December 19, 2014, 11:51:18 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 / 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

77
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 )))

78
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”

79
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.

80
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.

81
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.

82
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)))

83
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)

84
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

85
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

86
Thats some nice performance from the 1Dx. Too bad I'll never Own/use/need a 1D series camera. Maybe a New 1Ds might sway me.

 I think it is acceptable for most situations except  for the cases when you need to create image for very big prints.   What is interesting at  ISO1000  noise is not too much worse compared to ISO100 - still tolerable and managable.
  Hope that might be able to squeeze more out of 1Dx for such kind of evening/night city shots - have not fully tested yet everything that could increase shadows SNR  when shot from tripod.  When hand-held there not much could be done more to this

87
And here is 400% no NR crop  from ISO100   shot - so that noise at base ISO100 in shadows  would be more  visible  here  (in previous post for 100% crop it is  smeared by Win7 snipping tool high JPEG compression )
Actually noise here looks like film grain.

 I think that could be reduced by using  1Dx multiexposure feature (very nice one)- by making 9 fast shots with mirror lock-up - averaged in the camera in final RAW file  so noise will be averaged over 9 shots  which could improve noticably noise performance in shadows  - well known method for that

88
Here is the same as in pervious post for ISO100
 
1.  1Dx Image normalized as close to human vision - image DR compressed in LR  using basic tone sliders
2.  1Dx 1SO100 crop 100% - no NR
3.  1Dx ISO100  crop 100%  - NR Lum=22
4.  1Dx ISO100 crop 100% area 2  - NR Lum=22

  Though overall all is not too bad we still see noise in shadow recovered areas which actually we do not want to see at base ISO.
  So for shots in  high DR low light conditions at base ISO we can get images from 1Dx  suitable for printing at  A4  but for  bigger prints noise and image imperfections in shadow areas becomes noticeable - especially on flat sky areas.
This though could be improved by additional processing - local adjustments in LR and some additional work in Photoshop - but this is something that is very unwanted.
  " By doing regularly  physical exercises you can extend your life by 5 years.
     The problem though is that you need to spend 5 years in gym for that" )))

89
 For those who are interested are examples of 1DX low light performance in high DR environment.

  Also this is illustration why high DR performance is required for those who keeps repeating  " why on earth your need high DR and why you need to underexpose images"
Image RAW conversion is in LR4.
Screen snapshots for posting by Win7 Snipping tool - to be quick

1.  Image "AS IS" from 1Dx - evaluative metering - camera is trying to protect highlights so average weighted image exposure shifts to the left (to the shadows) - so most part of the image is underexposed
2. 1Dx Image is normalized as close to human vision - image DR compressed in LR using basic tone sliders
3. 1Dx  ISO1000 crop 100% - no NR
4.  1Dx ISO1000  crop 100%  - NR Lum=20
Please observe noise in shadow recovered areas and sky and what we could do with it in LR
Next post is the same for ISO100

90
Lenses / Re: 85 1.2 L2 not sharp at 1.2
« on: October 24, 2012, 05:24:28 AM »
I think all  is ok with your lens, you could check it using live view and then normal af from tripod  shooting flat subject which is parallel to focal plane.
Please note that at f1.2 you have very shallow DoF , e.g for 2 m distance it is only (+-)2cm. So if you use  f1.2 handheld in one shot AF mode then you would have very high probability that shot will be oof due to time lap between the timepoint you got the focus and timepoint you relesed the shutter. In this timelap your camera could move out of focus as you body is not tripod and you could not keep it so steady. This is something that a lot of people just do not realize.
To get 100% focus nailed shots handheld  at f1.2 you need to use AI Servo to compensate for body/camera position shifts so that subject is tracked and focus is maintained.
Also use single point AF so you are sure that lens focused on what you want. If you use 1Dx then use spot AF within single point AF to focus exactly on what is required especially on objects which are diagonal to focusing plane. Even single point af could cover some areas that  are out of shallow DoF for 1.2
All that works perfectly well for 1Ds M3 and  1Dx.
Hope this could be useful for you and  others

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