January 26, 2015, 05:51:09 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 - Neutral

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
76
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx ISO100 high DR shadows SNR improvement
« on: November 04, 2012, 12:30:15 PM »
OK, now is 200% crop of the similar EV=(-3) shoot from 1Dx  using some  special shooting  method  with 1Dx . 
Shadows are recovered in LR with Exposure slider set to +3 to compensate for in camera EV =(-3) . No noise reduction in LR.
Note how SNR for random noise was improved.

 So we have almost two stops  improvement here  for random noise SNR.
This means that with normal exposure it is possible to successfully recover details in very deep shadows at ISO100.
We still  see some slight pattern noise on the image but I believe that there is some NR software that doing very well with reducing pattern  noise - might be Topaz  De-noise  but not very sure  as I do not have that.
  If all combined together with some special shooting method with 1Dx  it  is possible to get shadow SNR  on par with Nikon D800.
So now quiz - how this was done?

77
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 1Dx ISO100 high DR shadows SNR improvement
« on: November 04, 2012, 12:28:45 PM »
One of the weak sides of the 1Dx is noise   in deep shadows at base ISO.
It seems that nobody is arguing about that any more.
 DXO 1Dx measurement results also show that very clearly on their measurement curves.
And I believe that nobody would be arguing that performance in this area is very critical for not just few people but for many people  - for landscape photography, evening/night  city shots and other sort of photography.
Though it is easy to argue that that Nikon D800 would be the better choice BUT why not to see how we could get better deep shadow SNR from 1Dx.
In one of my posts I mentioned that 1Dx has a very nice feature that could be used for that.
I will not name it now (will do at SOME next post) but here is some magic - example how it works (snapshots from LR screen - noise reduction is totally disabled  )
1.  First image shows 1dX  shot at IS100  with EV=(-3)   the Data Color noise calibration chart  which was  used  for Noise Ninja NR S/W and PS plug-in. Shot  with  manual Out of Focus  to blur target texture so it would not interfere with noise
2. Second one is the same with Exposure slider in LR set to +3  - looks the same as normal shot with EV=0
3. Third  image is 200% crop  of shot with EV=0 showing normal 1Dx ISO shadow noise
4. Fourth one is 200% crop of the EV=-3 shot with LR exposure set to +3 to raise shadows to normal level.
     Level of 1Dx noise at ISO100 at  -3 EV shadows is very clearly seen
 
 And next post is  little bit of magic  - the similar EV=(-3) shoot from 1Dx  recovered in LR - 200% crop  to see the difference  in SNR for random nose with the previous shot.
 

78
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 02, 2012, 04:27:10 PM »
At that time we'll be doing eye transplants.
These are already available )))
Sensor with special adaptor to connect this sensor to nurve stem.
This allowed to restore vision to totaly blind people
Also brain microchips implants are already availabe - being used to restore some lost brain functionlity.
Problem before was connection of non-organic chip to the organic tissue and provide purmanent electical contact to nurves and it was successfully resolved few years back.

So how has this been working out for the patient?

Here is article regarding artificial eye implants.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410884/longer-lasting-artificial-eyes/
So far it is still limited - number of pixels and connectition to the nurves but gives ability to patients to recognize things around.

-----------
Here is another  article regarding neuroprocessor brain implants -  how it works but I think it is not the latest one.  One that I read some time ago and was referencing above - can not find now - the same but with special chip bottom layer which  allows  brain tissue (neurons) to grow into this chip special bottom layer forming electrical contact  between neurons and implant  instead of using titanium electrodes -this  was very interesting article- recent research results from one of the labs - not availabe commercially yet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ti8_AY4DykwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=neuroprocessor+brain+implant&source=bl&ots=z-ZnRO_2D6&sig=uP0bxtM_rHkm-wkJbaO4dUF-kk8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BSiUUK6gOIG3hQe99IGgBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=neuroprocessor%20brain%20implant&f=false

79
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 02, 2012, 01:30:50 PM »
At that time we'll be doing eye transplants.
These are already available )))
Sensor with special adaptor to connect this sensor to nurve stem.
This allowed to restore vision to totaly blind people
Also brain microchips implants are already availabe - being used to restore some lost brain functionlity.
Problem before was connection of non-organic chip to the organic tissue and provide purmanent electical contact to nurves and it was successfully resolved few years back.


80
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 02, 2012, 06:48:08 AM »
  For those who are interested  some more details to my post above  regarding "IBM carbon nanotechnology  - nanotubes for future of microelectronics" which I mentioned there - latest publication (17hours ago) in "EE Times India" explains that in easy way and what it promise in some future not too far away from now.
Actually IBM is investing a lot  in R&D and that investments are very effective - making revolutionary breakthroughs in number of technologies. And this below is only small part of their R&D areas.

  "Carbon nanotubes represent a new class of semiconductor materials whose electrical properties are more attractive than silicon, particularly for building nanoscale transistor devices that are a few tens of atoms across. Electrons in carbon transistors can move easier than in silicon-based devices allowing for quicker transport of data. The nanotubes are also ideally shaped for transistors at the atomic scale, an advantage over silicon. These qualities are among the reasons to replace the traditional silicon transistor with carbon—and coupled with new chip design architectures—will allow computing innovation on a miniature scale for the future."

 Enjoy reading full article:
http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800677471_1800007_NT_eb791c5c.HTM

Official IBM press release:
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/39250.wss

An here is another small publication:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2012/10/how-nanotechnology-could-speed-up-ibm.html




81
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 02, 2012, 04:09:13 AM »
Someday, far off in the future when we have the kind of bandwidth and picoscale sensor fabrication technology that would make a modern DSLR geek's eyeballs pop and brain boil, I foresee a camera sensor that operates more along the lines of human sight: Extremely high resolution, near-perfect quantum efficiency, extremely high sensitivity, excessively high "continuous frame rate" (tens of thousands of frames per second at least), ultra fast image processor that can do similar things to the brain...additively combine hundreds or thousands of individual "frames" from the sensor into a superresolution image that could potentially be larger in pixel dimensions than the sensor itself, and effectively have unlimited dynamic range (or say something around 25 stops...which might as well be unlimited...2048x more range than the D800 has (if that puts it in perspective. ;P). Of course, we would also need 10 stop inks and paper, 16 stop high density (300ppi) computer screens, etc. to actually make effective use of such an eye-wateringly good camera. Ah, the future is going to be so expensive...

It is pleasure to see that some people vision of the future is very close to mine)))
  In fact even now there is a lot of technology pieces around  which if combined together could result in a stunning sensor performance.  And just recently new publication from IBM about their research results in microchips technologies –something which is really amazing.   Also use of graphene nano-tubes in micro- circuitry design.   
    Imagine sensor using sub 10nm  3D technology process  with   graphene nano-tubes ,   per pixel ADC and per pixel small processor, per pixel adjustable dynamic sensitivity and dynamic  ISO, per pixel phase detection for on chip AF for all the pixels  across the frame (no more mirror/ prism , no more separate AF circuitry), per pixel uniformity calibration etc.  All that is  possible to do now.
  And you right about R&D target  in this area – to make imaging device (sensor(s)+ processors array) to reach capabilities of the human eye.  I would add more - not only to reach but far surpass those capabilities – e.g. for robotics vision.   People who are watching what is happening in different R&D areas around see how many things that were described in science fiction rapidly come into existence.
Some things could drastically change our world in next near 30-50 years.
  Unfortunately all that initially being done not for general public but in areas where primary goal is result and not a profit – just keep cost under some control.  Than 10-15 year later it becomes available for others.  Hopefully we will see some results of such developments in some near future.

82
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: November 01, 2012, 10:20:01 AM »
Ok, so here I am a physicist (no I am not a student anymore) and I don't "FEEL" anything regarding DXO.

Are you trying to kid us all here? Get a grip on reality.

Social scientists 'feel' things.  Real scientists quantify things.... 


  Do you really want to say that you do not "FEEL" what is behind the numbers in a real life or do not want to "FEEL" them?
  Simple example - you are leaving your apartment, checking the weather gadget and it tells that in one hour temperature will drop down from 70F to 41F and wind speed will rise from 1m/c to 30m/c.  And you will be telling that you do not "feel" what all that means and what you need to do regarding that and what to put on? I can't believe that  ))))))) And there thousands examples like this)))
I think this example above clearly clarifies what I meant in my posts using word “FEEL” the numbers.
  And I really appreciate your sense of humor but as usual to make a joke one need to turn things upside down to make things look funny.
And here order of things does matter and significant.
First of course are things quantified by numbers (nobody argues about that) and then how one  realize or understand  what is behind that numbers ("forest behind the trees")  - one  can name it "FEEL", "VISUALIZE", "IMAGINE" - call it whatever you want.
I have no doubts that you know this better than me ))))
  Regarding DXO SCORE discussion my point was that it is absolutely pointless to argue about SCORE results, one need to see at measurements curves and understand or "feel" how this correlates to real life.
 Arguing about one dimensional SCORE value is the same as to argue about mapping multi-dimensional space into one dimensional. No need to be a scientist to know that mapping multidimensional space into single dimensional space has infinite number of solutions and each one could be correct depending on initial mapping conditions.  In addition this mapping is not reversible - you cannot revert or map it back to the original space - here is again infinite number of solutions for that.

 Any discussion should be constructive and not destructive – so something useful could result as outcome of that and could be used for benefit of all involved.
  Again back to DXO  - and if they are listening – they could easily reconcile most (but not all of course) people on all the forums by introducing several different sensor scores based on the target usage and carefully defined  metrics to get right score for each of the usage domains e.g.:
1. Landscape/studio photography
2. General use photography (no extreme conditions)
3. Sport/events/shows photography for ISO above 1600 or may be even above ISO 3200
4. Best universal shooting – suitable to work in any extreme conditions
5. Keep their own DXO metrics.
   Then from drop down menu list anyone can select criteria which he want to use to and see what are sensors ranking and what is the best sensor for this specific domain.   
There is no big deal to do that.
This could be just better way to present measurements results to specific groups of photographers.

83
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 02:31:41 PM »

Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets  advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!

You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...
Please no familiarities here – this is at least impolite not to say more)))
As for DXO – we are not discussing what they are claiming themselves – just results of their measurements.
And forget about SCORES  - when you see at measurement curves you need to “FEEL” sensor performance across different conditions the same way as you “feel” image histogram in the camera or image processing S/W.
Do you give this histogram any scores to better work with the image?
If you are telling that you studying physics – think of Fourier or Laplace transforms that give you information about physical process in other domains/dimensions   which helps better understand the properties of the process and work with it.
 And I do not see any point discussing this further

84
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:35:18 PM »
But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.


This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others   - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.
Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need  that either”. Big DOT.
Here is the question – how do you know  in your confined world  what  I need or other people need  ???
In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

85
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:17:56 PM »
  And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things.  Then digest all that , stop  and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements).  And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise,  they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!
We are talking about completely deferent things)))
You are talking about SCORES and I was talking about MEASUREMENTS  .
Measurements results you can see on the DXO measurements curves and they give you 100% about sensor performance.
The Scores are how they present overall measurement results - for this you need to do some summarization with different weight factors for each measurement result and for measurement curves you need to take integral with variable weight factor across the curve. And after that to sum all the integration results again with specific weight factor for each number.    This weight factors are beyond the scope of measurements   - they are just method of summarizing/presenting results and they are of course subjective depending of what is more important ( e.g. target of usage) . 

  And one more thing to add – to study physics and understand or even more- to feel it  is a VERY BIG difference. I know a lot of folks who studied a lot of disciplines , they  remember a lot of details, numbers but they do not “feel” them and do not see the “root” or “essence” of the things – as told in one very well known saying “Do not see the forest behind the trees”

86
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 12:47:19 PM »
But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.
Could you please clarify which application you are referring to in this statement?
Subject was related to DXO 8, so this  above relates to Dxo 8 improvements over Dxo 7.5.5.

87
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 12:28:47 PM »
For anyone wondering why they waited nearly a month after adding 1D X sensor support to DxO Optical Pro to release the 1D X scores, I'd guess it's because they knew there'd be a bit of buzz around these results, and they wanted to drive traffic to their sites now that DxO Optics Pro 8 has just been released. 
....
I was wondering why they do not put their measurements after adding 1Dx support in ver .7.5.5. and this might  be a good explanation ))) 
  Usually after each new release of DXO   they put measurements  results on DxoMark for new supported cameras  just few days later but with 1Dx we were waiting almost one month.
  I already upgraded both Phase One Capture 1 from ver. 6 to ver. 7 and  DXO from 7.5.5 to 8  and already  did some comparison tests for C1, LR4 and DXO 8 for 1Dx RAW files to see what is better for what.  For low to average ISO - the best IQ is from C1, LR4 is the 2d and DXO on 3d – to my vision.  For very high ISO – starting from 12800 to 51200 Dxo 8 is still having the same problems as before with low contrast smooth areas which becomes blotchy and "plastic" - almost the same as I demonstrated recently in other thread. So LR4 is still better in noise reductions than Dxo8.  There are though some useful improvements in Dxo 8 - e.g. tone sliders which I suspect they simply borrowed from LR4 – exactly the same (Adobe might sue them  for the same reasion as Apple is Suing Samsung))) . But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.

88
EOS Bodies / Re: Official DXOMark Sensor Score for the EOS-1D X
« on: October 31, 2012, 11:54:48 AM »
 No surprises about the camera sensor, this fully correlates with my experience with 1Dx and some measurements done by other people - e.g. one French photographer specializing on astronomy - unfortunately do not remember his name.
  For indoor events like sports/shows/artist performances in low light 1Dx is probably the best camera ever from Canon  - results are amazing - one part of that is sensor high ISO performance and the other is outstanding autofocus capabilities.  It does easily what was almost impossible before.  Few days ago I was shooting world stars ballet performance and results are stunning.
  Unfortunately cannot post any shots here - not allowed without special permission from the performance owners.
  But for high DR landscape photography it is definitely not the best tool - I posted some examples recently.
Seems that from Canon for landscaper type of photography 1Ds is still the best one – one good reason to keep it until new big mpx camera from Canon will come to existence.

  And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.
For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things.  Then digest all that , stop  and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements).  And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise,  they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

89
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to start using 0.18um (180nm) process for FF?
« on: October 28, 2012, 04:18:29 AM »
Interesting article.

Mostly Interesting is that Canon for the last 10 years starting with the first 1D was using the same 500nm technology process even for the latest 1Dx !!!
And only now Canon is planning to move to 180nm technology process.
This was really amazing for me from technology evolution prospective in general

Just to think of it - Intel for it's latest IvyBridge is using 22 nm technology process and in near future will be moving to 14nm for second generation of Haswell and then to 10nm process for Skylake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)
Plus to this new 3D (Tri-gate) transistors technology that drastically reduce currents leakage and reduce power consumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-gate_transistor#Tri-gate_transistors). This in general significantly reduce noise produced by them .

More to this ARM year back demonstrated real 3D circuitry technology in their 1mm cube microchip where only circuit layer is grown above another layer forming multilayer chip (3D instead of flat 2D).
All that combined together is promising amazing things now and in the new future.

And just compare current level of Intel microchips technology (22nm) to the same of Canon (500nm)
Intel introduced 600nm process for Pentium P54C in October 1994 and 350nm process in June 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium
Though it is not very fair to compare digital circuits with analog ones but still this shows very huge gap in microchips technology process itself - 20 years of difference.
And explanation for that is simple - technology process development is so costly and requires so much investments in R&D and technology equipment that is is possible itself only for few really big players on the market like Intel or AMD or Samsung and other such companies that focus on development and production and manufacturing of microchips for the rest of the industry.
Smaller companies just do not have enough resources to keep pace in microchip technology evolution and if they do so then eventually technology gap would increase and in order to survive they would need to use technology end equipment licensed (leased) for the major players on this market.

To me the best way is not to reinvent the wheel but try to use whatever is already available and to combine all the best in the top level end-user product (similar what Apple is doing including purchasing small companies that invented and patented something really useful but do not have enough resources for further quick development)

If I would be the project development manager in Canon responsible for this imaging area then I would consider establishing partnership with Intel (or AMD or other major players in the microchip technology) to get access to the latest technology processes. Having such technology at hand gives huge possibilities for the new designs for image sensors itself that would be still done within the Company.
Having high density of active elements on the image chip provided by current 3D 22nm process technology from Intel it could be feasible and possible to design new chip with extremely low lower power consumption and current leaks that in turn would could help to reduce electronic noise.
The other thing that would become feasible is to implement phase AF detection for every pixel on the image sensor - that would be biggest revolution in the camera technology ever - just think of the possibilities that this would give to the camera users. Camera could be mirrorless with AF performance of the existing top level PRO DSLRs. And you could be use any variable group of pixels on the sensor to start AF and track subject in AI Servo mode across the full frame.
And if that done on high resolution high ISO performance sensor (e.g. 80 mpx) you could do perfect shots which would be almost impossible to do before - e.g. object tracking without camera move - e.g. shooting acrobatics - you can put in frame the whole performance area , focus on object and camera will be tracking it across all the frame without need to move the camera itself. The same is very useful e.g. for shooting bailey performance.
Then you can do required size crops from the final images and get perfect subject close up.
And if that would be combined also with Foveon type sensor itself that would another step in this revolution
Plus to this each pixel could have it's own ADC with on chip pixel response  uniformity calibration processor - this could totally eliminate low light pattern noise . Similar to what is done currently in astronomy for telescope with multi element mirrors arrays where each channel in real time compensated for atmosphere turbulence and light propagations variances.
There so many exiting possibilities - there would be not enough space to count all of them
And this is what could be done now or in near future with current technology level.
Just combine together all the best technology pieces already available around and get the best product ever
I am talking now just about current technology level possibilities -not about the cost - would be high now and this is different subject. But for building prototype - is something that could be considered
So all above is more to the vision of the future and how to make this future to come faster)))

90
Thanks for posting.

Do you also have a shot that is exposed more to the right, say, enough to blow the highlights so they can just be recovered nicely? That way you can keep the shadow more "as is"

  Intention was not to blow highlights - so that content in the illuminated windows and showcases is not lost and could be normally seen on normal size print.  Lost are  are only things that could be sacrificed- sources of lights itself - very small areas on the image . ETR rule is not applicabale for such kind of shots unless this is only for postcard size prints

Also could add that 1Dx does a very good job in preserving highlights in evaluative metering mode - almost nothing is lost - only sources of lights itself. Still need to see behaviour when highlight protection mode is turned on - but usually that shifts  histogram slightly to the left  making image even more underexposed - at least on previous bodies

Actually highlights were recovered on this image  to be just on the right side of histogram  - before they were out. 
Whites were moved  to  (-100)  ,
highlights were set to (-50)
and exposure was moved to EV +1.5
and shadows were set to (+40)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8