Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: P30 + 1600iso Sample  (Read 16387 times)
stevecoleccs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« on: June 27, 2007, 06:10:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I had the chance to shoot a couple of shots today with the P30+ / Conxax.
I shot at iso1600, alsome!

~ cole
Logged

stevecoleccs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2007, 06:19:15 PM »
ReplyReply

opps - bit of a problem here - try this link for a download.

~ cole

http://www.stevecole.com/1600iso.zip
Logged

David WM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2007, 08:10:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thats impressive!

The noise cleaned up nicely without too much softening.

Quote
opps - bit of a problem here - try this link for a download.

~ cole

http://www.stevecole.com/1600iso.zip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
rueyloon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2007, 09:08:38 PM »
ReplyReply

impressive.... very usable.
Logged
brumbaer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2007, 12:22:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Cole,
I would love to have a look at the raw file,
would it be possible for you to put it up for download, please ?

Regards
SH
Logged
paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2007, 01:08:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello Cole,
I would love to have a look at the raw file,
would it be possible for you to put it up for download, please ?

Regards
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that would be great if you could. im close to make a decision between a p30 or a p30+, just got to figure out if i really should be shelling out a bit extra money.

cheers paul
Logged

check my new website
http://www.paulrossjones.com
stevecoleccs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2007, 10:34:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is the RAW link - cole


http://www.stevecole.com/raw_1600.zip
Logged

brumbaer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2007, 12:08:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here is the RAW link - cole
http://www.stevecole.com/raw_1600.zip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you very much.
Logged
clawery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2007, 02:30:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve,

When you processed your images, did you have the noise suppression turned off or down?
Did you process through C1 Pro?

Thanks,

Chris Lawery
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2007, 03:19:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris,

If you look the first images, he say noise & sharpen it's turn off.  
with C1



BlasR.



Quote
Steve,

When you processed your images, did you have the noise suppression turned off or down?
Did you process through C1 Pro?

Thanks,

Chris Lawery
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2007, 03:31:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thats impressive!

The noise cleaned up nicely without too much softening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I woudn't even think to clean up that level of noise; I much prefer the "noisy" version.  The noisy version *does* in fact, already have chromatic noise reduction applied.
Logged
brumbaer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2007, 12:23:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Cole,
the level of noise is amazing.

RawDeveloper reads the exposure data as
1/125s and f13 are those correct or just proxies ?

Regards
SH
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2007, 01:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the 'noisy' version as well, I dislike the smoothing and loss of detail you get when removing the noise. The 'grainy/noisy' version I find a lot more appealling but than again I tend to be one of the few that does.

It looks very good for 1600ISO. Truly impressive.
Logged
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2007, 03:51:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Cole,

Could you give details about this shot?

f13 at 1/125 does more likely point to an ISO of 100, rather than 1600, under the light conditions seen in this image.

The noise is definitively "impressive", if shot at ISO 1600.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Hi Cole,
the level of noise is amazing.

RawDeveloper reads the exposure data as
1/125s and f13 are those correct or just proxies ?

Regards
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
stevecoleccs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2007, 12:56:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Thierry - this was shot at 1600iso, I also shot another one of the same
subject at 800iso. I shoot with the P30 most of the time at 400 & alot
at 800. I was very concerned before I bought the P30+ if it could shoot
at 1600iso, so I had to see for myself when I went to Capture
Integration in Atlanta & test it for myself (my P30+ has not arrived yet)

~ cole



quote=thsinar,Jun 30 2007, 03:51 AM]
Dear Cole,

Could you give details about this shot?

f13 at 1/125 does more likely point to an ISO of 100, rather than 1600, under the light conditions seen in this image.

The noise is definitively "impressive", if shot at ISO 1600.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged

brumbaer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2007, 01:41:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Cole,
do you remember what the exposure time and aperture were ?
Are 1/125 and f13 correct ?

Nobody doubts that you took the shot with ISO 1600 and nobody doubts your credibility.

But the shooting parameters are an interesting point:

ISO1600 is supposed to give you a well exposed image with the same exposure time and aperture, which would result in an image underexposed by 4 stops if it would have been taken with the same exposure time and aperture, but ISO100.

If the above values are correct I guess that the image would be overexposed by about 4 stops.
That would mean that the digital values are 16 times (4 * 4) higher than they would be, if it would have been taken when using the "correct" shooting values for ISO1600.

This means that the noise is much lower than it would be on an "real" ISO1600 shot.

A good test would be to take two shots of the same subject one "correctly" exposed ISO100 shot and a second shot with ISO1600 but 1/16 of the exposure time of the ISO100 shot.


Kind regards
SH
Logged
stevecoleccs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2007, 02:09:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi SH - thanks for the input, I'm not much into the tech stuff, I
think of concept & design first & tech stuff near last. All I know
if I set the iso on the camera back to 1600 - it's 1600, good
enough for me. Thanks again for your test idea, maybe someone
else with a 30+ will spend time with your test.

~ cole




Quote
Hello Cole,
do you remember what the exposure time and aperture were ?
Are 1/125 and f13 correct ?

Nobody doubts that you took the shot with ISO 1600 and nobody doubts your credibility.

But the shooting parameters are an interesting point:

ISO1600 is supposed to give you a well exposed image with the same exposure time and aperture, which would result in an image underexposed by 4 stops if it would have been taken with the same exposure time and aperture, but ISO100.

If the above values are correct I guess that the image would be overexposed by about 4 stops.
That would mean that the digital values are 16 times (4 * 4) higher than they would be, if it would have been taken when using the "correct" shooting values for ISO1600.

This means that the noise is much lower than it would be on an "real" ISO1600 shot.

A good test would be to take two shots of the same subject one "correctly" exposed ISO100 shot and a second shot with ISO1600 but 1/16 of the exposure time of the ISO100 shot.
Kind regards
SH
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Jae_Moon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2007, 05:57:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Cole,
the level of noise is amazing.

RawDeveloper reads the exposure data as
1/125s and f13 are those correct or just proxies ?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


C1 reads meta data as 1/125s, f/13, and ISO 1600.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2007, 08:44:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you please provide us with the shooting parameters (speed and aperture) for the equivalent shots you took at 400 and 800 ISO that same day on the same setup?

Thank you in advance,

Regards,
Bernard

p.s.: even my Nikon D2x - not the best camera around for high iso photography - performs beautifully at ISO 1600 when there is plenty of light...
« Last Edit: June 30, 2007, 08:45:31 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2007, 05:05:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Something here doesn't scan.

Could someone with a P30+ * do a "normal" 1600 ISO shoot in "normally" low light ?

Edmund
« Last Edit: July 01, 2007, 05:05:35 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad