Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael  (Read 35641 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3636



WWW
« Reply #140 on: February 05, 2012, 09:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Not necessarily.
As the amount/type of information is different. Just as 12MP DSLRs may differ from each other or from 12 MP 4/3rds camera which differ from a small sensor 12MP camera which is different from a 12MP mobile phone. Resolution is only one aspect of image quality. A 16x24" print from an old 8MP Canon FF camera is quite impressive, a  similar size from my much more recent pocket camera [12 MP IIRC] is nowhere near as good.
Obviously if comparing a FF DSLR at that size print to a MFDSLR, there may be less difference than when compared to a pocket camera. But it all depends on the image style, image content, ISO, the paper used and so on. Print on canvas and it's amazing how poor quality the source image can be that you can still get away with.

Also as I mentioned above, some of my lower quality images actually look preferable at bigger sizes as you can then see the texture/grain better. And lower quality may simply suit the image. Not all images are best served by being sharp, in focus or low grain/noise etc...

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 06, 2012, 02:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #142 on: February 06, 2012, 03:14:33 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 

But without the charm...  Grin
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #143 on: February 06, 2012, 03:19:21 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 

+1
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1704


« Reply #144 on: February 06, 2012, 03:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Not missing that at all. I'm just pointing out that people's inability to tell a distinction between distinctly different items could be down to several things.
1. Inexperience in that area - e.g. not speaking the language.
2. Inability to discern - less capable hearing.
3. There is no difference.

The erroneous conclusion some people are drawing is that only option 3 is possible.

Simply deciding there is no difference because some people cannot tell the difference, when others profess to is as bad science as people are claiming audiophiles to be demonstrating. As for the scientific blind tests demonstrating no difference between 2 specific items of audio kit. All they prove is that there is no difference between those items, not that there is no difference between any other pairing of audio items. Expanding this singular example to all audio kit as people seem to be doing is yet another shocking display of bad science.
Then I agree: a negative blind test is just that, a test that fail to prove that there is an (for example) audible difference. Blind tests are kind of hard to do right, and quite tedious. There have been studies of how training and background affect the ability to discern two audio examples. I think that for loudspeakers, it has been found that two hours of training or so is what separates Joe Average from expert listeners.(take my memory with a grain of salt)

For many of us, failure to be distinguishable at all in a fair, relevant blind test is reason enough to avoid spending significant money on a product, be it wine, cables or cameras.I think it is fair to say that there have been quite a number of blind tests carried out on phenomena relevant to audiophilia, few have been shocking. There is a reward of 1mill$ awaiting those who can pass a well-defined blind test of audio cables in the James Randi challenge. Stereophile magazine and the major cable companies have rejected to participate.

I think that one can fairly describe many products, companies and individuals in the audiophile community as "operating with the same scientific credibility as many dietary products and homeopathy". Which is not to say that it has been proven wrong, but that if it turns out to be right, text-books from elementary school and up to University-level might have to be fundamentally rewritten.

-h
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4084



« Reply #145 on: February 06, 2012, 05:31:17 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 
Agreed; but if you stop reading it, it becomes akin to gum stuck to the bottom of someone else's shoe and hence irritates rather less.

Jeremy
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8337



WWW
« Reply #146 on: February 06, 2012, 05:44:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The specs of the D800 should be known in 4 hours and 18 minutes.

2h 55 minutes.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 07:05:45 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

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

Posts: 3636



WWW
« Reply #147 on: February 06, 2012, 08:37:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Then I agree: a negative blind test is just that, a test that fail to prove that there is an (for example) audible difference.
No, I said they can easily fail to prove there is no difference, even when there is a very distinct difference. And I also mentioned several reasons that may give a particular result, of which you always seem to choose the no audible difference.

 
Quote
Blind tests are kind of hard to do right, and quite tedious. There have been studies of how training and background affect the ability to discern two audio examples. I think that for loudspeakers, it has been found that two hours of training or so is what separates Joe Average from expert listeners.(take my memory with a grain of salt)
Bollocks. I've never had any 'training', yet it's blinding obvious that some audio kit and not just speakers can sound very markedly different. I have two sets of speakers in my office as it happens and they both have very individual sounds. You may as well say all digital cameras produce identical results.

Quote
For many of us, failure to be distinguishable at all in a fair, relevant blind test is reason enough to avoid spending significant money on a product, be it wine, cables or cameras.I think it is fair to say that there have been quite a number of blind tests carried out on phenomena relevant to audiophilia, few have been shocking. There is a reward of 1mill$ awaiting those who can pass a well-defined blind test of audio cables in the James Randi challenge. Stereophile magazine and the major cable companies have rejected to participate.

I think that one can fairly describe many products, companies and individuals in the audiophile community as "operating with the same scientific credibility as many dietary products and homeopathy". Which is not to say that it has been proven wrong, but that if it turns out to be right, text-books from elementary school and up to University-level might have to be fundamentally rewritten.
A few years back, unprompted I remarked after entering my flatmate's room that his hifii sounded somehow better. It turned out that he'd replaced the stock scrawny phono leads with some others he'd made himself with more substantial and better performing parts from a local electrical store. So for me replacing crappy cable with something more substantial made a noticeable difference. However I'm not convinced that replacing his quite cheap home made cables with some mega expensive ones would have made any further difference. No rewriting of textboks needed as they already say that thin cable with poorer quality conductivity are not as effective as chunkier cable with gold connectors.
Also when buying new hifi kit, the difference in sound quality between kit can be very marked and more expensive certainly does not mean better in my experience. I found the differences to be very surprising [and depressing as I couldn't afford the better kit]. Better is also a personal preference.
 I can easily see the difference between different cameras or different viewing systems, so I think it's worth getting the better kit [again not necessarily the most expensive kit] and do not see the problem with those who also can appreciate better audio doing the same. Most people in my experience don't even realise when a film is being projected out of focus at the cinema. It's still out of focus even though most of the audience does not notice.

The other thing I'd suggest to people doing any listenings tests is to use young people to do the listening, as their hearing is almost certainly very much better than people over say 30.
Real world application of this
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #148 on: February 06, 2012, 08:49:10 PM »
ReplyReply


The other thing I'd suggest to people doing any listenings tests is to use young people to do the listening, as their hearing is almost certainly very much better than people over say 30.


Ageist in the extreme! As a 59-year old, I should complain!  Grin
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 10:17:53 PM by mediumcool » Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8337



WWW
« Reply #149 on: February 06, 2012, 09:07:05 PM »
ReplyReply

2h 55 minutes.

55 minutes.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 3636



WWW
« Reply #150 on: February 06, 2012, 09:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm afraid there's already lots of D800 info out there Bernard. A Brazilian site let things slip in advance it would seem.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8337



WWW
« Reply #151 on: February 07, 2012, 12:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm afraid there's already lots of D800 info out there Bernard. A Brazilian site let things slip in advance it would seem.

Now we even have sample images of the D800E: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1704


« Reply #152 on: February 07, 2012, 01:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

No, I said they can easily fail to prove there is no difference, even when there is a very distinct difference. And I also mentioned several reasons that may give a particular result, of which you always seem to choose the no audible difference.
Like I said, a blind test can either prove that there is a difference, or it can fail to prove that there is a difference. Failure to prove that there is a difference does not mean that there is not difference, only that the test cannot prove either. What is it that you disagree with?
Quote
Bollocks. I've never had any 'training', yet it's blinding obvious that some audio kit and not just speakers can sound very markedly different.
Sure. I havent claimed otherwise.
Quote
I have two sets of speakers in my office as it happens and they both have very individual sounds. You may as well say all digital cameras produce identical results.
I dont know where you get the feeling that I am saying that all loudspeakers sound the same. In fact, loudspeakers are perhaps the part of the audio chain that seems most critical judging from scientific listening tests.
Quote
The other thing I'd suggest to people doing any listenings tests is to use young people to do the listening, as their hearing is almost certainly very much better than people over say 30.
It is usual to screen participants to remove those with obvious hearing loss. There have been a number of scientific listening tests where e.g. musicians, audiophiles, etc were compared to an unbiased pool of listeners.

I have done listening tests where young musicians seemed to have very consistent ratings, while hifi-interested people in their 40s had less consistent ratings. This is of course subjective from my part as the test was never designed to reveal such tendencies.

If you are selecting audio cables (or a camera) for yourself and your pleasure, I advace against using other people selected for ideal sensing, I would rather use my own senses with whatever lilmitation I may have. If this means that I can buy cheap Australian instead of Amarone, so be it, I'll spend the money saved on quantity instead ;-)

-h
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #153 on: February 07, 2012, 02:15:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Now we even have sample images of the D800E: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

Cheers,
Bernard


It's going to be a hard choice. D800 with AA filter, or D800E without AA filter?  Grin
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703


WWW
« Reply #154 on: February 07, 2012, 07:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Now we even have sample images of the D800E: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

Cheers,
Bernard

This is going to be an interesting product launch given the size of the sensor and the price (I'm a D300 user).  I would not be surprised to see a significant waiting time and I've seen that B&H is taking pre-orders right now.  I don't think Nikon has a history of giving out cameras for testing as it might be nice to see Michael put one of these through the paces and compare it to his favorite Sony. Grin
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2855



« Reply #155 on: February 07, 2012, 07:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

It's going to be a hard choice. D800 with AA filter, or D800E without AA filter?  Grin

Apparently, the 800E does not lack an AA filter, but has one that acts as if the filter were not present.  See Ron Galbraith. That may explain the 10% additional cost of the D800E but doesn't really tell us if the filter acts as if one were not present, why not simply omit the filter? Does the new filter reduce Moire without significantly blurring the image?

Regards,

Bill
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5168


« Reply #156 on: February 07, 2012, 09:23:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Apparently, the 800E does not lack an AA filter, but has one that acts as if the filter were not present. ... why not simply omit the filter?
Nikon says "IR cut and antireflective coating properties of the optical filter remain the same with both versions." --- http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features01.htm
So some speculations:
- The elements used for the OLPF also do other duties like IR filtering and reflection reduction due to the "half-wave thickness" trick, so are needed anyway.
- Operation of focusing and light metering assumes the effects on optical path length and such caused by the OLPF filters, so it is easier to keep the same amount of glass with the same optical properties in the optical path.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8200



WWW
« Reply #157 on: February 07, 2012, 09:28:29 AM »
ReplyReply

It's going to be a hard choice. D800 with AA filter, or D800E without AA filter?  Grin
The question, obviously, is: Which one gives better "perspective?"    Wink
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1072



« Reply #158 on: February 07, 2012, 09:31:51 AM »
ReplyReply

- Operation of focusing and light metering assumes the effects on optical path length and such caused by the OLPF filters, so it is easier to keep the same amount of glass with the same optical properties in the optical path.

optical path for metering and PDAF in dSLR does not involve AA filter... CDAF is not affected either even AA filter is (or is not) present - moire or no moire, a little more light or a little less light - CDAF will get the maximum contrast unless you shoot the flat surface
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 09:33:37 AM by deejjjaaaa » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5168


« Reply #159 on: February 07, 2012, 09:45:30 AM »
ReplyReply

optical path for metering and PDAF in dSLR does not involve AA filter... CDAF is not affected either even AA filter is (or is not) present.
The optical path to the PDAF meter is not changed by removing the OLPF filter, but the optical path to the sensor is, so AF calibrated on the basis that on OLPF is present will be slightly inaccurate if that OLPF is not present. CDAF is immune to this of course, as is PDAF using AF sensors embedded in the light sensor: one or both of those two "AF using the main-sensor" options is the future, I am sure.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad