August 20, 2017, 03:43:51 PM

Author Topic: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR  (Read 103305 times)

SecureGSM

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 383
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1005 on: August 07, 2017, 12:34:52 PM »
see how you go. Attached is a few of my night shots. Not the best, but likely shows what I was talking about. overblown lights were not corrected as really did not have time back then for setting up proper blending exposures. I do try my best to correct for the evil sodium vapour light as much as I can usually, but not always possible due to mix of light sources in the scene. but I am sure that you can see where I was going with this. note the night sky colour in the img 3037. I chose to crush blacks at the time as otherwise skies looked unacceptable.


The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way - this is an excellent rundown: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/ (although this mostly about astrophotography, it has some relevance to night landscape work, I reckon). Of course, you can tint it however looks best to you - none of these photos will match what the eye would see anyhow.
Okay, good point. In that case, it was the Twilight Blue I was seeing in my long exposure wannabe astro shots. I didn't get much of the milkyway because of cloud cover and too much brightness from the low hanging sun (Was one week after the longest day this year had) ... probably why it was still so blue in the sky. Although it doesn't really matter anyway, my monitor isn't calibrated and I don't go for natural pictures, so blue or black, it would both be nicer than orange, I agree with that.

I'll see what i can get with blending, I'll have the time for that towards the end of this week. Thanks for all the input, I'll try to make use of it.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1005 on: August 07, 2017, 12:34:52 PM »

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4298
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1006 on: August 07, 2017, 12:44:44 PM »
This thread has grown more useful/interesting of late. ;)  Thanks all for the comments and explanations.

Jack
1DX2   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II 

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

stevelee

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1007 on: August 07, 2017, 08:29:17 PM »
Isn't the reason that the moonless night sky without light pollution looks black is that in low light we see with the rods and not with the cones in our eyes at low light level?

In other words, whatever the measurable hue might actually be, we are going to see it in black and white.

So if your goal is to make the scene look somewhat like we see it, then the background sky should be black except where we have some visible coloration. Right?

Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1008 on: August 07, 2017, 09:21:59 PM »
Isn't the reason that the moonless night sky without light pollution looks black is that in low light we see with the rods and not with the cones in our eyes at low light level?

In other words, whatever the measurable hue might actually be, we are going to see it in black and white.

So if your goal is to make the scene look somewhat like we see it, then the background sky should be black except where we have some visible coloration. Right?

I'd agree your perception of the topic is correct as when I am away from most light pullution the sky appears black unless there's airglow as described in the clarkvision link posted earlier.
When it's significant there can be a slight greenish- tinge that I've seen by eye which looks more blue-green to me actually.  Along the horizon it can pick up other hues depending on various factors but the astro guys should be able to provide the best answers on that topic.  Can vary with location and latitude and sun activity as well as human made light, etc.

Adelino

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1009 on: August 08, 2017, 12:59:02 PM »
And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen. Here's to hoping for a new camera between the 6 and 5 series. Price wise it makes sense.

Mikehit

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1857
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1010 on: August 08, 2017, 01:06:51 PM »
And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen. Here's to hoping for a new camera between the 6 and 5 series. Price wise it makes sense.

DPR have never done well testing Canon AF. I would take their results with a big pinch of salt.

There is not enough room between the models for a meaningful intermediary. Unless you can suggest what functions would be in each model.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21444
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1011 on: August 08, 2017, 06:08:42 PM »
And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen.

When DPR 'tested' the 1D X II AF system, they criticized it for performing exactly as Canon states it should (e.g., automatic point selection initially selecting the closest subject), and used settings which Canon explicitly recommends against (e.g., Spot AF with moving subjects).  Too hard for them to RTFM, I guess.  DPR is already biased against Canon, and when you factor in their incompetence at using Canon's AF systems, I'd take anything they say about Canon AF performance with a few grains of salt.  About this many should do the trick. 

EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1011 on: August 08, 2017, 06:08:42 PM »

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4298
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1012 on: August 08, 2017, 07:27:56 PM »
Good old DPR and the bias they can't comprehend or at least pretend they can't. :)

Jack
1DX2   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II 

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

Cthulhu

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1013 on: August 08, 2017, 07:44:29 PM »
And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen.

When DPR 'tested' the 1D X II AF system, they criticized it for performing exactly as Canon states it should (e.g., automatic point selection initially selecting the closest subject), and used settings which Canon explicitly recommends against (e.g., Spot AF with moving subjects).  Too hard for them to RTFM, I guess.  DPR is already biased against Canon, and when you factor in their incompetence at using Canon's AF systems, I'd take anything they say about Canon AF performance with a few grains of salt.  About this many should do the trick. 



I love how they complain Canon's af system has too many options and is too confusing to be usable, but when Sony copied it was amazing and perfect.

scyrene

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1825
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1014 on: August 08, 2017, 08:43:28 PM »
The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way

The night sky, no.  The evening sky...yes.  Many people generally find 'blue hour' photos much more appealing than the nighttime equivalent.

Yeah, good point, I hadn't thought of that!
Current equipment: 5Ds, 5D mark III, 50D, 24-105L, MP-E, 100L macro, 500L IS II; 1.4xIII + 2x III extenders; 600EX-RT.
Former equipment includes: 300D; EOS-M, EF-M 18-55, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, EF 35 f/2 IS, 70-200L f/4 non-IS and f/2.8L IS II, 85L II, Sigma 180 macro, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

LonelyBoy

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 709
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1015 on: August 08, 2017, 08:54:44 PM »
The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way - this is an excellent rundown: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/ (although this mostly about astrophotography, it has some relevance to night landscape work, I reckon). Of course, you can tint it however looks best to you - none of these photos will match what the eye would see anyhow.

In addition to what others have said on the topic, I remember watching a documentary on the development of the F-117 Nighthawk ("Secrets of the Stealth"), which said that the correct color for a night-time stealth plane would be a very deep blue or purple (which would disappear into the sky better), but it was black because the brass demanded it no matter the science.  I make no claims to the accuracy of that, mind.

EdB

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1016 on: August 11, 2017, 11:55:14 PM »

Exactly.   Canon evidently feels the trade off will not adversely impact their bottom line.

How much Canon stock do you own?

Seriously, are you people dumb?  He has never said he agreed with the off-die ADC's on the sensor.  He's just telling you WHY they did.  Can you not grasp that?  What difference in the universe would it make if he owned stock in Canon or not?  It won't change any facts.  Do you seriously think that if Canon believed the trade-off WOULD impact bottom line, they would have made that trade-off? 

What the heck is wrong with people?

He defends Canon no matter what they do and it's annoying. Whenever someone criticizes Canon he always there with his market arguments that Canon must be doing something right since they have market share. Justin Beiber has market share, doesn't mean it's good.

No, I don't.  If you're annoyed, that's your problem, not mine.  Feel free to ignore my posts. 

If someone criticizes Canon, that's fine.  If someone concludes that their criticism has any consequence for Canon, they are being ridiculous and thus inviting ridicule.

A few of Bieber's >30 million twitter followers might disagree with you.  But I'm sure you're a better judge of 'good' than they are, right?  A smart guy like you, I guess you get to pick the best camera for everyone, the best music for everyone, probably the best car, food, and their favorite color, too.  Gee, you're a pretty special guy, aren't ya?  ::)

Not really, nothing special here. I'm not shill like you either.

malarcky

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1017 on: August 12, 2017, 10:35:45 AM »
Please, let's not mimic FM here. That place has become absolutely unbearable with the trite comments. Everyone over there knowing more than everyone else to the point that the bantering back and forth becomes a useless place to gain any useful information. They could write a book the size of War And Peace and after reading it, one would come out more confused, and bored, among other things. The reader certaintly wouldn't have gained any knowledge of information about photography, that's for sure.

Sorry FM, you guys have let your focus get onto trivial things and no longer have any real value among us photographers. IT's like Romper Room over there as of late.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 02:27:00 PM by malarcky »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1017 on: August 12, 2017, 10:35:45 AM »

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4298
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1018 on: August 12, 2017, 03:02:19 PM »
I heartily agree.  The solution is to simply not respond to posts that take things in that direction, it's so simple.

Many CR threads are just so good and informative and it's all because of good will and considerate/mature behaviour.

Jack
1DX2   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II 

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

Isaacheus

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1019 on: August 12, 2017, 10:10:51 PM »
And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen.

When DPR 'tested' the 1D X II AF system, they criticized it for performing exactly as Canon states it should (e.g., automatic point selection initially selecting the closest subject), and used settings which Canon explicitly recommends against (e.g., Spot AF with moving subjects).  Too hard for them to RTFM, I guess.  DPR is already biased against Canon, and when you factor in their incompetence at using Canon's AF systems, I'd take anything they say about Canon AF performance with a few grains of salt.  About this many should do the trick. 


Are there any reasons the focusing wouldn't have the same performance wise as in the 80d? Obvious the spread is smaller than on the crop, but other than that, I was under the impression it was borrowed directly, so would have essentially the same performance?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
« Reply #1019 on: August 12, 2017, 10:10:51 PM »