Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Comparing 12 vs 21 mp  (Read 20247 times)
Russell Price
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2008, 10:09:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm afraid you'll have to make it even more clear. I'm having trouble understanding the wisdom, sense and rationality of caring about image quality but not caring about documented scrutinisation of RAW data. The RAW data is the digital negative. Everything else is manipulated and altered information.

The full potential of any image lies only in the RAW data. In several years from now, there's a distinct possibility that newly developed RAW converters will be able to do a better job converting any of your RAW files; be able to recover more highlight detail; be able to reduce noise more successfully without destroying as much detail, or be able to extract more detail from the RAW without introducing noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have gone back to process files I shot with my original 1Ds and am amazed at how much more highlight detail I've been able to recover from the original raw files.  Either by using the new version of DPP or Raw Developer.  The new version of DPP has lens corrections built into the software andthat has also been very useful.  I don't know if you can do that with a DNG file.  I feel that even if you convert your files to DNG you should keep your raws just in case.  

That may run against the thinking of the digital guru's but I am am firm believer that Canon or Nikon will continue to support their native formats.  It is in their best interest to do so.

Also, Adobe has a vested interest in promoting DNG even if it is open source.

Russell Price
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2008, 12:26:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm afraid you'll have to make it even more clear. I'm having trouble understanding the wisdom, sense and rationality of caring about image quality but not caring about documented scrutinisation of RAW data. The RAW data is the digital negative. Everything else is manipulated and altered information.

The full potential of any image lies only in the RAW data. In several years from now, there's a distinct possibility that newly developed RAW converters will be able to do a better job converting any of your RAW files; be able to recover more highlight detail; be able to reduce noise more successfully without destroying as much detail, or be able to extract more detail from the RAW without introducing noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly. It's a system. So I leave raw data scrutinisation to the engineers. Output quality is affected by many factors which while I'm sure they all have a physical attribute, the system as a whole is complex enough that IQ judgements are only useful at a macroscopic level i.e. looking at the output of a particular system.

So, unless someone can convince me that a particular engineering attribute is the sole or main contributor to perceived image qualities, I prefer to leave this scrutinization to the engineers and care about what me and other photographers can see.

If what I see is convincing enough for my application, I could not care less if it is due to the pixel well quality, the quality of the A/D converter, the bit depth of the raw data, the quality and suitability of the anti-alias filter or, as a matter of fact, the result of fancy noise reduction procesing performed in any domain.

When you select a car you don't generally look at the particular qualities of the combustion chamber of the motor's cylinders to get convinced that the car is suitable for you, or indeed if car A is better than car B. Sure, the shape and enginnering of the combustion chamber affects peroformance and consumption but so do a million other interelated factors.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 12:29:31 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8875


« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2008, 01:25:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When you select a car you don't generally look at the particular qualities of the combustion chamber of the motor's cylinders to get convinced that the car is suitable for you, or indeed if car A is better than car B. Sure, the shape and enginnering of the combustion chamber affects peroformance and consumption but so do a million other interelated factors.

When I select a car, I look at all the information that is provided, which unfortunately isn't much. The sorts of things I would be interested in, are fuel economy; power efficiency; durability and warranty period; cost of spare parts; comfort of suspension; noise dampening; effectiveness of radio antenna; general handling on the road; cost; style and size etc etc.

Consideration of the qualities of the combustion chamber could be useful with regard to the effect of different fuel types such as gasoline mixed with ethanol, or 'super' unleaded as opposed to standard unleaded. Certain fuel types cause less wear of certain engine parts as well as providing more power per litre, depending on the design.

Quote
If what I see is convincing enough for my application, I could not care less if it is due to the pixel well quality, the quality of the A/D converter, the bit depth of the raw data, the quality and suitability of the anti-alias filter or, as a matter of fact, the result of fancy noise reduction procesing performed in any domain.

Fair enough! You're simply not interested. Some people are not interested in cameras at any level. Some are not interested in the relationships between f stop, focal length and distance to subject, for example. They couldn't give a stuff and probably use a P&S camera, if any.

However, this is a forum where people explore all facets of camera issues in depth. Even though some of the information might not have an immediate practical use, many of us have an academic interest in the technology in general. It is, after all, an amazing technology.

If your interest is limited to what's of immediate practical use, then fair enough. We've all got different interests. No-one's forcing you to read this.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 01:27:54 AM by Ray » Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2008, 03:41:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have gone back to process files I shot with my original 1Ds and am amazed at how much more highlight detail I've been able to recover from the original raw files.  Either by using the new version of DPP or Raw Developer.  The new version of DPP has lens corrections built into the software andthat has also been very useful.  I don't know if you can do that with a DNG file.  I feel that even if you convert your files to DNG you should keep your raws just in case. 

Russell Price
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Does this mean that we all lust after these evermore expensive cameras and in fact all we often need is spend a better RAW converter?
OK - it may not be as simple as that but does it mean that we should only upgrade cameras for true generational improvements?
Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2008, 02:41:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does this mean that we all lust after these evermore expensive cameras and in fact all we often need is spend a better RAW converter?
OK - it may not be as simple as that but does it mean that we should only upgrade cameras for true generational improvements?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the problem with that is that I suspect that the 1Ds3 with an up to date raw converter will still provide better output than my 5D for many purposes... though it would be churlish to view the 5D as useless because of that. I've enough pics on the walls that prove that even a 2 year old camera can still delvier the goods:)

Mike
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad