What surprises does Canon still have in store for the EOS-1D X Mark III?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
---
Naaaahh !!! I've got TONS more MALARKEY to expunge onto CanonRumors before April 1st, 2020! My verbal diarrhea is THE benchmark by which to measure vestigal verbal vomit! If you can't see it here, you won't see it ANYWHERE ELSE !!!
I AM HARRYFILM !!!!! --- AND....you heard it and saw it HERE FIRST !!!!
.
.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Sorry for the extremely delayed reply, HarryFilm, before Xmas I had a busy time...Your printing recipe looks quite well elaborated, thank you very much. In fact, my wife used a German professional printing service, and their printer software seems to turn her 12 mp files in high res images with some comparable tricks - without producing visible artifacts. The results were really impressive. Well, today's smartphones demonstrate that heavy-sided algorithms can produce quite useful images out of tiny sensors with very small pixels and often not so brillant lenses. The cost of adding "information" to low quality raw images, of course, is that those algorithms sometimes create very strange artifacts.
Upvote
0
Well, to help HarryFilm a bit: if you really work on ONE very promising image, e.g. a beautiful landscape or an elaborated portrait etc., it can be worth to invest quite a bit of work in ONE print. Heavy-sided editing is nothing new in the history of photography, in former times it was done by dark-room wizards. An impressive example is how Pablo Inirio, the master printer of Magnum, edited Dennis Stock’s shot of James Dean in Times Square and turned it into one of the most iconic film star portraits in history:
Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom
Want to see what kind of work goes into turning a masterful photograph into an iconic print? Pablo Inirio, the master darkroom printer who works at Magnum
petapixel.com
Upvote
0
It really depends on what you shoot and it what way. The MkIII is a much better video specced camera than the MkII and the WiFi speeds are going to be faster, if those are critical to your shooting then they are both major steps up.
Another thing people miss is that many companies buy tools like this on cycles that fit in with their useage for shutter cycles, tax advantages/write offs etc and they need to buy new cameras, if there is a newer model they buy it and will often hold off purchasing if a newer model is due.
As I see it the acceptance or rejection of the model will, as always, be down to AF performance, if the MkIII is better than the MkII it will be loved. Video shooters and crossover shooters are already going to love it.
BUT as a MkII owning generalist photo orientated shooter I am not enthused one bit. Indeed I am very unlikely to buy one soon and quite possibly never depending on what happens with the future RF releases. It looks like my days with the one series are now numbered, though the first of the writing on the wall for us stills orientated shooters was the amalgamation 1D X, killing off the 1Ds line was a real setback that the 5Ds/r did not fill.
Upvote
0
Great link - thanks for taking the time to post it justaCanonuser.
Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom
Want to see what kind of work goes into turning a masterful photograph into an iconic print? Pablo Inirio, the master darkroom printer who works at Magnum
Upvote
0
I am reminded of when I would mitigate converging verticals by setting something under on side of the easel to elevate it. Then I’d need to dodge that end of the picture to make the exposure consistent.
Upvote
0
---
Since MOST cameras are actually pretty good these days, it's now up to the printers themselves, where almost ALL now have great error-diffusion based rendering. We have 48 inch wide Epson, Canon and OCE (a division of Canon) to do our large screen prints. At 2400 DPI that is about 600 lines per inch using CMYK or about 400 LPI using 4-colour, 6-colour or 8-colour inkjets.
We have found that by using a fancy Fractal Resizer (we designed our own!) with the very advanced edge detection and object recognition to scale objects, it STILL keep edges razor sharp. We can resize almost ANY image by up to 4x on each axis and get more-than-decent result for bus-poster work or we can merely DOUBLE the resolution on the X and Y axis to get a SUPERB premium glossy magazine quality result. This means our older 8-megapixel pro cameras from 10 years ago (they still work!) can give us 32 megapixels and our high end 1Dx2's will give us 80+ megapixels, and our unreleased 50 megapixel monsters will now give us 200 megapixels! What WE HAVE BEEN DOING is finally coding the "Fractal Resizer" into a CPU chip directly so that ALL our new cameras and computers will have it built-in for real-time or near-real-time SUPER-HIGH-QUALITY image scaling!
Live Fractal Resize on a camera ALSO acts as a form of 1.5x, 2x, 3x and 4x digital zoom! We HAVE TRIED it up to 8x on each axis but it softens edges a tad bit too much for my tastes BUT for some people it may be perfectly acceptable depending upon your application! 4x resize on each axis is the upper limit in my opinion for HIGH QUALITY SCALING results!
Fractal Resize is the BEST resize algorithm out there and so long you work within it's parameters and do ONLY 1.5x, 2x, 3x and 4x resize on the X-axis, you WILL get excellent results! The printers will take care of the rest of the quality issues by distributing any basic/intrinsic image capture errors out to other pixels using simple error diffusion which TRICKS the human eye to thinking there is more resolution than there really is.
.
Upvote
0
You're welcome, it is always a pleasure for me to take look back in the history of photography and talk a bit about it. In the digital age, it is worth remembering that photography isn't only about shooting 4000 images a day, despite many pro photographers (wedding, sports, wildlife) are forced to do so.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
