Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony 24mp line up  (Read 10734 times)
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2011, 01:37:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I bet they will prove to be much better than Canon Eos7 or 5mkii, but much worst for stills, even from the NEX-5.

You'd lose the bet on the NEX-5 comparison.

Michael
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2011, 01:59:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I bet they will prove to be much better than Canon Eos7 or 5mkii, but much worst for stills, even from the NEX-5.

You'd lose the bet on the NEX-5 comparison.

Michael

Obviously "bet" is just an expression, but I won't loose it Mike!!! The NEX-5 with the same lens used on it (via the Sony adapter of course) is the same as the a55 which is almost the same performer as Nikon d7k and Pentax k5 (trust me I've done the test using the same lens, a P-6 CZJ biometar!). My conclusion is that this 16.2 mpx sensor, will be on the top of APS-C STILLS performance for at least a few years! In the first report on the web of the a99 that the reporter used a pre production model, he did mention that it didn't do as good as the a55. Believe me, if it was any good for photography, Nikon or Pentax would have grabbed it already and Sony would have let the pentaprism on the camera to satisfy photographers as they did with the a55, but they removed it because it's useless for video and they want to maximize video performance! I believe that Nikon will use this 24mpx sensor in a near future model that will also have video priorities having stills as a supplement. Cheers Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2011, 07:00:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

For stills the most important factor is sensor size not pixel size. Smaller pixels will have better resolution if the lens can keep up. Sharpness will be lost due to the OLP filter and that loss will be less with smaller pixels. Once a picture is scaled to a certain size the pixels are effectively binned regarding shot noise.

Interestigly, Michael Reichmann has found that image quality on the Alpha 55 is similar to the Alpha 900 and surpasses it at high ISO and he also found this to be the case with the A77. I have both cameras and although I have not made formal tests I'd say that the Alpha 55 performs very well in comparison. A great advantage of the Alpha 55 is that critical focus can be achieved using LV-focusing at actual pixels.

The major reason for Sony dropping the mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror is probably cost. It's an expensive assembly that needs to be adjusted within 10 microns. Live view can also show all kind of useful information in the finder like live histogram.

You may check this article to get some additional insight on the effect of pixel size on image quality:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

My guess is that if Canons or Nikons surpass Sony in image quality it is because they may have better lenses.

Best regards
Erik

It's more important than you think Erik, as you mention, "unused pixels will significantly increase noise" and this happens on the NEX-5 (or any other photo camera that does video). On the other hand there is also much more simplicity in the camera logic on the NEX-7/a77, less electronics and hence more reliability. I think that Sony's intention with the NEX-7 (or the a77 if one chooses) is to give the a900/850 professional user that needs video, a cost/space effective way to do so, either with the a77 or with the NEX-7+adapter. I also think that people have not realize yet that a77 and (the same performance) NEX-7 will prove to be (with the proper lens) the best "interchangeable lens cameras" in the market for video quality! I bet they will prove to be much better than Canon Eos7 or 5mkii, but much worst for stills, even from the NEX-5. Of course you are right on the importance of OLP in stills performance. Best regards Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr
Logged

fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2011, 05:48:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

For stills the most important factor is sensor size not pixel size. Smaller pixels will have better resolution if the lens can keep up. Sharpness will be lost due to the OLP filter and that loss will be less with smaller pixels. Once a picture is scaled to a certain size the pixels are effectively binned regarding shot noise.

Interestigly, Michael Reichmann has found that image quality on the Alpha 55 is similar to the Alpha 900 and surpasses it at high ISO and he also found this to be the case with the A77. I have both cameras and although I have not made formal tests I'd say that the Alpha 55 performs very well in comparison. A great advantage of the Alpha 55 is that critical focus can be achieved using LV-focusing at actual pixels.

The major reason for Sony dropping the mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror is probably cost. It's an expensive assembly that needs to be adjusted within 10 microns. Live view can also show all kind of useful information in the finder like live histogram.

You may check this article to get some additional insight on the effect of pixel size on image quality:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

My guess is that if Canons or Nikons surpass Sony in image quality it is because they may have better lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Hmmm.... not always and not exactly. In stills resolution is one thing and sharpness another. If you print a large size print from my D7000 and then print THE SAME SIZE from my D700, you will find that the FF is considerably better. Interestingly, this is not so evident if you do the comparison on a monitor, but in prints its clear and since a photograph is the printed thing ONLY, the conclusion can only be that you print better from better pixel definition! The above test will lead to the same conclusion if you print same size with my imacon 528c DB and compare it with a D3X, the DB wins easily. BUT..., the smaller the pixel the worst the light reception, especially as we move away from the sensors exact center and of course problem is bigger if we use a wide angle and even more so on the wider FF sensor, thats why ALL manufacturers make their FF sensors with much larger pixel sizes than their APS-c sensors and in relevance, APS-C sensors have much wider pixels than smaller sensors. After having test a lot and taking advantage of the fact that I own a top class printing lab, (www.fotometria.gr) I have come to the conclusion that sensor resolution and quality must be balanced to an optimum and that with tech advancement we can increase analysis but we have to be sensible to this approach. Don't forget that: a) Physics says that the smaller the sensor the larger the N/S ratio b) Manufacturers can built an APS-c sensor with hundrents of MPX, (look at your cell phone and multiply up to the area). I'm not familiar with mr. Reichmann's findings, but I do remember that when I tested an a900 with my D700 I found the Sony considerably better on all aspects of photography below iso500 and only worst in noise above that, but clearly this had to do with Sony's decision to use as little NR as possible to maximize sharpness and of course to the smaller pixel than the D700. Hence, it would surprise me if the a55 is so much better than the D7000, to surpass the D700 and even the a900, clearly he must have done something wrong in the procedure of the test. However, I've read so many nonsense on web, that nothing will surprise me anymore! Cheers, Theodoros.
 P.S.By the way, large sensor resolution can't affect video performance, because the recording area for 2K is huge anyway and YES a77 is a very promising videocamera that will be able to shoot acceptable stills! In fact I will be waiting for Nikon's version (no other reason than lenses and gear) to use as a my prime videocamera(s).
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 05:56:19 PM by fotometria gr » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2011, 07:24:00 PM »
ReplyReply

If you print a large size print from my D7000 and then print THE SAME SIZE from my D700, you will find that the FF is considerably better.

This does seem a little odd, unless you forgot to stipulate that this only applies above base ISO.

The D700 base ISO is 200. If one compares the performance parameters as measured by DXO, the D7000 at ISO 100 either outperforms the D700 (at ISO 200) or has equal performance in every category.

SNR at 18% grey is virtually the same, with a 0.1dB edge to the D700.

Tonal range is virtually the same, with a 0.06 bits edge to the D7000.

Color sensitivity is identical for both cameras at their respective base ISOs.

However, the Dynamic Range of the D7k is a whopping 1.72 EV better than the FF D700, at equal image size, ie. downsampling the 16mp D7k image to the 12mp of the D700.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that I've never compared equal size prints of the same scene taken with both cameras. If you have, making sure that both images are of identical scenes under identical lighting conditions, both equally exposed according to the clear and simple principles of ETTR, as expounded in the many threads on this site, both taken with lenses of comparable quality using different focal lengths and f/stops to ensure equal DoF and equal FoV, then this could be a revelatory observation you've made that deserves considerable investigation and explanation.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2011, 10:49:41 AM »
ReplyReply

This does seem a little odd, unless you forgot to stipulate that this only applies above base ISO.

The D700 base ISO is 200. If one compares the performance parameters as measured by DXO, the D7000 at ISO 100 either outperforms the D700 (at ISO 200) or has equal performance in every category.

SNR at 18% grey is virtually the same, with a 0.1dB edge to the D700.

Tonal range is virtually the same, with a 0.06 bits edge to the D7000.

Color sensitivity is identical for both cameras at their respective base ISOs.

However, the Dynamic Range of the D7k is a whopping 1.72 EV better than the FF D700, at equal image size, ie. downsampling the 16mp D7k image to the 12mp of the D700.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that I've never compared equal size prints of the same scene taken with both cameras. If you have, making sure that both images are of identical scenes under identical lighting conditions, both equally exposed according to the clear and simple principles of ETTR, as expounded in the many threads on this site, both taken with lenses of comparable quality using different focal lengths and f/stops to ensure equal DoF and equal FoV, then this could be a revelatory observation you've made that deserves considerable investigation and explanation.
NO! It applies to base ISO as well, although you wouldn't mind the difference there! DXO measures sensors converted with their own RAW converter, not with the latest NX2.(...) that is optimized for both cameras, the mistake is the same as it happens with Dpreview, you just don't compare cameras because you use the same (third party) RAW converters in both of them, because you don't know if the converter is more compatible with one camera or the other! This is common sense isn't it? In other words you wouldn't compare two different films by developing them with third party chemicals and assume that the films have the same reaction to those chemicals as with the original chemistry that they where designed to be used with!!! Your impression of DR is not correct, again highlight DR is much more important than shadow DR and the total DR range is a personal matter that depends on the acceptance of the noise included in the printed info. IMO, a good approach would be to measure the linear part of the S-slope only(!), (yes, I mean 4-5 stops), IMO its a good indication of the camera capabilities, especially in the highlights. This doesn't mean that the curved parts of the S-slope are of no importance (please don't let me be misunderstood), I have find the D700 to be about half a stop better than the D7k in highlight DR (very important) and about a stop better in shadows (not so important, but welcome) for my noise standards in the shadows, both of them are more than a stop behind the Fuji S5pro in the highlights (the later with Hyper Utility and nothing else as a converter of course), in fact the fuji is the only DSLR that can compete (not beat) with a MF-DB in DR. If you print at 72dpi with the D700 (the limit), the D7k will be at 83dpi for the same size (100x150cm), believe me the difference is not so important. The method of comparing FF and APS-c performance by equalizing DOF is ridiculous, photographers don't do that to take a picture! They put their cameras to perform at their best, if for instance you shoot a landscape with a 16mm on APS-c and you need infinity in focus and 1/125 to freeze leafs from blur and the rest is f5.6 at 100ISO, a photographer doesn't use his FF with the equivalent 24mm at f11 because at 1/30 the leaves will blur nor he drives the lens towards diffraction at f11, neither he pushes ISO at 400 on daylight!!! He simply uses the same values (1/125, ISO100, f5.6) and refocuses his lens to include infinity in the frame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He will only loose a meter (yard) or so from DOF in front of the camera where he has nothing, on the other hand how will you take with an APS-c the portrait that with FF is 70-200mm at 100mm, f2.8, iso100? Are you going to invent 65mm f1.4 and IS025? NO! Of course not! You move the lens to 80mm and move a little backwards to compensate for DOF by focusing at the nose than the eye and keep the bockeh! Anything else is new methodology that proves that the world is now full of "Ainsteins" and "Gurus" that have nothing to do with photography but are trying to find a life to live on web by attracting some more ignorants to new theories.  Wink Cheers Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 12:58:53 PM by fotometria gr » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2011, 08:01:29 PM »
ReplyReply

NO! It applies to base ISO as well, although you wouldn't mind the difference there!

Ah! Slightly different from your remark in your previous post which was:

Quote
If you print a large size print from my D7000 and then print THE SAME SIZE from my D700, you will find that the FF is CONSIDERABLY BETTER. Interestingly, this is not so evident if you do the comparison on a monitor,

Nevertheless, whilst I would NOT think it odd that there would be very minor and insignificant differences between the D700 and D7k at base ISO, I do find it odd that such insignificant differences would be more apparent on a print than on the monitor.

My experience is the opposite. I find that subtle differences which are apparent on the monitor, such as slightly greater noise in a particular part of the tonal range than the other image exhibits, tend to get lost in the conversion to print. I presume this is because the degree of enlargement possible on the monitor allows one to pixel peep in great clarity every defect however minor.

As regards some of your other points, you appear to be under a few misapprehensions. (I hope you don't mind my saying that.  Wink )

Quote
DXO measures sensors converted with their own RAW converter, not with the latest NX2.(...)

This is simply not true. However, it is true that DXO produce their own RAW converter, presumably based upon the measurements they make from the RAW data from various sensors.

Here's what DXO have to say on the issue.
Quote
We deliberately chose to perform all DxOMark measurements on RAW images in order to evaluate the intrinsic image quality of lenses and camera sensors.......
Only RAW-based measurements report on the image quality of the photographic hardware irrespective of the RAW converter. Evaluating RAW converters is a significant task in itself that we currently do not address on DxOMark.

In other words, in case there is still confusion, the measurements are based on the RAW data. When the RAW data is converted to a viewable image, it is no longer RAW.

Quote
The method of comparing FF and APS-c performance by equalizing DOF is ridiculous, photographers don't do that to take a picture! They put their cameras to perform at their best, if for instance you shoot a landscape with a 16mm on APS-c and you need infinity in focus and 1/125 to freeze leafs from blur and the rest is f5.6 at 100ISO, a photographer doesn't use his FF with the equivalent 24mm at f11 because at 1/30 the leaves will blur nor he drives the lens towards diffraction at f11, neither he pushes ISO at 400 on daylight!!! He simply uses the same values (1/125, ISO100, f5.6) and refocuses his lens to include infinity in the frame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not this photographer, but each to his own.  Shutter speed, DoF, and ISO are parameters I'm frequently juggling to get the best effect.

The differences in the DoF between FF and the cropped format, at any specific F/stop and shutter speed, can be seen as either an advantage or disadvantage between the two formats.

At shallow DoFs, the larger format has the resolution advantage because the lens at the 'less narrow' aperture is likely to be sharper. (For example, F4 with FF  compared with F2.5 with the cropped format.)

However, when a large or extensive DoF is desired, the larger format tends to lose that resolution advantage because we may be comparing lens resolution at F5.6 with F9, or F8 with F12 etc. But notice I wrote tends. There are other factors which affect resolution.

Quote
I have find the D700 to be about half a stop better than the D7k in highlight DR (very important) and about a stop better in shadows (not so important, but welcome) for my noise standards in the shadows, both of them are more than a stop behind the Fuji S5pro in the highlights (the later with Hyper Utility and nothing else as a converter of course), in fact the fuji is the only DSLR that can compete (not beat) with a MF-DB in DR.

Sorry! This doesn't make sense to me at all. Both the D7k and the Pentax K5 will outperform many MFDBs in Dynamic Range, but not in terms of noise at 18% grey.

For example, the Nikon D7k has almost one stop greater DR than the P65+ (0.9 EV to be exact). However (and it's a big 'however'), at 18% grey, roughly the luminosity of skin tones, the P65+ has a very significant 7.9dB better SNR, and that would definitely be very noticeable on screen and print.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'highlight dynamic range', but I'm assuming you are referring to SNR in the highlights.

In the attached image from DXOMark you will see the full SNR plots for the D700 and D7k, covering the entire tonal range from highlights to deepest shadows.

At base ISO you should observe that the D700 has a marginal advantage in SNR in parts of the midtones. At 10% grey it's approximately 1.5dB better than the D7k (bearing in mind that 10% grey is a lot lighter than you might think because this is a log scale.)

However, I should add, in case there is some confusion about the significance of 1.5dB in SNR, this could be equivalent to about half an f/stop or EV in the midtones, but not in the highlights, nor in the shadows where such differences would go unnoticed, as I understand. But correct me if I'm wrong.




« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 08:42:20 PM by Ray » Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2011, 03:30:10 AM »
ReplyReply

As i clearly stated A PHOTO IS ONLY THE PRINT, nothing else! DXO does RAW conversion, that's why they supply 2 results "screen and print". There is no comparison that can be made on a monitor, monitors and graphic cards have DR and colour accuracy differences. When you compare prints, it must be done in 16bit tiffs! When I compare prints, I open the RAW files on a fully calibrated EIZO GM242, and print on an equally calibrated and linearized EPSON 9900, controlled by a full power, special order, MacPro. Is that good enough to now what I'm talking about?  Wink My major income is from doing copies of Byzantine Icons that I shoot in microstep (16x), through my contax 645 or Sinar P2 on my Imacon 528c tethered to my macbook (again special order, full power and fully -as possible- calibrated), please have a look at the latest images under "studio" in my page (www.fotometria.gr). D7K and Pentax K5 can beat what.....? Grin A DB.....? Grin According to who? Is it DXO again....? Wink I can assure you they are no where near a DB, especially in highlight DR. The latitude in highlights of any DB (new or old) is as much from the D700, as the D700 from any APS-c (S5pro excluded, but again this has no latitude, its a natural champ)! I guess that "latitude" is the key word here, because full DR appreciation, depends on anybody's allowance/acceptance of shadow noise, which is much more evident than highlights! Cheers, Theodoros.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2011, 06:40:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I repeat, DXO test-results for sensors are based on an analysis of the unconverted RAW data. To quote again from their website:
Quote
DxOMark measurements are performed on unprocessed RAW files (the only image format that reflects the intrinsic performance of digital cameras and lenses)



D7K and Pentax K5 can beat what.....? Grin A DB.....? Grin According to who? Is it DXO again....? Wink I can assure you they are no where near a DB, especially in highlight DR. The latitude in highlights of any DB (new or old) is as much from the D700, as the D700 from any APS-c (S5pro excluded, but again this has no latitude, its a natural champ)! I guess that "latitude" is the key word here, because full DR appreciation, depends on anybody's allowance/acceptance of shadow noise, which is much more evident than highlights! Cheers, Theodoros.

Could you please explain what you mean by highlight DR in this digital age? You sound as though you are comparing color negative film with slide film.

Dynamic Range, as I understand it, is the ratio between the brightest highlight the camera can capture, without blowing detail, and the darkest shadow it can simultaneously capture without clipping detail. Most DBs seem to have a DR of around 12 stops. This little toy, the Pentax K5, has about 14 stops of DR.

If you were attempting to capture a scene of high dynamic range (or high subject-brightness-range) of 12 stops or more, and you were not able to bracket exposure for merging to HDR because of subject movement, leaves or waves etc, and you did not have studio lighting or flash to lighten the shadows containing a Byzantine Icon poking its head out of the undergrowth, you might get a better shot using a K5 rather than a P65, provided of course you also wanted to retain full detail in those magnificent fluffy clouds overhead.  Grin
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2011, 06:54:57 AM »
ReplyReply

especially in highlight DR.
Apply -1 stop of EC, and you will gain 1 stop of highlight DR (and loose one stop of lowlight DR). Atleast that is my understanding.

When comparing sensor specs of different cameras, manufacturer policy wrgt auto exposure is of little relevance. Therefore, it is usually the entire DR that is measured/debated.

-h
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2011, 07:28:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I repeat, DXO test-results for sensors are based on an analysis of the unconverted RAW data. To quote again from their website:


Could you please explain what you mean by highlight DR in this digital age? You sound as though you are comparing color negative film with slide film.

Dynamic Range, as I understand it, is the ratio between the brightest highlight the camera can capture, without blowing detail, and the darkest shadow it can simultaneously capture without clipping detail. Most DBs seem to have a DR of around 12 stops. This little toy, the Pentax K5, has about 14 stops of DR.
 
If you were attempting to capture a scene of high dynamic range (or high subject-brightness-range) of 12 stops or more, and you were not able to bracket exposure for merging to HDR because of subject movement, leaves or waves etc, and you did not have studio lighting or flash to lighten the shadows containing a Byzantine Icon poking its head out of the undergrowth, you might get a better shot using a K5 rather than a P65, provided of course you also wanted to retain full detail in those magnificent fluffy clouds overhead.  Grin

1. It has been answered already, sorry you don't understand.... Cry 2. I suggest you do it your way (with DSLR & studio flash Huh), its really good money in art reproduction and a few people that can do it!!  Smiley Cheers, Theodoros.
  P.S. Among others, I think (correct me if I'm wrong, please don't if I'm not) you totally confused "microstep" 16x (or "multishot 4x), with HDR shooting, where did this HDR came in the conversation?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 11:40:46 AM by fotometria gr » Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 08, 2011, 07:36:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Apply -1 stop of EC, and you will gain 1 stop of highlight DR (and loose one stop of lowlight DR). Atleast that is my understanding.

When comparing sensor specs of different cameras, manufacturer policy wrgt auto exposure is of little relevance. Therefore, it is usually the entire DR that is measured/debated.

-h
1.Your understanding is wrong, -1 stop of exposure, will give you -1 stop ONLY IN THE LINEAR PART OF the S-slope, not in highlights or shadows where the info is compressed!  Wink 2. Yeah! The problem though is how they measure it and if its usable! Wink Cheers, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #52 on: September 08, 2011, 07:53:46 AM »
ReplyReply

1.Your understanding is wrong, -1 stop of exposure, will give you -1 stop ONLY IN THE LINEAR PART OF the S-slope, not in highlights or shadows where the info is compressed!
I politely suggest that you discuss the topic instead of declearing that everyone else is wrong all of the time and using exclamation marks in every sentence.

Where is there an s-curve in your camera? I am aware of no such thing in mine, it is highly linear from clipping and into the noise-floor.

-h
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 08, 2011, 08:13:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I remember the time they stated that a Full-frame version of the  Leica M-rangefinder was an impossibility and that at best it will need to be a 1.3x.....well, we have had a FF Leica-MR for a while now.  As long as the mount is large enough (and in fact the Sony E-mount is larger than the Full-frame Leica M-mount) a FF will arrive.  My prediction.
Could be, I don't think so for the near future though and certainly not with an electronic finder, I don't thing that there are many photographers that will excuse that and thus justify enough market share! But it can be done with an extra finder that can carrie focus and FOV issues through the dedicated hot shoe if it has a build in motor..... Cool I guess they may be looking at it...., you never know...  Smiley Cheers, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 08, 2011, 11:10:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I politely suggest that you discuss the topic instead of declearing that everyone else is wrong all of the time and using exclamation marks in every sentence.

Where is there an s-curve in your camera? I am aware of no such thing in mine, it is highly linear from clipping and into the noise-floor.

-h
Sorry for my use of grammar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Wink I suggest you take some photo lessons, you obviously don't need grammar ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Huh If your camera's data is not recorded with compressed highlights or shadows, I suggest you change your camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Roll Eyes But I'm not aware of such a camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lips sealed Cheers, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
   P.S. Thanks for "politely" it really gave your quote a touch of class. S-slope is not in your camera, it's a fundamental in photography and it tries to equalize the compressed highlights and shadows that your (and my) brain records. If your camera recording was linear, you wouldn't be able to see more than 4-5 (at best) stops of DR! Data recording with compressed highlights and shadows is not new to digital photography, it's  with us from the beginning of film, even earlier than that!!!!!! Shocked
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 11:55:55 AM by fotometria gr » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2011, 05:37:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I suggest you take some photo lessons
I suggest we keep personal insults out of the discussion.
Quote
If your camera's data is not recorded with compressed highlights or shadows, I suggest you change your camera
My 7D is working very fine. If it had a non-linear response, doing HDR bracketing would be very difficult. Luckily, I can report that it works...
Quote
S-slope is not in your camera, it's a fundamental in photography and it tries to equalize the compressed highlights and shadows that your (and my) brain records. If your camera recording was linear, you wouldn't be able to see more than 4-5 (at best) stops of DR! Data recording with compressed highlights and shadows is not new to digital photography, it's  with us from the beginning of film, even earlier than that!!!!!! Shocked
Do you use raw files when shooting? I suggest that when doing anything exposure-related in post-processing, you do it before applying non-linear curves. That is how it should be implemented in most raw developers.

Of course, when you adjust the exposure in-camera, that will be linear because the camera sensor knows of no such thing as s-curves, gamma or tone-mapping.

Quote
1.Your understanding is wrong, -1 stop of exposure, will give you -1 stop ONLY IN THE LINEAR PART OF the S-slope, not in highlights or shadows where the info is compressed!

To summarize: your statement is bogous.

The clipping-point and noise-floor of your camera sensor provides the basic lilmits for Dynamic Range, and the sensor is linear. Subjective and practical constraints cause your signal to be placed somewhere along that range, and anything you loose on the top, you will gain at the bottom, DR-wise.

-h
« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 06:01:44 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad