Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »
 31 
 on: Today at 04:39:50 AM 
Started by Mike Sellers - Last post by jasdown
Mike,

Digging a little deeper, I have copied and pasted the manual's directions for troubleshooting the "21" series error code:

System Error: 21:YZ
Problem Description: Fail moving Service Station.
Corrective Action: Try the following:
Remove the Right Cover and make sure the cables from the Printmech
PCA to the Service Station are connected and are not damaged.
Make sure that the Service Station path is clear. Remove any visible
obstacles (e.g. screws, plastic parts, etc...) restricting the movement of the
Service Station.
Perform the Service Station diagnostic test to troubleshoot the problem
further ⇒ Page 3-45.
If the System Error continues, replace the Service Station ⇒ Page 6-60.
If the System Error continues, replace the PrintMech PCA ⇒ Page 6-71.

You can download the service manual for the Z3100-Z3200-Z3200PS for free by going to LPS computer site and scrolling all the way to the bottom and clicking where it says "Download service manual here" in a very small font. This is a different manual than the one that is on the Z3100 Wiki site because it covers the entire Z3100-Z3200-Z3200PS series.

Please note that I'm not in any way affiliated with LPS, but they have a series of repair videos on Youtube that I found useful to help replace my Z3200's power supply unit (PSU) recently. But I did not purchase my replacement PSU from them. And the free Z service manual is, of course, fantastic.  

 32 
 on: Today at 04:38:14 AM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by Simon Garrett
The image quality differences are fairly slight, and I suspect that the size of some of the differences may well be comparable with sample-to-sample variation and measurement error.  Looking at the dpreview raw test images and the DXOMark tests, the only noticeable difference seems to be better DR at ISO 64, and perhaps slightly lower chroma noise (amp noise?) above ISO 3200. 

But I guess few people will change a D800/e for a D810 for image quality - it would be the other improvements that would attract. 

 33 
 on: Today at 04:35:30 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by torger
but also illuminates how different design decisions and UIs can ultimately enable and/or hinder the user in achieving their goal.

RT is more of an experiment box for interested image algorithm developers and digital photography interested users rather than a fast to learn efficient production tool.

Personally I find it to be a great tool for artistic low volume work and I do all my medium format landscape work in it (with some aid of other post-processing tools when needed), but I fire up Lightroom when I have 1500 images from the latest sports shoot to deal with.

We in the developer group know about the issue that RT allows to do things in multiple ways, RT is not at all as user-friendly as Lightroom. We do strive to make it more user-friendly and take one step at a time, but it will never be as stream-lined as say Lightroom. Developers come and go based on time and interest, each developer has typically interest in some smaller subset functionality and put an effort into that.

Simply put we don't have the resources and continuity to make it a streamlined application as user-friendly as the commercial apps.

I also find it quite interesting from an educational perspective to for example have four different curve types. Few actually know how a contrast curve affects color, but RT can demonstrate this really well. We have standard RGB curve (ie Capture One way), we have Adobe's film-like curve (close but not same to RGB), a more color-neutral weigthed curve and the theoretically neutral luminance curve (but will actually produce a perceptually desaturated result). Likewise we allow selecting different demosaicers, which in a streamlined user-friendly app would be an auto-choice of course.

So if you ask me I actually prefer if we don't make it too user-friendly but instead leave options for the user to experiment with various processing methods. User-friendly means cutting away all but one tool for making a specific task, reduce slider ranges to not include "crazy range", and make many settings automatic. While this would make it more competitive with Lightroom and C1, it would also rob the user of understanding of how digital photography works. RT is "rawer", while commercial tools try to immitate film behaviour.

That said RT can be used quite efficiently, with your own custom profiles and reducing the number of tools you use.

My own pet hate of RT is the default profile which enables auto-levels ("auto tone"), typically works well for high contrast landscape images but sucks for everything else (there's an ongoing debate of replacing it). You can replace that default profile with your own though, which is what I have done, with just a DCP and a curve.

As a Lightroom and C1 owner I enjoy the possibilty to use both Lightroom DCPs and C1 ICCs in RT. For my MF back I use a custom DCP, but when I casually process files from my compact I generally use ICCs from C1 (which I think has better color than Adobe). Note that C1 ICC are designed to be used with a standard (RGB) curve, and Lightroom DCPs with a film-curve if you want to replicate their looks.

 34 
 on: Today at 04:29:12 AM 
Started by vazuw55 - Last post by Geedorama
It's not an easy, conventional picture to like, but that's just what makes me like it..it kinda grows on you.

 35 
 on: Today at 03:57:03 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by NicolasRobidoux
My main concern (well, one of them) as a photographer is the accuracy of color blending when downsampling (e.g. for Web publishing), which by definition requires linear light space. The example image from Eric Brasseur's web page holds up better in (also my current) linear light resampling than in a different gamma, or even a partial linear gammas blend.
See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91754.msg747632#msg747632. If there is clipping, the "by definition" is bent. Brasseur used (TTBOMK) bilinear: no overshoots, no clipping. Boringly soft, yet aliased. (Gotta run.)
P.S. Moire is another example of why it may not pay to worship the linear light god to idolatry level: A non-linear light resampling/sharpening method that is sharp and yet avoids moire beats a linear light that does. The "thought experiment" I linked above assumes that the pixel values we get are representative of the result of filtering at infinite density and locally averaging somehow. Near identity transformations (resize down by one half of one percent) often violate this.
P.S. I don't mean to trivialize how important linear light is. I just mean that it should be treated as a harsh mistress, not a god. A powerful tool, not a panacea.

 36 
 on: Today at 03:53:38 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by BartvanderWolf
Opinion: Instead of doing your deconvolution in sRGB, convert to a suitably chosen gamma space, deconvolve there, ungamma back to linear RGB, convert to sRGB.

Hi Nicolas, opinion noted.

My main concern (well, one of them) as a photographer is the accuracy of color blending when downsampling (e.g. for Web publishing), which by definition requires linear light space. The example image from Eric Brasseur's web page holds up better in (also my current) linear light resampling than in a different gamma, or even a partial linear gammas blend.

EDIT:Deconvolution is also a weighted blend of multiple neighboring pixels, although perhaps less destructive to color accuracy due to the lower weights of more distant pixels. It does attempt to restore the original signal's color better by 'pulling in' some blur and linearly mixed contamination from surrounding pixels.

I've attached an example of a 50% downsample with your Gamma 1 and additional Gamma 2 blend (which is pretty decent for down-sampling, although better for upsampling), and my current 'RobidouxSoft' Cubic implementation in simple linear light with a sharpening amount of 100 (much better color).

Quote
It's that annoying linear bit near black.

Yes, it's a bitch. Lanczos is pretty awesome (and theoretically optimal) if it were not for that dark side edge halo in linear light.

Quote
Another thing you could try (?) is deconvolve in linear, deconvolve in gamma (converted back to linear) and then blend with the weight of the linear result proportional to itself after auto level.

I'll have a look (when time allows), but I'm afraid that the deconvolution in linear space again amplifies any dark side edge (halo) more that we'd like, making blending mandatory.

Cheers,
Bart

 37 
 on: Today at 03:33:34 AM 
Started by JV - Last post by gazwas
Surprised we have had no pricing comment.
In the UK the back is 9500 against the 50c Camera complete at 18,700. So the camera body is 9,000 - don't think so  Grin

Note: these prices are Ex our sales tax VAT @20%

I was thinking the exact same thing last night while browsing ebay for used 503CW's.

I know the H camera and lenses are really nice and have been considering getting an H4/5D-50 but this new back looks (apart from firewire 800) to be a winner. Its about time the big MFD players started making their latest and greatest kit more accessible to more people.

Well done Hasselblad for being the first yet again!

 38 
 on: Today at 03:05:37 AM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Paulo Bizarro
I have never used this lens, I did use the Zeiss 25 f2 for a while with my 6D, fantastic lens. Ended up replacing it with the Zeiss 21 f2.8, because of the wider angle.

 39 
 on: Today at 03:05:27 AM 
Started by revaaron - Last post by ErikKaffehr
Five minutes from work an a few minutes of walking...


 40 
 on: Today at 03:01:59 AM 
Started by Mosccol - Last post by ErikKaffehr
Interestingly enough, most raw converters support DNG. RawTherapee and RawDeveloper are sme of the better known ones.

Regarding DNG, DNG can embed a bitwise copy of the original raw file. So you can both eat the cake and still have it.

Best regards
Erik

Exactly right! Adobe goes out of it's way not to force you to update by virtue of DNG, how are they the bad guys? They could do the opposite. You own LR5, you buy a new camera which it doesn't support. There's no DNG. You have to upgrade. And that updated raw that can't work in the older converter is due to the people making the raw! They are the bad guys here.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad