Magic Lantern Improves 5D Mark III Dynamic Range to 14 Stops
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Skulker said:M.ST said:
Because of course they have never improved their products. :there is no improvement ever in any product they produce.
This is a really ground breaking innovation. Does not happen often. I am not surprised that an outsider created it; they need to do something different to make a living. Canon can continue with incremental improvements and be dumb, fat, and happy :
Upvote
0
clicstudio said:
Just curious since I have a iPhone 5. How to jailbreak it, and what is the added benefits?
Upvote
0
michi said:
LOL...yeah. We've known about cold fusion on paper for a long time. When some physicists finally pull it off?
"Meh...we've known about that for decades." :
A project like Magic Lantern is a great example of enthusiasts making a good thing even better -- for the sake of making it better. I applaud the work they're doing. They're like hot-rodders trying to squeeze every ounce of torque and horsepower out of the engine they've got...and then letting everyone drive it.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
I'm sorry, but that is a bold faced lie! The D800 has a full well capacity of 44k, while the 1D X has a full well capacity of 90k. That is a TWO FOLD difference between the two, bub!
Upvote
0
poias said:
Again, more misinformation. The D800 has 13.2 stops of native dynamic range (the dynamic range at it's full resolution). It is only able to achieve 14.3 stops (not 14.5) when downscaling from 36.3mp to 8mp (an overall LOSS in detail of over 200%!!!)
This is why DXO's reports are so misleading. From a NATIVE CAPABILITY standpoint, the D800 is a 13.2 stop camera. Depending on how much you downscale, you might gain DR via a reduction in noise, at the cost of original detail. In other words, it is impossible to get 14.3 stops of DR at the native resolution of 7360 x 4912 pixels. Given that when editing a RAW photo, you ALWAYS edit at full resolution (i.e. the extreme shadow pushing we see in something like Lightroom), it is only valid to say that the D800 is a 13 stop camera, not a 14 stop camera.
In that respect....if ML has actually managed to extract the full 14 stops of dynamic range from the 5D III and 7D (which, given that they are effectively doing two-frame HDR, I believe is highly likely...you have well more than 14 stops of original data to work with, and are only limited by the bit depth of the ADC), that means a 5D III with ML is actually capable of almost a stop more DR than the D800...at a lower native resolution.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
Not everyone can switch systems and if you do any significant video work whatsoever than 5DIII is several orders of magnitude better than the D800.
Upvote
0
Fyi, don't know if this has been mentioned here: unlike other ml features this will *not* be ported to other cameras since only 5d3/7d have the required readout (for details see the pdf linked in the ml thread) :-\
Upvote
0
michi said:
+1. Theory is far from reality. Reality is the ML team is worthy the accolade their getting. I hope Canon takes a hint from this and apply it in a better way in the next generation of sensors.
Upvote
0
Here's hoping the ML team can get a final, stable release working on the 7D given the difficulties of dual processors.
I imagine both my 7D and my M will have ML on them sooner or later. DR gains on the 7D; focus peaking and intervalometer on the M. Canon should donate a lot of money to the ML team.
I imagine both my 7D and my M will have ML on them sooner or later. DR gains on the 7D; focus peaking and intervalometer on the M. Canon should donate a lot of money to the ML team.
Upvote
0
It's good for video where output resolution will always be less than sensor's native resolution.
However for still photographs, you don't lose 2x the vertical resolution, you lose more. Since according to the technical document, it uses ISO 100 for sensor line 1,2, then ISO 1600 for line 3,4, and alternating like that.
It is how the hardware is wired up, two rows for each ADC/AMP. This has the effect of generating worse moire and alias on scenes with high frequency data since the spatial continuity is essential 1/4 that of original resolution.
However for still photographs, you don't lose 2x the vertical resolution, you lose more. Since according to the technical document, it uses ISO 100 for sensor line 1,2, then ISO 1600 for line 3,4, and alternating like that.
It is how the hardware is wired up, two rows for each ADC/AMP. This has the effect of generating worse moire and alias on scenes with high frequency data since the spatial continuity is essential 1/4 that of original resolution.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Indeed. But let's not allow facts get in the way of the same restated DRivel from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR. :jrista said:
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: DxOMark's Scores are useless, biased Bovine Scat.poias said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ankorwatt said:neuroanatomist said:Indeed. But let's not allow facts get in the way of the same restated DRivel from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR. :jrista said:
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: DxOMark's Scores are useless, biased Bovine Scat.poias said:
from the whole sensor area you get exactly the same FWC from 1dx and d800
Full well capacity. You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
From the whole sensor area? Tell me...what is a 'well' in FWC? How does the 'whole sensor area' affect the number of electons a well can hold?
You stated, "d800 has the same FWC as 1dx." Now you're stating, "from the whole sensor area you get exactly the same FWC from 1dx and d800." I was beginning to think you understood this stuff. I was wrong. See...unlike some, I can admit it. :
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:neuroanatomist said:Indeed. But let's not allow facts get in the way of the same restated DRivel from the DRoll DRones who DRool over DR. :jrista said:
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: DxOMark's Scores are useless, biased Bovine Scat.poias said:
from the whole sensor area you get exactly the same FWC from 1dx and d800
Full Well Capacity has to do with the physical pixel, nothing else. There is no "whole sensor area" when talking about FWC. Simply put, the maximum charge accumulation possible in the photodiode of each D800 pixel is 44972e-, while for each 1D X pixel it is 90367e-. There is no changing that, it is a fixed attribute of the hardware. If you downsample a digital image in post, you are normalizing noise across digital pixels, not physical pixels, and that is an entirely different process. Your numeric range is the same...either 8 bits or 16 bits, regardless of whether you have a D800 or 1D X, and for any levels above the noise threshold on the 1D X, the gains would be the same as for the D800. The primary gain with the D800 has to do with shadow levels, where you have more usable detail strait out of the camera than with the 1D X (however that still has nothing to do with FWC).
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
ankorwatt said:
Really? 1 pixel = 1 well. 1 well holds a given number of electrons. That number is different between the D800 and the 1D X. If you multiply the number of electrons that fill one well by the number of wells, you're not talking about FWC any more.
You want to discuss something else? You were the first to bring up FWC in this thread. Now that you've shown you don't understand the concept of FWC, by all means, let's move on. Even if you won't, I will. It's just not worth trying to explain to someone who refuses to admit when they're obviously wrong about a simple fact. :
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
