Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaf Aptus 75 versus Nikon D3x  (Read 26090 times)
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #100 on: April 03, 2009, 02:15:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not an American but find too much magenta less pleasing as well which is why I would prefer your interpretation of the skin in this image  

Granted, maybe this man in reality looks like a piece of meat but that doesn't mean it is nice to look at.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



WWW
« Reply #101 on: April 03, 2009, 04:44:31 AM »
ReplyReply

There are many reasons I chose MFD instead of the small format DSLRs and some had precious little to do with image quality. Two of the most significant were that I couldn't get past the piss poor viewfinders or the 3:2 format.
Logged

DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #102 on: April 03, 2009, 05:13:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
Granted, maybe this man in reality looks like a piece of meat but that doesn't mean it is nice to look at.

World meet Gregg-- Gregg meet world

Ha!-Ah yes a truer word was never spoken!-- Prime New Zealand Hogget actually-- he's certainly not Lamb--

He's actually a  luuuuuuvly chap!

Sorry Gregg

DesW
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #103 on: April 03, 2009, 05:59:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry no disrespect intended. It does sound a bit harsh maybe after reading it back. I still think he is not displayed in the most pleasing way which ofcourse is not his fault. My comment was merely to say it might be his true tonality but in most cases I prefer pleasing over reality. Unless it is a product in which case I happily take the correct colors.

Ah anyway, I think you know what I mean and again in no way I meant it to be personal or offense. If anyone feels offended about it, sorry for that.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 06:05:22 AM by Dustbak » Logged
R(Vienna)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #104 on: April 03, 2009, 08:29:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey there,

first of all i want to thank you that there is still a forum on the internet where a thread is not dumped after two replies becaus of trolling and fighting

i find the conversation very constructive and interesting

i do own a D3 and a Leaf Aptus22 on a contax but mainly use it on my Sinar P2 with Rodenstocks (not digital ones... can´t/don´t want to afford them...)

i owned a D2x and was never really satisfied with its color reprodcution nor its dynamic range compared to the leaf aptus22 back...

nowadays i find myself takin the D3 more often then my D2x, i think mostly because of the 14bit uncompressed RAW quality, sharpness, color and so on and also get quite pleasing results without tweakin so much compared to my aptus22 converted with leaf capture into tiff 16bit prophotoRGB and then processed in CS4...

i have to admit that i mainly use Zeiss ZF lenses on the Nikon if it comes to higher quality shots, for press i use nikkors...

i see a big difference in the glass but also in the sensors... thats why i choose the contax for its zeiss glass...

one part i want to try out is to convert these two shots (thx to the OP for the data!!!) and see what the D3x is cabable of compared to a MFDB...

i am fighting with my self not to buy the D3x because of the Aptus22... ;-))

what i found out last shooting was, after doing it thethered with the aptus onto my MacBookPro was that i don´t really miss the flexibility of the D3 in the studio much...

outside is a different theme... but i would like to take the MFDB also outside... but the limited iso range sometimes teaches me better... ;-)

to all MFDB owners with newer backs then mine, how is the high iso on your backs? usable?

ok, enough diffuse talk

thx for the files, i will convert them using ACR, Nikon Capture2, Lightroom and Leaf Capture and lets see... maybe i find a good workflow :-) i do think that you can get out most of the qualitiy of the nikon with NX2...

take care

robb
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #105 on: April 03, 2009, 09:11:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: R(Vienna)
nowadays i find myself takin the D3 more often then my D2x, i think mostly because of the 14bit uncompressed RAW quality
From reading many such statements, it is obvious that Nikon and Sony greatly contribute to the digital illiteracy (not innumeracy) of their customers. Both call the lossy format "compressed", even though the non-lossy format of the A700 and A900 is compressed as well. Nikon's offering of now three formats is certainly a challenge for many customers.
Logged

Gabor
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #106 on: April 03, 2009, 09:59:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
As long as you don't confuse ACR "profiles" and ICC profiles. I find it funny that Adobe, itself a founding member of the ICC cannot manage to work fully inside the consortium with regards t camera color.
I am 100% sure that you know Adobe's answer, but some readers of the thread may not know it and it's fair to present Adobe's side as well; following is from the DNG Profile Editor FAQ:

Why introduce another camera profile format instead of using ICC camera profiles?

Some technical background is required to fully appreciate the reasons.


First, ICC camera profiles used by raw converters today are designed to process output-referred (i.e., rendered) image data, not scene-referred (i.e., raw) image data. Furthermore, the sequence and placement of color transformations described in an ICC camera profile can prevent other image processing stages (such as highlight recovery algorithms) from performing optimally. Third, there is no standard that describes the input color space of the ICC camera profile color transformation (it is often, but not always, a tone-mapped set of RGB camera coordinates). Consequently, ICC camera profiles are not portable: they can only be used with the raw converter for which they were explicitly created in the first place. Using an ICC camera profile designed for one raw converter with another raw converter nearly always produces incorrect (though sometimes entertaining) results.


In contrast, DNG camera profiles are designed specifically to process scene-referred image data. The color matrices, color tables, and tone curve transformations are applied in separate stages (instead of all in one step) to minimize exposure dependencies and to enable other image processing stages to perform optimally. The entire color processing model is described in the DNG 1.2 specification and SDK, thus enabling portability of DNG camera profiles among all raw converters that support DNG 1.2. Unlike ICC profiles, DNG profiles can store color adjustments separately for two illuminants (usually illuminants A and D65), which are used by the raw converter to derive the final color transformation automatically from an image's white balance. Finally, multiple DNG camera profiles can be embedded within DNG raw files, thereby making DNG images self-contained and ensuring that the photographer's chosen "color appearance" stays with the file wherever it goes.



Logged

Gabor
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3863



WWW
« Reply #107 on: April 03, 2009, 10:00:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
From reading many such statements, it is obvious that Nikon and Sony greatly contribute to the digital illiteracy (not innumeracy) of their customers. Both call the lossy format "compressed", even though the non-lossy format of the A700 and A900 is compressed as well. Nikon's offering of now three formats is certainly a challenge for many customers.

Ok, Panopeep, tell us which is which on the D3x ?

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3863



WWW
« Reply #108 on: April 03, 2009, 10:18:06 AM »
ReplyReply

The question isn't only "why use X and not Y", it's also why not work *within* the industry organization which standardizes color interoperability?

I have had this discussion with Thomas Knoll several years ago. So have quite a few other people. My argument at the time was that although ICC profiles are not necessarily appropriate as such,  the technology itself (file formats, readers, editors) is well understood and therefore can be useful extended and reused to create a world of third-party tools.

Some companies eg. Leaf have been exemplary in working as much as possible within existing frameworks, defining the colorimetry of their Raw files while Adobe kept inventing reasons why "it wasn't possible". As an example, while standard ICC output-referred profiles  are not the best tools for decoding Raw, they are extremely useful for describing "looks".

Adobe has acute NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. As a result, they now have their own new formats for everything, and have created customer lock in. I wish them good luck, when I see the quality of what comes out of ACR, compared to what comes out of Raw Developer which has a staff of ONE PROGRAMMER, I can't help thinking that Adobe have become middle aged. The best workflow is useless if the file quality is junk.

Edmund



Quote from: Panopeeper
I am 100% sure that you know Adobe's answer, but some readers of the thread may not know it and it's fair to present Adobe's side as well; following is from the DNG Profile Editor FAQ:

Why introduce another camera profile format instead of using ICC camera profiles?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 10:18:57 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3863



WWW
« Reply #109 on: April 03, 2009, 10:24:12 AM »
ReplyReply

People who want to see what contorsionate manipulations are done by ACR behind the scenes can find all the gory details here:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/02/adobe-hue-twist.html

The same site has lots of very interesting albeit geeky color info regarding camera color.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 10:25:53 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #110 on: April 03, 2009, 10:27:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Ok, Panopeep, tell us which is which on the D3x ?
Edmund, I was serious. I regularly see posts on different forums stating that the Nikon compression is lossy (and that Sony's CRAW is lossy but not more than Canon 's raw), and the best quality can be achieved by recording the uncompressed data.

Nikon built a tradition of confusion by create either only lossy format (like the D70), or lossy highly compressed vs. lossless slightly compressed version (which they call "uncompressed") with the D100, D200 and D2X. After they decided for a lossless highly compressed version in addition to the slightly compressed lossless and highly compressed lossy format starting with the D300, the problem arose, how to call these, and they kept the old, incorrect terminology:

uncompressed, meaning lossless, slightly compressed,

compressed, meaning highly compressed, lossy and

lossless compressed, meaning what it says.

To uphold the traditional confusion, the D90 and some others write only losslessly compressed raw data.
Logged

Gabor
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3863



WWW
« Reply #111 on: April 03, 2009, 10:32:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
Edmund, I was serious.

I know you're serious. I was trying to figure out what is available on my D3x.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #112 on: April 03, 2009, 11:03:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Btw, the D3X image uploaded by Simon/HarperPhotos too is uncompressed; 49 MB, instead of 26-30 MB in losslessly compressed form. I am all for choices and decision making by the user, but Canon seems to be right with not giving any choice in this regard.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 11:04:26 AM by Panopeeper » Logged

Gabor
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3863



WWW
« Reply #113 on: April 03, 2009, 11:42:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
Btw, the D3X image uploaded by Simon/HarperPhotos too is uncompressed; 49 MB, instead of 26-30 MB in losslessly compressed form. I am all for choices and decision making by the user, but Canon seems to be right with not giving any choice in this regard.

I don't understand why there would be a choice between lossless compression and uncompressed, except if the compression slows down the frame rate, maybe.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #114 on: April 03, 2009, 01:28:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
I don't understand why there would be a choice between lossless compression and uncompressed, except if the compression slows down the frame rate, maybe.
That is probably not the reason. DPReview's frame rate figures show, that the frame rate is the same with large, fine JPEG as with raw (which does contain a much smaller JPEG). As the encoding of the large JPEG image requires much more processing power than the encoding of the raw (the compression is lossless JPEG), the processor seems not to be challenged. Though if the bit depth is 14bit, the frame rate looks differently.

I guess the reason for offering the uncompressed format is the fear of misunderstanding by the potential users, many of whom would think that there is no lossless raw recording (justifiedly due to the traditional euphemism of Nikon on this area).

PR by fooling the customers is mandatory. Think of the recent "higher ISO" announcement by Hasselblad. One needs to understand the meaning of ISO gain in order to realize, that anhancing the camera's ISO ability is not possible without replacing the electronics. If one reads the info carefully, one finds that the "higher ISO" in fact is improved noise reduction.

The faking of higher and highest ISOs is standard feature of DSLRs as well. Canon is not alone in this game; as I noted above, ISO 6400 is fake with the 5D2, but the "High" classification starts with 6400. Nikon is doing the same: the D300 offers ISO 200 to 3200 and HI 0.3, HI 0.7 and HI 1. However, in reality ISO 3200 is already fake.
Logged

Gabor
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #115 on: April 03, 2009, 04:28:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Panopeeper
That is probably not the reason. DPReview's frame rate figures show, that the frame rate is the same with large, fine JPEG as with raw (which does contain a much smaller JPEG). As the encoding of the large JPEG image requires much more processing power than the encoding of the raw (the compression is lossless JPEG), the processor seems not to be challenged. Though if the bit depth is 14bit, the frame rate looks differently.

I guess the reason for offering the uncompressed format is the fear of misunderstanding by the potential users, many of whom would think that there is no lossless raw recording (justifiedly due to the traditional euphemism of Nikon on this area).

PR by fooling the customers is mandatory. Think of the recent "higher ISO" announcement by Hasselblad. One needs to understand the meaning of ISO gain in order to realize, that anhancing the camera's ISO ability is not possible without replacing the electronics. If one reads the info carefully, one finds that the "higher ISO" in fact is improved noise reduction.

The faking of higher and highest ISOs is standard feature of DSLRs as well. Canon is not alone in this game; as I noted above, ISO 6400 is fake with the 5D2, but the "High" classification starts with 6400. Nikon is doing the same: the D300 offers ISO 200 to 3200 and HI 0.3, HI 0.7 and HI 1. However, in reality ISO 3200 is already fake.
How many photos were taken today, while spending time an all these BS?
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #116 on: April 03, 2009, 05:47:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ziocan
How many photos were taken today, while spending time an all these BS?
1. I never take a photo. My skill and my equipment is for making them.

2. How many photos could you have taken from wherever, while spending time on forums with subjects out of the range of your understanding?
Logged

Gabor
JamesA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #117 on: April 03, 2009, 06:07:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HarperPhotos
Gidday,

Greg from T.A. Macalister the New Zealand distributor for Nikon came to my studio to try out the new Nikon D3x.

I was very impressed by the files and will be purchasing one of these beast in the couple of weeks

I did a comparison with my Leaf Aptus 75 and other than file size they a pretty much on par and of course no moiré.

Cheers

Simon

They both look good, but pretty horrific moire on the inside of the shirt with the Leaf.  Psychedelic even.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3863



WWW
« Reply #118 on: April 03, 2009, 06:34:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JamesA
They both look good, but pretty horrific moire on the inside of the shirt with the Leaf.  Psychedelic even.

I spent some time watching pedestrian traffic today, and saw several pink-magenta faced people walk by, including one woman. It's impossible to know what that guy really looks like without seeing him in person, but that horrid magenta can certainly occur in nature.

I people here are interested, I can make Capture One profiles available which have this magenta edited out.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #119 on: April 03, 2009, 07:13:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
I spent some time watching pedestrian traffic today, and saw several pink-magenta faced people walk by, including one woman. It's impossible to know what that guy really looks like without seeing him in person, but that horrid magenta can certainly occur in nature.
I think the most useful would be to ask that gentleman to ask someone to make a polariod shot of him, send that to someone with a scanner and then we all know his "true colors" (viewed on uncalibrated monitors).
Logged

Gabor
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad