 stops dynamic range, something that I feel would be lacking were I to use a D800 instead.

I said assistants, not models :) An assistant is usually some smelly, hairy, overweight dude that's hung over from the night before :)

As far as reflectors go, I don't ever see them going away, regardless of how much DR improves in the coming years. There's just a certain quality of light you can achieve with them, and I use them to manipulate highlights, reflections, and light volume more often than I use them for fill light.

Check out this video taken by a super high end commercial photographer. He's shooting with a Phase One P65, which does quite well at 13 stops of DR, according to DxOMark. What do you see 2:40 into the clip? That's right, a reflector :)

chmil. 

On a side note, that Phase One shutter sounds sweeet ;D

737
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mk3 - A few complaints
« on: March 26, 2012, 12:17:26 PM »
1) Raw files in DPP preview look sharpand show lots of detail, when i preview in bridge with ACR6.7 installed they are noticably softer and editing in DPP much softer, opening in PS also softer than the DPP preview. Colour all looks really good, The detail has to be in the file, as it displays in the DPP preview so i'm not too concerned about the senor being a lemon. I feel its almost entirely related to the processing software not being right rather than a sensor thing.

2) the jpegs look awefull IMO, like heavy handed NR is being applied to iso100 files. sure NR the hell out of 25600 iso images in camera but there should be 0 NR applied to iso 100 jpgs. If i took a 5D2 raw file at iso 100 in topaz denoise and applied an overall noise reduction value of maybe 60 this would be similar to the jpegs out of camera, my typical use of denoise values are around 20-30 if i'm correcting 1600 iso to 3200 iso, i may sometimes pop a value of 5 on a portrait as it does a nice job cleaning up skin in a very subtle way that is not noticable as being post processed. (these are observations based on the standard settings the camera comes with, I dont work with jpegs at all other than to flick to people for a quick preview and usually i will downsize those to 1024x768 anyway if i'm going to email them. On my 5Dmk2 i record medium jpegs which are 10MP for this purpose on my 1Dmk3 i leave the jpegs full size which is also 10 or 11 MP.

Overall I'm very glad I didnt sell my 5D2s just in case, I really hope these issues get resolved soon as I'm going to china soon and really wanted to put this thing through its paces. At least i know i can rely on the 5Dmk2s anyway. I wont be shooting any paid work with the 5Dmk3 untill i'm 100% happy it can meet the 5Dmk2 standard though.

Thanks for the details. Your samples definitely look softer than I'd expect. Given the differences in IQ in different software platforms, it does seem like the info is in the raw files. On one hand, this is a relief since we can probably rule out a turdish sensor. On the other hand, it's a shame Canon shipped the 5DIII out without the software to support it.

I've never rushed out and bought a new camera in the first wave of shipments, but apparently issues like this are pretty typical with new releases. It stills sucks, though.

738
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mk3 - A few complaints
« on: March 25, 2012, 11:20:43 PM »
wombat:

1) Are the raw files just soft, or terrible in other respects?

2) Is it the smearing of the details that makes the jpegs so bad?

I hope this is just an issue with the DPP software.

739
EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 08:56:13 PM »
Here is a quick screenshot from Aperture. I was shooting RAW+JPEG. Photo on left is in-camera JPEG (one of the better ones) and photo on right is CR2 converted to DNG. Notice the missing detail in the white petals.

It looks like the in-camera processing is adding lots of contrast to add more color, contrast, and "pop" at the expense of detail in the midtones. I agree that it seems quite aggressive. Just out of curiosity, where did you have the jpeg presets (contrast, saturation, etc) set at for this shot?

740
EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 08:39:29 PM »
I posted these raw comparisons in a couple of other threads
https://rapidshare.com/files/265985045/045C0110.CR2
https://rapidshare.com/files/2949940123/IMG_8491.CR2

I feel the 5D2 is sharper still

I saw these posted earlier but didn't look at them as closely as I did today. They don't look too bad, although they are on the soft side. They did sharpen up nicely with a subtle unsharp mask, though. Maybe my standards are just low :)

It sounds like the jpegs are real turds, though. Can anyone put up some sample jpegs? I'd like to see how bad the in-camera processing is.

741
EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 08:28:23 PM »
Me too!  I was having such high hopes!  Hopefully a different unit will be better!
I'm very keen to hear how you new unit goes because so far I'm concerned about the IQ of the images too
I'll probably wait unti proper raw converters are out before i look at taking it back
I think canon need to get a firmware update out STAT that fixes the horrid in camera jpeg processing too
I think i'd be happier with jpegs out of a rebel than this thing puts out

Ouch. Sounds like your 5DIII is performing like a dud so far. What specifically about the IQ is so bad? If the jpegs look worse than a Rebel, I'm hoping I'm not in for disappointment when my 5DIII shows up this week.

742
That you two are still arguing around this point puzzles me greatly.  You both have valid arguments and understand the limitations of the equipment.  From my point of view, you both are in agreement, even if it's from different perspectives. :)

I have no beef with LetTheRightLensIn. Anyone who can tolerate my bad jokes on the internet if cool in my book :) Seriously, though, he makes some good points even if we have to agree to disagree on other points.

Quote
I wish I had a FF Canon body that performed like that cheap little Nikon for low ISO IQ!
If V8 Beast had such a camera, he could simplify his shooting by being able to leave some of those reflectors in the van. :)

Nonsense. I quite enjoy trying to train an assistant on how to catch the sun at the correct angle with a reflector without having it get blown away in the wind :D Good times.

743
If an entry-level FF camera pans out, it would certainly explain why Canon priced the 5DIII at $3,500. It would make for a great backup body as well for those using a 5DIII as a primary body. Maybe this will be the mega-resolution FF body people are waiting for. It would make a lot of sense to pack it full of MP, regardless of whether or not it improves or degrades IQ, since it would have to lure those accustomed to getting 18 mp Rebel for $500.

744
EOS Bodies / Re: LensRentals.com RESOLUTION TESTS
« on: March 25, 2012, 02:51:55 PM »
The reason images might look slightly soft (i.e. not tack sharp) with a high resolution sensor like the D800's or the 7D's is because the sensors are outresolving the lenses at most apertures.

That makes sense. That said, the guy commenting on the LensRental website was complaining about the measures that must be taken to avoid vibration-induced softness, whether it's due to a long shutter speed, camera shake, mirror vibration, long focal lengths, or all of the above. If you jump up to a high MP sensor as in the D800 and experience softness due to any of those issues, anyone who understands the most elementary of photography techniques should be able to figure out what went wrong. If you can't, why on earth would you buy a $3,000 camera? To criticize Nikon about this, as if they're responsible for someone who gets in over their head with equipment they obviously don't know how to use properly, is just silly.

745
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5Diii ISO and Portrait Tests
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:57:27 PM »
This thread is useless without the model's phone number ;D

746
The big question is, how do you market an entry-level full-frame camera? If I'm an entry-level consumer that equates image quality to megapixel count, I'd expect a $2,000 camera to have substantially greater resolution than a $500 Rebel.

747
EOS Bodies / Re: LensRentals.com RESOLUTION TESTS
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:48:09 PM »
According to this test, if you're a portrait photographer, or someone who shoots at wide open apertures, the 14 megapixel advantage of the D800 over the 5DIII is negligible? I rarely shoot wide open, but I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the data correctly.

Too bad they didn't get to put the 5DIII through the same battery of tests. If I carried through with my D800 purchase, which I'm not at this point, the 70-200 VRII was going to be my primary workhorse lens, so it's interesting to see how poorly the performed compared to the primes. Plus, with long lenses I usually shoot stopped down to f/8 or f/11, negating the D800's resolution even more.   

748
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600EX-RT Flashes now in stock
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:09:42 AM »
I walked back to 300' (the other goal post on the field) and was able to shoot nearly 100% of the time assuming camera and flash were used at a normal shooting height.

Thanks for the comprehensive writeup. I wasn't too impressed with the advertised range of these flashes at first, but it looks like Canon  had underrated them. A 300-foot range is very impressive. Yes it's pricey, but Canon's new RF system eliminates several third-party add-ons from your camera bag, which also means there are fewer batteries to worry about.

749
@V8Beast: I'd save your breath, man. LTRLI, regardless of how he may have started out on this forum, has essentially become a troll.

It's all good. He makes some good points, and I make some bad jokes, so it's a good tradeoff :D

750
1. on track testing, is still testing, not 'real world' races and sure it is important, once you get down to a car on the road and drivers you are into a super complex scenario, far beyond measuring single things which is more like what dynamic range is

A race track is hardly a lab. It's where you see if all the theoretical elements of the car you designed on computers, on the dyno, and in the wind tunnel stands up in real life. Track testing is very much a real world scenario, as it eliminates all the other factors outside of vehicle performance (driver skill, pit crew performance, tire degradation, pit strategy, good ol' luck)  that can affect which position a car finishes the race in. How quickly you can bust off a single lap in qualifying is largely viewed by engineers as the ultimate yardstick of performance.   

Quote
2. you can bet all the teams would be wayyyy behind where they are if not for lab tests, so many more parts and specific little bits would take so much longer and waste sooo much more money to develop

Very true, which validates the importance of off-track R&D. Like I said before, the trick is finding an ideal balance of lab and track testing :) Ferrari - along with some camera tech heads - seem to lack this balance :)

Quote
But the low ISO dynamic range is wayyy behind Exmor sensors though and even quite a bit behind the best non-Exmor stuff Nikon is doing (D4), I really thought they'd have at least gotten it to D4-level.... I do find that quite disappointing. For the landscape-type shooter, the 5D3 really adds virtually nothing over the 5D2 (for stuff relying on AF or better body response it should be much better than the 5D2 though).

That's fair enough. Let's just say that the D800 is the king of resolution and DxO DR, while for some the 5DIII is a better all-arounder. I can see how the 5DIII might be a disappointment if you're a landscape shooter, but then again I can see how the D800 would be a disappointment if you're a Nikonian who was expecting it to be a baby D4. At any rate, both are great cameras that will far exceed the abilities of many photographers.   

Based on DxO perhaps Canon is falling behind on sensor tech. Maybe Nikon stole all of Canon's best engineers :) Who knows. I supposed the 1Dx is the wild card right now, and maybe it will have some pleasant surprises up its sleeves for the pixel-peeping faithful :)

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 68