Why the DxO bashing?

[jrista]

What fact am I distorting?

"And with Canon equipment, you're at about 10 stops of usable dynamic range."

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? (His comment of there being about 10 stops of usable response from the Canon was to contrast with the measured response of over 11.)

You can't do that, though. This is the fact twisting I'm talking about. Either that, or you somehow expect readers on an internet forum to keep up with your mentally internalized context switches that you never make clear. The discussion was about DXO DR measures! Not some random quote from some random guy about some random TV show that had an episode or two filmed with a 5D II. You took the discussion at hand, and dropped in a "quote" that was ENTIRELY out of context, about an entirely DIFFERENT CAMERA than has been used as an exemplar up through this point (hell, it's ALWAYS the exemplar...the debate is always between the 5D III and D800...5D III is implied, stated or not), and expect everyone to just go along with it?

And if you're going to keep flinging that one up from time to time because you've run out of substance to debate, I'll keep reminding you that it wasn't my idea but someone else's who quite seriously knows what they're doing.

You can fling up all the "they seriously know what their doing" ppl all you want. Doesn't change the fact that they are random and out of context. It also doesn't change the fact that you never stated you were quoting anyone, or that the whole "10 stop" thing was from a separate frame of reference. You can't just mix and match contexts in a factual discussion like that. It renders the entire exchange utterly pointless, especially when you bring in out of context quotes or points without actually stating as much.

Every discussion has a context. A context brings with it a broader basis of data, a frame of reference, and relationships that only have meaning within that context. Comparing a fact from one context to a fact from another context has no meaning. Different frames of reference, therefor they are not comparable. No one gives a crap if some random guy who filmed a House episode with a 5D II personally insists that "canon cameras" only have 10 stops of DR. That's an arbitrary quote, not a factual measure. It has absolutely ZERO meaning in the context of discussing DXO and the discussion DR numbers. Only DXO DR numbers have any meaning within the context of DXO.

 

[Don Haines]

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?

 

[jrista]

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, it is the banding that can be seen if you process files badly, particularly if they are badly exposed files processed badly.

FPN = Five-stops Pushed Noise

lol...that's actually rather accurate.

 

[Aglet]

@ JR
That's really interesting about Nikon and how they handle their black levels.
I remember seeing samples when their first "lord of the dark" came out, D3 or D3S?... and I could see the black levels were clean but certainly looked artificially so.
In comparison, I'm finding the more recent Nikon output to be more realistic in that area, at least for my purposes, but I've never tried astro' so this is really quite interesting and something I'll have to look in to when I can.

Thanks, also, for the reminder and links to Roger Clark's site. I'm glad he's keeping it updated (unlike mine) so will have to spend some time reading there as well.

And yes, laugh as some may about it, I can garner a fair bit of useful info very quickly from a "dark shot" by pushing it 4 stops and looking at the noise patterns. It tells me immediately what to expect if I have to push a file from it.

 

[privatebydesign]

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?

Yep, silly me, trying to defuse the photography gear forum bitchfest with an actual photo, shan't make that mistake again!

 

[Aglet]

FPN = Five-stops Pushed Noise

you are wrong again, it's FOUR stops

 

[jrista]

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.)

 

[Aglet]

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.

 

[Loswr]

FPN = Five-stops Pushed Noise

you are wrong again, it's FOUR stops

Only four stops? Ok, sorry...my mistake. Pushing it only 4 stops instead of 5 makes all the difference in the world. I've never screwed up the exposure so bad I needed to push 5 stops, but 4 stops...well, I did that one time. One.

I wonder if that's how many stops PBD pushed his image?

 

[Don Haines]

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

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[2n10]

[/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.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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.

 

[2n10]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

Example of picture taken with Canon camera that shows banding.... (Banding shows up in shadow detail of bird's right leg)

 

[jrista]

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]

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.
[/quote]

It was clearly established (quite some time ago) that Squirrels are indecent folk ;D ... but I like the Jack Rabbit ... very nice image.

 

[Orangutan]

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]

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.

 

[jrista]

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