Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »
 31 
 on: Today at 05:03:06 AM 
Started by shadowblade - Last post by shadowblade
It's not that simple with digital. The original reason why digital cameras had low ISO is that most of the light is not registered at all, so you need to expose it for a longer time -> lower ISO. A low ISO cannot be directly translated to improved quality as you could in the film days (where all light is registered).

Then sensors became better at registering more light, by the use of microlenses and thus base ISO go up. To make ISO down in "a good way" you need higher full-well capacity so each pixel can gather more light before it clips. Some has happened in that area too, but most gains in DR come from lower noise levels in the electronics.

The new Canon looks exciting in any case, can't wait for the official announcement Smiley. They could be using a Sony sensor or traded some Sony patents so they may have the DR, if they don't have people will get very disappointed.

That's why I said the base ISO - the ISO where a full well equals maximum exposure. The lower the base ISO, the deeper the well, assuming the same percentage of photons are registered.

 32 
 on: Today at 04:49:25 AM 
Started by tr4driver - Last post by tr4driver
Have you checked here?

Yes.  No luck.

Kurt

 33 
 on: Today at 04:45:30 AM 
Started by shadowblade - Last post by torger
Also, I wish they'd given it a base ISO of 64, or even 50, like the D810 - no-one buys a body like this to shoot low-light action, and a lower base ISO would help with both noise and DR.

It's not that simple with digital. The original reason why digital cameras had low ISO is that most of the light is not registered at all, so you need to expose it for a longer time -> lower ISO. A low ISO cannot be directly translated to improved quality as you could in the film days (where all light is registered).

Then sensors became better at registering more light, by the use of microlenses and thus base ISO go up. To make ISO down in "a good way" you need higher full-well capacity so each pixel can gather more light before it clips. Some has happened in that area too, but most gains in DR come from lower noise levels in the electronics.

The new Canon looks exciting in any case, can't wait for the official announcement Smiley. They could be using a Sony sensor or traded some Sony patents so they may have the DR, if they don't have people will get very disappointed.

 34 
 on: Today at 04:44:21 AM 
Started by ladsphotography - Last post by eronald
I think what he means is something akin to the Fuji X-T1 but with the Sony 50mp 33x44mm sensor. Well, at least that is what I would want.  Grin

I just meant smaller, less voluminous - those are objective criteria. In fact an Alpa or Arca with AF and an EVF would be quite neat in my book. Note that on-sensor AF is now possible as well as EVFs with modern sensor designs, and even without focus pixels as demonstrated by the GH4; of course it remains to be seen how AF actuation can work, but I'm sure Alpa or Arca could design a motorized focus helical or backplane.

For myself, I'd be very happy with a $1500 superflat Plaubel Makina or all digital Fuji folder. I don't think a rear screen is really necessary if you have an EVF, and one can always use wifi on an ipad to compose on a really big screen.

But if Ken R got his super Fuji-T made, I'd love getting one in the post Smiley

Edmund

 35 
 on: Today at 04:33:26 AM 
Started by ladsphotography - Last post by Ken R
Hi Edmund,

We have had mirrorless MFD for long, technical cameras. Now we have live view we have more options.

On the other hand, I would say that we need an integrated camera. The Alpa FPS and the Hartblei HCam come pretty close. Could be they need som effort to work well with live view.

Best regards
Erik


I think what he means is something akin to the Fuji X-T1 but with the Sony 50mp 33x44mm sensor. Well, at least that is what I would want.  Grin

 36 
 on: Today at 04:03:54 AM 
Started by Gel - Last post by eronald
Huelight made some profiles that was popular in RawTherapee a number of years ago, I guess it's still the same person behind it. Great to see that he can get some extra income from the special knowledge.

The available software tools for making and tuning own profiles are not very good which is a bit surprising I think, but it's the way it is. Making accurate reproduction profiles is easy and software exists for that, but when it comes to subjective colors the tools are limited. Manufacturers like Adobe, Phase One etc use custom software not available to the public, and I would guess Huelight has his own tools as well.

I wonder when someone will make a camera profile software available to make really good subjective color profiles...?

There's a patent issue, in particular a Kodak patent. Which wouldn't be such an issue if the Kodak software was still marketed ...All the guys I know who do profiling including myself had their own custom software. As an aside,  I believe one of the reasons color controls in retouching software generally are so bad is that most intuitive interfaces for manipulating color were patented by companies working in the TV field, and small software authors like the Knoll brothers wanted to work around the patents. But that's just my imagination.  To get back to the profile topic,with the Adobe camera color model things are IMHO even worse, and standard editing software cannot be used.

Edmund

 37 
 on: Today at 03:58:21 AM 
Started by OldRoy - Last post by OldRoy
Thanks for all the suggestions so far.
At present I'm still waiting for some decision about what/when/where/how much... We're dealing with the timescales of academia here. However I thought that I might, as suggested, try a few long exposures with a D700 and an IR filter on the lens. To that end would someone like to suggest the best wavelength option as there seem to be several available; as usual there are some low-cost examples on Amazon which might suffice for an experiment.

As to the objectives, it would be a matter of revealing additional detail in the frescos. Tweaking in LR/PS has already helped quite a bit. The colour is almost irrelevant since even when these were painted there were limited pigments available. I've seen some successful examples showing fossils.

I'm curious about the focusing issue. If I use the D700 (or, possibly, my EM5) I have live view available. How big is the focus shift at each end of the spectrum in comparison with the visible? In other words, given static subjects and no restriction on exposure times, would there be sufficient DOF if stopped down to (say) F8 on a normal or wide lens?
Roy
EDIT. Unsurprisingly, subsequent to posting the above I find that Wikipedia has very detailed information on these issues.

 38 
 on: Today at 03:53:28 AM 
Started by dsapkota - Last post by dsapkota
up.

 39 
 on: Today at 03:50:57 AM 
Started by fineartprint-downunder - Last post by Theodoros
Yes single-shot is a great workflow advantage, that's one major reason I think people use them when it's become "good enough", and now 135 systems are good enough for some applications which can be a further workflow improvement although that is more debatable.

Concerning color on large fields the single-shot should not be worse than the multishot as the single-shot get sufficient sampling. But in pixelpeep the multishot has a clear advantage, especially if it's moving sub-pixel. Bayer singleshot demosacing is in fact a lot of guesswork, it's about making a pleasing and quite likely result, accuracy is not possible to achieve.

Here's a nice comparison between single shot 80 megapixels and 4-shot(?) 50 megapixel. Note that Hassy also have the 200MS version which is 6-shot subpixel. Now Hassy bases their multishot cameras on the CMOS sensor and the lower noise of that should further improve the multi-shot quality. I recently saw a H4D-50MS on ebay for 10k by the way.

https://captureintegration.com/leaf-aptus-ii-12-hasselblad-4d-50ms/

The worst problem as I see it with the single shot is that they create detail that's not there and false color on fine structured details. You can see it in this example crop, quite subtle but the grey textile has some colors in it in the single-shot which is not there in the real object, and the multishot captures that correctly. You can also see that the magenta color area does not match either but I don't know the reason for that.

https://captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-15-at-4.14.37-PM.png

Thanks for posting this comparison... the advantage of "true colour" capture in both resolution and colour is pretty much obvious and this is only a 4x capture....

By the way, Hasselblad's 200MS uses the 4x true colour result as captured by 50MS and then it interpolates that colour to apply it on the rest of the resolution that it creates, while 528c/22MS and Sinarback 54H provide true colour capture in their full resolution 16x sub-pixel mode (Sinar's eXact too).

 40 
 on: Today at 03:49:45 AM 
Started by fineartprint-downunder - Last post by BartvanderWolf
No interpolated colour can be better than "perfect true colour" ...can it?

Nobody claimed that a Bayer CFA image is 'better' than a micro-step (or a color-wheel with a monochrome sensor) capture.

Tri-chromatic (R/G/B) color capture is still a relatively rough approximation of the full visible spectrum reflectance ...
In that sense, even micro-step sensor capture is also 'interpolated' color, although more predictable than from a single Bayer CFA. It does require extremely constant continuous lighting, where temperature and long exposure time are enemies of delicate artwork.

Of course, although it produces a more involved workflow, stitching with down-sampling can produce even better results. For recurring jobs, it will pay off to use a contraption like Ted describes here. One of the immediate benefits is the higher level of control over the lighting of the artwork, because only a part of the image needs to be lit and lighting angles are constant for that relatively small area of the total surface.

Cheers,
Bart

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »