December 18, 2017, 04:02:38 PM

Author Topic: Why the DxO bashing?  (Read 90446 times)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6598
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2014, 11:07:26 PM »
Yep, silly me, trying to defuse the photography gear forum bitchfest with an actual photo, shan't make that mistake again!
Oh ya, we almost forgot, you posted a pushed photo!
OK, tell us what it's from, ISO, processing done, and how reduced it is in size.

I asked for guesses for how bad you thought it might be, but as a hint, it was a little more challenging than this, but then my exposure snafu was due to recycle time, not incompetence. I actually have the correctly exposed sister shot, I just threw this in for shits and giggles.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2014, 11:07:26 PM »

2n10

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #91 on: February 08, 2014, 11:11:42 PM »

[/quote]
Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...

Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here :)
[/quote]

OK  ;D






I thought I would throw in a Chipmonk and Jackrabbit to add variety for more sanity. :P
Canon EOS 7D Mark II and EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, EF 100 Macro, EF 50 1.4, EF 100-400L Mk II, Tamron 150-600

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #92 on: February 08, 2014, 11:13:07 PM »
Atheist: I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it.
Believer: You must believe in my religion, else your image is doomed.
Atheist: But I've done fine without worshiping DR for decades.
Believer: No you ignorant fool, worshiping DR is the only way to image salvation.
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

2n10

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #93 on: February 08, 2014, 11:16:19 PM »
Atheist: I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it.
Believer: You must believe in my religion, else your image is doomed.
Atheist: But I've done fine without worshiping DR for decades.
Believer: No you ignorant fool, worshiping DR is the only way to image salvation.

Very nice and accurate.
Canon EOS 7D Mark II and EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, EF 100 Macro, EF 50 1.4, EF 100-400L Mk II, Tamron 150-600

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6305
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #94 on: February 08, 2014, 11:21:22 PM »
Example of picture taken with Canon camera that shows banding.... (Banding shows up in shadow detail of bird's right leg)
The best camera is the one in your hands

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #95 on: February 08, 2014, 11:23:40 PM »
You can't do that, though.

But I did, so quite obviously I can.

Sure, you "can" do it if you so please. You just can't expect to have a coherent, comprehensible discussion when no one else involved knows you've suddenly taken the discussion out of context. The joke is really on you here...but apparently you don't quite seem to get that. Your naiveté is apparently boundless...

...which begs the question why I am even trying...

I think you're calling "Foul!" because all of a sudden an argument was brought into the discussion that you know nothing about. Not my problem.

Well, yes...you made an argument that appeared to have to do with what we were discussing, and only after the fact did you disclose that it actually had NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. It is a simple matter of common courtesy to keep the people you are conversing with appraised of all the details, such as the fact that your quoting someone else from a different context entirely, and quoting an opinion rather than any kind of discernible fact, rather than making a quote of your own within the current context.

That would really be a foul, or at the very least, it'll foul up the conversation...which it clearly did. The conversation, or debate rather, has most definitely been fouled. Were now having a metadebate about how and why the debate could have become so completely fouled...which is really rather inane, when you think about it. (I'm sure there are a number of superb XKCD comics to epitomize the hilarity of the current state of this thread, come to think of it!)

Your clearly not interested in facts in proper context, or any level of decorum or common courtesy, however...you don't care that your random internalized context switches are unknowable to the outside world unless you have the courtesy to let everyone else know that you've switched contexts...which renders any discussion with you 100% entirely pointless, useless, and a total waste of time.

So...Ima get back to work on my ART now...tata!  ::)

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #96 on: February 08, 2014, 11:23:58 PM »

Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...

Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here :)

OK  ;D






I thought I would throw in a Chipmonk and Jackrabbit to add variety for more sanity. :P
[/quote]

It was clearly established (quite some time ago) that Squirrels are indecent folk ;D ... but I like the Jack Rabbit ... very nice image.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 03:18:32 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #96 on: February 08, 2014, 11:23:58 PM »

Orangutan

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1901
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #97 on: February 08, 2014, 11:24:06 PM »
Example of picture taken with Canon camera that shows banding.... (Banding shows up in shadow detail of bird's right leg)

Fixed, but not patterned?

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6598
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #98 on: February 08, 2014, 11:26:57 PM »
Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here :)

OK, taken with a Canon camera a 300 f2.8 and a MkII 2X TC and cropped.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #99 on: February 08, 2014, 11:27:03 PM »
What I find really interesting is when the DR/FPN Evangelists are actually challenged with an image that squarely disputes their assertions religion, they all ignore it.

hmmm?? Don't get "FPN"?
Fixed Pattern Noise
Fixed Pattern Noise...... Is that when all sides of an argument yell the same thing at each other, yet nobody is listening, and even if they were, are too stubborn to change?

I was going to say that is accurate as well...but, were not actually yelling the same things...so at the moment, were some kind of oscillating banding noise.

BTW, when I posted that we should all be making art...five minutes after that, I actually went out to do some wildlife photography. I think this picture about sums up this thread:



Howling at the moon! (They actually were...big half moon was up in the afternoon sky, right where they were looking...there was a whole pack of them, at least five strong, one adult, and four younger ones...maybe yearling pups.)
Beautiful..... I also ran into a member of the Canine family, but (thankfully) not as wild as yours...

Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here :)

Hmm. Maybe we should have a pointless debate about which breed of dog is cuter. It would be like the DR debate...only with the Cuteness Factor. Who has the best puppy-dog begging pout: Coyote or Husky? The cute-factor "noise floor" would be how much fang is showing...the more fang, the less cute. The cute-factor "maximum saturation" would be how big and puppy-dogish the eyes are. ;D

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #100 on: February 08, 2014, 11:29:48 PM »
Perhaps it's time to start posting squirrel pictures in the hope of restoring sanity here :)

OK, taken with a Canon camera a 300 f2.8 and a MkII 2X TC and cropped.

Nice!

At least your feeder is in tact. I have an army of squirrels that hit my yard every day or two...the family from two houses down. ;) I call them "The Destros", because they truly live by their own moral code: DESTROY ALL ON THE PATH TO FOOOOD!!! They've ripped apart my bird seed feeders more times than I can count (and some of them were expensive...one was $40!)

Lawliet

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #101 on: February 08, 2014, 11:43:27 PM »

That particular quote comes from Gale Tattersall - the guy that used the 5D Mark II for House where they used the 5D Mark II to shoot the final TV episode. So what you're now saying is that a well respected professional is wrong?

Do you realize that G.T. is in the motion picture business?
I.E., esp. given the time frame of the statement, thats comparing of what remains after the cameras internal conversation, the lossy compression and then the color grading on top of that are applied vs. raw sensor data?

Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1611
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #102 on: February 09, 2014, 12:25:02 AM »
Here is a pretty crappy image shot with a completely outdated tech Canon sensor, that many posters here will adamantly tell you is impossible to do. Now I know it is no award winner, but I also know it would get me out of the sh-t if it was an important moment. I just thought it might be interesting to post an actual photographic example of the appallingly bad Canon tech.

Anybody care to guess how many stops under exposed the image was? It was at a wedding reception and the on camera flash that I was bouncing hadn't recharged in time, so did not fire.

OK, it's pushed fairly hard, hugely downsampled so hard to tell what body it came from.
But, whatever body it did come from exhibits horizontal and vertical banding almost evenly at the conditions of that shot and it's showing up as magenta crosshatch on her neck and some other areas.  So it could be any brand of camera at this point.

In a bit of a leap I'd say its from an old digic 2, possibly digic 3 body, maybe a 20D or an early Rebel?

From the histogram, the red and green channels are showing a lot of quantization stretch, so you've pulled this from pretty low down and from likely moderate ISO.
maybe 800 to 1600, depending on the body.

With some of your PS talent you could still make a passable print out of this, ultimate IQ rarely required for portraits.

Exif is scrubbed except for "Ducky" and "Photoshop 3.08" ...

Heh!  what kind of surprise are you tryin' t' pull here, bub?
let's see you try that with a digic 4 camera ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #102 on: February 09, 2014, 12:25:02 AM »

David Hull

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #103 on: February 09, 2014, 01:04:32 AM »
There's obviously a lot of very knowledgeable people here so I'll pose a question that's been bugging me for a long time.
How is it possible for DxO to claim > 14 stops of dynamic range for cameras with a 14 bit ADC  ???
Phil.
Noise determines what is considered "absolute black", and from this absolute black is counted how many points of DR to reach full white (highlights without texture). When DXO makes downsize to 8 megapixel, the noise is reduced, and this aspect of sensor 36 megapixel lead comparative advantage. If you do not apply to downsize 8 megapixel count DR will not reach 14 stops.

But how can you possibly get more than 14 stops from a 14 bit conversion?

Phil.
There are many ways to do this -- one thing to consider, for example, is some CD audio equipment that used 12 bit converters to get 16 bits of performance through oversampling or the so-called "1" bit designs that produced 16 bit equivalence. I don't think this is what is going on here though.  I think if you pick the correct settings on the DxO presentation the Sony's measure out at about 13.8 bits of DR which is not surprising for a low speed SAR design.

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3303
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #104 on: February 09, 2014, 03:27:29 AM »
Atheist: I do not believe in DR, but I have no problem if others believe in it.
Believer: You must believe in my religion, else your image is doomed.
Atheist: But I've done fine without worshiping DR for decades.
Believer: No you ignorant fool, worshiping DR is the only way to image salvation.
One more cartoon for your reading/viewing pleasure  ;D
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« Reply #104 on: February 09, 2014, 03:27:29 AM »