Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Erwin Puts spills the beans  (Read 44675 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2007, 05:30:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whether or not this particular rumour is true ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have now been persuaded that it is not: Putts apparently reproduces exactly some acknowledged speculations published earlier at another site.
Quote
A related question: would they be able to do without an AA filter at that res?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not even close, I would say. At center field at least, Canon lenses are keeping up with the 5.7 micron pixel size of the 400D, smaller than the pixel size needed for 22MP in 24x36mm. There is a long transition zone between "some detectable loss of resolution to lens limitations, maybe only at the edges of the frame" and "resolution totally limited by lenses, not sensors". [See footnote.]The former might be happening at the edges of the 24x36mm frame with 7.2 micron pixels, but I would guess that the latter will not happen until about about 2 microns or smaller. You probably cannot rely on the image from the center of the field of a 35mm lens of a given focal length (say 50mm) being less sharp than with good smaller format lenses, like digicam lenses, which do resolve down to about 2 microns and maybe even below.

An intermediate approach might be using a very mild AA filter combined with further low pass filtering in the digital domain. After all, moiré is rather rare, so it would be nice to be able to do full strength AA filtering only as necessary, without sacrificing resolution on every image including moiré-free ones.


Footnote: I think that this is the mistake in some interpretations of Myrvold's calculations on diffraction effects on resolution: he determines roughly the first threshold, but seems to misinterpret it at places as saying that diffraction alone determines overall resolution as soon as one is beyond that threshold.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2007, 07:02:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
MS's WMP is offering something that pretty much already exists in a market that is well established. It does not offer anything compelling enough to cause people to abandon what is available already nor is it tied to any specific software application that will be used in a professional market.
Newsflash: the professional market may not be what Microsoft is aiming for here.

As is usual, their "gratis" software is targeted at the casual user, in business or private.

It doesn't have to be "compelling enough to cause people to abandon" anything else, Microsoft proved that with Word (vs. WordPerfect), Excel (vs. several competitors), Internet Explorer (vs. Netscape and other competitors), and so on.

Quote
The file formats for MS Office became as widely used because of the success of MS Office at a time when the market was fairly small and much younger than it is today.
Not too dissimilar to the image editing market today, then.

People are just discovering that they can fiddle about with their images. Guess which OS they'll mostly do it in, and whether they'll prefer to do it with a pre-packaged tool from Microsoft, or from a third party vendor.

Quote
MS's domination of Office formats is coming to an end however. Office 07 uses a partially open XML-based format and MS has released a document converter that will convert files to the Open Document standard used by Open Office.
I'm a bit confused. Didn't you just claim that the XMP (HD Photo) format wouldn't catch on? Yet you seem to claim that their partially open format just might. Are you unaware that the image format for XPS is, in fact, the HD Photo format?

Quote
HTML? That is not a MS owned standard. It's an open standard controlled by the WC3 and has been around long before MS was even remotely interested in the internet. Everyone follows the HTML standard in their web-browsers, even MS.


Are you serious? One of the major problems in web development the past ten years or so has been that Microsoft has had their own, non-compliant interpretation of HTML and associated standards (like CSS and in-browser scripting).

I'm perfectly aware that HTML doesn't "own" HTML, but the message I was trying to get across, was that Microsoft "embraced and extended" HTML to something that only worked well in Internet Explorer, and that worked mostly well in Opera because it emulated (well, attempted to emulate) Internet Explorer on demand.

As of Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft has nearly gotten to the point of following the current standards. I expect that Internet Explorer 9 might actually get there, but by then the standards will be far beyond again.


No, I seriously think that we'll be dealing with HD Photo as a format in the coming years. Whether it will be long-lived like various TIFF derivatives and JPEG remains to be seen.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2007, 07:07:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not even close, I would say. At center field at least, Canon lenses are keeping up with the 5.7 micron pixel size of the 400D, smaller than the pixel size needed for 22MP in 24x36mm. There is a long transition zone between "some detectable loss of resolution to lens limitations, maybe only at the edges of the frame" and "resolution totally limited by lenses, not sensors".

Indeed! This appears to be the case and I guess anyone who owns both a 400D and a 5D could confirm this by shooting the same scene with both cameras, using the same lens and f stop.

I have no doubt that resolution near the edges and corners of the 35mm frame is limited by lens MTF, using either the 5D and 1Ds2, with some lenses, particularly wide-angle lenses and particularly at wide apertures. The Photodo MTF charts demonstrate how poor the MTF response can be at just 40 lp/mm, towards the corners with some lenses. At 50 or 60 lp/mm I would deduce that MTF would sometimes be non-existent.

But the fact remains that resolution at and near the centre of the image generally has a higher priority because the main focus of interest in most compositions tends to be in the central area. There are always exceptions of course.

Another issue here is that we simply don't see MTF tests of the fixed lenses in P&S cameras. All we see are 'system' resolution tests. It's therefore not clear to what extent the greater resolution, shown on line test charts, is due to a lens that begins to be diffraction limited at wider apertures (than is generally the case with 35mm lenses), or a sensor that is simply higher resolving.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2007, 08:10:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you serious? One of the major problems in web development the past ten years or so has been that Microsoft has had their own, non-compliant interpretation of HTML and associated standards (like CSS and in-browser scripting).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're confusing "browser extensions" and ActiveX controls with HTML. Extensions are something every web browser does (the ActiveX controls are what Opera is emulating). My comments on HTML on it's own still stand.

The problem web developers have had (something I'm very familiar with BTW developing my site for the last 4 years) was with the terrible implementation of CSS v1 in IE6 along with the 6 year stagnation of IE 6. IE 7 updates support for CSS up to cover CSS v2 along with some of the pre-release CSS v3 specs.

As to your rest, whatever you say man. You are entitled to your theories but we'll see what will happen soon enough now that Vista is out.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2007, 09:24:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now if the rumor of a new line of "ultra-L" lenses designed to meet the demands of the 22MP sensor is true, then Canon would probably keep the AA filter to avoid being crucified for moire by those who bought them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I've heard stories what what Leica and Zeiss go through to get some of their top lenses, I seriously wonder if Canon would be able to do this (if they have the technology to mass produce real ultra L's) I mean, you hear about glass cooling for *years*...At some level, glass production seems more complicated, more artisan-related, than computer systems; and not especially amenable to Canon-style mass production.  

JC
Logged
brycv
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2007, 09:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When I've heard stories what what Leica and Zeiss go through to get some of their top lenses, I seriously wonder if Canon would be able to do this (if they have the technology to mass produce real ultra L's) I mean, you hear about glass cooling for *years*...At some level, glass production seems more complicated, more artisan-related, than computer systems; and not especially amenable to Canon-style mass production. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you have a very good point here. If their rumored new lenses are anything like the EF 16-35/2.8L, I will not be pleased. The EF 24-105/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS have served me well but some of the others have not been so good, especially the EF 16-35/2.8L!

Bryan
Logged

2 x Pentax K10D w/D-BG2, K100D and lots of lenses (always looking for exotics)
2 x Canon EOS 20D and some heavy L glass
Check out The Digital Hub.
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2007, 04:02:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
and not especially amenable to Canon-style mass production. 

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A lot of their L lenses are hand built (I visited one of the lens factories when I worked for Canon). For a more up to date look:

www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/f_index.html
Logged

LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2007, 04:26:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the artistic aspects of using the 2:3 format that has to be mastered before you can compose interesting pictures
Interesting counterpoint to Michael's article on cropping the other day!
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2007, 08:58:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're confusing "browser extensions" and ActiveX controls with HTML.
No, I'm not.

Quote
Extensions are something every web browser does (the ActiveX controls are what Opera is emulating). My comments on HTML on it's own still stand.
In that case, you have not had experience with the non-standard rendering of elements that's been present in most versions of Internet Explorer so far. And no, we're not just talking about CSS.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2007, 09:04:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you have a very good point here. If their rumored new lenses are anything like the EF 16-35/2.8L, I will not be pleased. The EF 24-105/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS have served me well but some of the others have not been so good, especially the EF 16-35/2.8L!
In what way are you dissatisfied with the latter?

I must admit to only having tested one sample of the lens, but that was noticeably better than the 17-40 f/4L I have, which I'm fairly satisfied with image wise.

Since we're using the same camera (EOS 20D), I thinkg that it ought not be corner sharpness and vignetting.
Logged

Jan
giles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2007, 11:52:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As interesting as the article is it is more memorable for what it misses out than what it includes. The focus on megapixel count does not do justice to the new Canon cameras, nor does it explain the slight delay in their launch. This delay was primarily caused be a need to wait for Microsoft to launch Vista to the general public as so many benefits of the new camears are tied in with the workflow benefits that Vista brings for the working photographer.
WTF?

Canon would wait for an OS of unproven stability; one which even existing Windows users are unlikely to have hardware to run; one for which drivers for many devices are notable by their absence; and of course ignore the subset of photographers (a larger subset by percentage than the  proportion of Mac users in the entire PC market) who use Macs?

Yours in dumbfounded disbelieving astonishment,

Giles

P.S. If I didn't recognise your name, I'd assume you were trolling.  Bad day at the office?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2007, 11:53:46 AM by giles » Logged
giles
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2007, 12:07:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
HTML? That is not a MS owned standard. It's an open standard controlled by the WC3 and has been around long before MS was even remotely interested in the internet. Everyone follows the HTML standard in their web-browsers, even MS.
Well, they think they do.  The implementations in Internet Explorer so far have been highly idiosyncratic (to put it politely) and blatantly non-standards conformant to be accurate.

We'll see what they've done with IE7.  But I'm not optimistic.

Cheers,

Giles

[ Deleted original reply and reposted: confused 61Dynamic with DiaAzul for a moment, making my original reply nonsensical. --giles ]
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2007, 12:52:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In what way are you dissatisfied with the latter?

I must admit to only having tested one sample of the lens, but that was noticeably better than the 17-40 f/4L I have, which I'm fairly satisfied with image wise.

Since we're using the same camera (EOS 20D), I thinkg that it ought not be corner sharpness and vignetting.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My tests of a Canon 17-40, 16-35, Nikon 17-35 and a Sigma 15-30 on a 1DsMKII.

My current wide lenses of favor are the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70 and the 24-105.

sorry...forgot the link!

[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test]http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/wide_zoom_test[/url]
« Last Edit: February 16, 2007, 07:51:45 PM by infocusinc » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2007, 01:14:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Well from what i have been hearing the 1DsmkIII or whatever it is to be called is not ready for release at this years PMA.   I am not willing to bet either way
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad