The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]

[AvTvM]

Hehe! ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

yadda yadda blah blah

You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm always referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can do with the RAW files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to editing RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size specifically doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an arbitrarily chosen standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing ONLY within the limited context of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.

blah blah blah

you can't compare cameras that way and say that one is better than another, as I've pointed out that can lead to very misleading results.

You are basically saying that all you ever refer to is comparing cameras at 100% view, but then you talk in generalities, which badly confuses many I bet. It seems very misleading. Again, say some 100MP camera has worse SNR per photosite than some 6MP camera but, viewing images at the same scale from each the 100MP camera has MUCH better SNR, well it would not be fair to say that the 100MP has worse SNR than the 6MP camera, but with your 100% view RAW editing latitude only stance that is the impression you give.

Finding out what 100% view RAW editing latitude you have is fine and good, as a stand alone, but you shouldn't be using that in the context of comparing one camera to another and saying that it's overall better or worse for DR/SNR. That is simply wrong and misleading. There is a reason that you are one of the few people left who try to talk in such a manner.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Come on man, I know you understand the hows and whys of normalization...

Sure. There are times when transformation and normalization of data are necessary...but it should be done rationally. I once reviewed a manuscript where the normalization of chemical constituents resulted in a negative solute concentration – you can't have less than zero of something dissolved in a solvent! When normalized values exceed the range of what is physically possible, the normalization method needs to be revised. Quite simply, DxO is BAD 'image science'.

And how is it bad image science?
Because it makes Canon look worse for low ISO DR at this point in time? :

(and I bet if the next gen from Canon has better DR than Exmor, that suddenly you will go back to not trying to obfuscate and hide the Print normalized data)

Once again you play sneaky tricks bringing up things like less than zero results or probabilities more than 100% and other various mistakes and then mentioning DxO and trying to trick people into thinking they are doing things of the same nature.

You'd make a good politician.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DXO should
1. capture image of identical test target using 3 copies of purchased test cameras and the same optical bench

I came across this image of an unnamed DxO 'scientist' preparing their optical bench for a camera test.

You remind me of Carl Rove....

 

[jrista]

I understand normalization perfectly.

It seem like you do.

yadda yadda blah blah

You keep missing the point. Your locked into your limited notion of what is "comparable" and what is not. I'm choosing to compare something you have decided is not comparable. Sorry, I disagree. I've always disagreed, I always will disagree. I suspect your in the same position, so this the last I'll say on it in this particular thread.

In the context I'm always referring to, the same context I've been referring to for years, I'm not interested in how the images look in the end. I'm interested in what I can do with the RAW files. I'm interested in the editing potential...the latitude with which I can push and pull exposure and white balance and color around. RAW files are not scaled. You always work with them at their native size. Scaling does not play a factor when it comes to editing RAW files. I don't care what the final outcome looks like. That is ARBITRARY. I can output the same images DOZENS of times at different sizes, for different prints, all with different amounts of dynamic range, all with different SNRs. But when I'm sitting in front of Lightroom, that's all the last thing on my mind. We ALL sit in front of lightroom, pushing exposure around...all the time, day in and day out, year in and year out.

Just because DXO says I get 14.4 stops of DR at an 8x12" 300dpi size specifically doesn't mean that's what your going to be sizing to in the end. You may downsample it more, you may downsample it less, you may ENLARGE! DXO's Print DR is an arbitrarily chosen standard FOR THE PURPOSES OF comparing ONLY within the limited context of DXO's web site. It doesn't tell you anything about actual, real-world results as if your sitting in front of your computer, using Lightroom to actually WORK with the RAW files those cameras output. It just tells you what you could get IF you downsampled to EXACTLY that size. That's all. And that's fine and dandy...when I'm browsing around DXO's site selecting cameras to compare with their little camera comparer, it gives me a contextually valid result.

It's impossible to edit RAW at an other size than 100%. So 100% size is all that matters when you want to know what you can do, as far as lifting shadows for the purposes of compressing 10, 12, 13.2 or 15.3 stops of dynamic range into the 8 stops of your screen, or the 5-7 stops of print. The output dynamic range is arbitrary...it depends on countless factors that ultimately affect it (which, yes, total megapixel count is one of them, but noise reduction routines, HDR merge/enfuse, etc. are others). You may end up with 14 stops of DR, you may end up with 16 stops of DR in a file you were able to perform some epic noise reduction on. The output isn't what matters when your actually sitting in front of Lightroom actually editing the RAW itself. The RAW file itself, at 100% size, is what matters.

blah blah blah

you can't compare cameras that way and say that one is better than another, as I've pointed out that can lead to very misleading results.

You are basically saying that all you ever refer to is comparing cameras at 100% view, but then you talk in generalities, which badly confuses many I bet. It seems very misleading. Again, say some 100MP camera has worse SNR per photosite than some 6MP camera but, viewing images at the same scale from each the 100MP camera has MUCH better SNR, well it would not be fair to say that the 100MP has worse SNR than the 6MP camera, but with your 100% view RAW editing latitude only stance that is the impression you give.

Finding out what 100% view RAW editing latitude you have is fine and good, as a stand alone, but you shouldn't be using that in the context of comparing one camera to another and saying that it's overall better or worse for DR/SNR. That is simply wrong and misleading. There is a reason that you are one of the few people left who try to talk in such a manner.

Not comparing "cameras". Just comparing their editing latitude. For all the rest, existing results from DXO, DPR, etc. are sufficient. I JUST mean comparing editing latitude. Which is what all the DR debates are always about...how much can you lift the shadows. That's it. Please don't conflate that with your assumption that I'm "comparing cameras", I am not. You keep ignoring the fact that there is a CONTEXT within which the debate occurs. There is always a context. The context, here on CR, is that the DR debate always ends up referring to how much editing latitude....how much shadow lifting...you have with Camera A vs. Camera B. That's what I'm always referring to, because that's what the debate is always about.

You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.

Then how come you started up all your DxO is all misleading BS with their Print screens, you can't use that nonsense that has no connection and no use whatsoever of the webpage, etc. etc.?

 

[jrista]

You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.

Then how come you started up all your DxO is all misleading BS with their Print screens, you can't use that nonsense that has no connection and no use whatsoever of the webpage, etc. etc.?

Print DR only has meaning when you are comparing cameras within the context of DXO. That is the sole valid use of Print DR. Because that is the only place where DXO's specific algorithm for determining Print DR is applied, and where an image size for a 8x12" 300ppi print is the target of that scaling algorithm. That 8x12" 300ppi image, scaled with DXO's algorithm, is the ONLY way to get the dynamic range numbers DXO spits out for Print DR. Outside of that context...Print DR is meaningless.

IF you are on DXO's site comparing cameras, then it's valid. But to refer to Print DR as the dynamic range that anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of their processing, output image size, or a myriad of other factors that go into making an image, to refer to Print DR as THE dynamic range they have when they use a camera is WRONG. That is NOT the dynamic range of the camera. You cannot know how people are going to process, what dimensions they may scale to. The only thing you can really know is that people are either shooting JPEG, in which case every DR number that DXO spits out is irrelevant...or they are editing RAW images in ACR, LR, or maybe Aperture/Darktable/RawThearapy. EDITING RAW. Print DR has no meaning OUTSIDE of the context of DXO. Such as, oh, I dunno...here on CR?!? Print DR only has meaning when you check off three cameras for direct comparison ON DOX's web site.

So, here on CR...where the discussions about DR always revolve around lifting shadows with RAW (your one of maybe two people who ever bring up noise frequencies specifically, in which case the context is different)...here on CR (and pretty much any other site, like DPR) where DR is interpreted to mean shadow lifting latitude, I refer to Screen DR. It's contextually valid, it has a direct application to what people actually do with their actual images that they actually get out of actual cameras in actual life.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You are personally concerned about total noise levels, and specifically total noise levels in a normalized context. That is COMPLETELY VALID! I'm not debating that. I don't think ANYONE has ever debated that. It's just a different context. Evaluating the total amount of noise in a downsampled image is different than evaluating the editing latitude of a RAW file.

Then how come you started up all your DxO is all misleading BS with their Print screens, you can't use that nonsense that has no connection and no use whatsoever of the webpage, etc. etc.?

Print DR only has meaning when you are comparing cameras within the context of DXO. That is the sole valid use of Print DR. Because that is the only place where DXO's specific algorithm for determining Print DR is applied, and where an image size for a 8x12" 300ppi print is the target of that scaling algorithm. That 8x12" 300ppi image, scaled with DXO's algorithm, is the ONLY way to get the dynamic range numbers DXO spits out for Print DR. Outside of that context...Print DR is meaningless.

IF you are on DXO's site comparing cameras, then it's valid. But to refer to Print DR as the dynamic range that anyone, anywhere, at any time, regardless of their processing, output image size, or a myriad of other factors that go into making an image, to refer to Print DR as THE dynamic range they have when they use a camera is WRONG. That is NOT the dynamic range of the camera. You cannot know how people are going to process, what dimensions they may scale to. The only thing you can really know is that people are either shooting JPEG, in which case every DR number that DXO spits out is irrelevant...or they are editing RAW images in ACR, LR, or maybe Aperture/Darktable/RawThearapy. EDITING RAW. Print DR has no meaning OUTSIDE of the context of DXO. Such as, oh, I dunno...here on CR?!? Print DR only has meaning when you check off three cameras for direct comparison ON DOX's web site.

So, here on CR...where the discussions about DR always revolve around lifting shadows with RAW (your one of maybe two people who ever bring up noise frequencies specifically, in which case the context is different)...here on CR (and pretty much any other site, like DPR) where DR is interpreted to mean shadow lifting latitude, I refer to Screen DR. It's contextually valid, it has a direct application to what people actually do with their actual images that they actually get out of actual cameras in actual life.

I don't think so. Here on CR people much more often compare seem to be comparing the relative DR and SNR of one sensor to another and the relative comparison between sensors should be done using PrintDR. A relative comparison is a relative comparison and relative differences on DxO don't magically change as soon as you click away from the DxO page. (although it is true, that what you can get out of a RAW file, as is, 100% view, stand alone, not comparing, is the ScreenDR)

DOn't forget the actual life usage relative differences between cameras should be based off of PrintDR, yeah the absolute #s you get from that might not match anything you do, but the relative difference in how each body would do for you compared to another, you get from the PrintDR (even if again, the absolute #s there alone aren't all that applicable other than in very rare scenarios).

 

[Maiaibing]

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

i trust you can back up that claim. He specifically denied that and said he paid for his gear. But maybe you know better.

Details of Canon's program are now available. Not much cheaper gear than the rest of us, per diems while traveling, paid presentations + pic royalties (of course). Lots of rules and regulations tying you into Canon (no surprise).

 

[StudentOfLight]

Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?

Now I decide to print that downsampled image on paper. What is the maximum dynamic range that the paper and ink can reproduce? I wonder if it is higher than what I shot with the 70D. When you print an image, do you gain additional shadow or highlight detail?

I wonder... after all these are really difficult concepts to grapple with...

 

[jrista]

Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?

Now I decide to print that downsampled image on paper. What is the maximum dynamic range that the paper and ink can reproduce? I wonder if it is higher than what I shot with the 70D. When you print an image, do you gain additional shadow or highlight detail?

I wonder... after all these are really difficult concepts to grapple with...

You always lose dynamic range in print. The best papers in the world, printed on top of the line Epson or Canon commercial printers with high end pigment inks with low metamerism and excellent ink density get maybe 7 stops or so of dynamic range. You NEVER gain DR in print. You always lose DR in print, and usually lose out in overall full gamut as well, as the range of reproducible colors, even on the best of the best papers with the best inks under excellent light, don't achieve the same kind of white point brightness, black point depth, nor color saturation extent as a computer screen.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?

Now I decide to print that downsampled image on paper. What is the maximum dynamic range that the paper and ink can reproduce? I wonder if it is higher than what I shot with the 70D. When you print an image, do you gain additional shadow or highlight detail?

I wonder... after all these are really difficult concepts to grapple with...

You always lose dynamic range in print. The best papers in the world, printed on top of the line Epson or Canon commercial printers with high end pigment inks with low metamerism and excellent ink density get maybe 7 stops or so of dynamic range. You NEVER gain DR in print. You always lose DR in print, and usually lose out in overall full gamut as well, as the range of reproducible colors, even on the best of the best papers with the best inks under excellent light, don't achieve the same kind of white point brightness, black point depth, nor color saturation extent as a computer screen.

I think you missed seeing my smiley, but thanks for explaining it for the uninformed.

 

[crashpc]

For keeping the format, I´d rather choose 3x2 pixels array :-D
And of course I have the same doubts.

 

[RodS57]

I dunno...<snip> Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

Jrista,

I agree 100%
I enjoy some of your posts. Yes, only some. The more technical ones are beyond my understanding.

This is my first post so let me say I am not a troll or a canon fanboy. I have a canon because I had a budget in mind and the canon kit (T3i + 18-55 & 75-300) fit my budget. It could have been nikon or jimbob's shoebox camera. I use canon rumors and other sites to get a feel for prospective purchases. My kit now includes the 15-85, 70-300L & the tamzooka.

I still take pictures pretty much the way I did with 35mm film without the expense of film. (ie: in camera jpgs; what comes out comes out; what doesn't doesn't ). Photography is one of several hobbies I have. The main thing is I enjoy it. I would like to expand my capabilities so I am very interested in the 7D2 but I will not take out a second mortgage to get one.

As for the 'art' part of your argument - good luck. Night sky pictures are amazing. I'm still trying for "that" shot of the moon and hoping for better displays of northern lights this year.

As for the threads here on the forum, they do tend to degenerate somewhat. Still it is interesting to see/read what other people think.

Cheers