Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: It's finally good enough  (Read 11352 times)
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2012, 02:55:18 AM »
ReplyReply

There was some discussion of this a while back amongst us:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60585.0

There are a variety of positive claims going around, including Daniel's.  But here I'm saying that I've heated water to 100C degrees and observed boiling, whereas Daniel is saying "I've never heated water and I wouldn't, because it could never boil.  This was covered /somewhere/ a long time ago to the best of my recollection."  You might say that whether I've truly observed boiling or not is subject to further confirmation, but one should say that there was honest inquiry.

This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. A more accurate analogy would be that you said you've seen water boil in your room at 24C, and I said it's possible in very reduced air pressure but I doubt you had that in your room or you wouldn't be talking here.
Logged

Danijel
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2012, 03:23:49 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have a source, then cite it; otherwise your vague recollections have no authority.  The challenge stands. 

No, it doesn't.
Others who keep better records of what was posted and when might find you an archived article. I went through that blind test and I know what the result was, and you can either believe me or not, but if you don't, I'll find it ridiculous and I'll probably laugh.

The issue you're talking about was a matter of some contention a while ago but it was resolved and nobody really brings it up since.
Logged

Danijel
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2012, 03:41:10 AM »
ReplyReply

As something rather recent I recommend this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/IREPORT/09/22/phoneorslr.quiz.irpt/index.html

Can you tell a difference between a picture taken with a phone and one taken with a dSLR? On web size?

I know nobody can tell which camera I used for this without looking at the exif:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6130661353/download/1906149
Logged

Danijel
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2012, 03:44:48 AM »
ReplyReply

So Daniel, you've never used the D800 or the D3X?  I have to say these are wonderful cameras.  I can't get over the skin, hair, and fabric textures, around f/8, at web size.
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2012, 03:55:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I know nobody can tell which camera I used for this without looking at the exif:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6130661353/download/1906149

For the record, I guessed either compact or phone.  Not to say that it isn't a nice picture.

The fine detail is sharp, but not antialiased.  The oversampling of the 36MP sensor gives you a very smooth rendering in a reduced print, almost CGI-like in its smoothness sometimes. 
Logged

dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2012, 04:05:43 AM »
ReplyReply

So Daniel, you've never used the D800 or the D3X?  I have to say these are wonderful cameras.  I can't get over the skin, hair, and fabric textures, around f/8, at web size.

So basically what you're saying is that if I didn't drive a formula 1 car, I can't really claim it won't beat a Ford Focus around town?

BTW you should see skin, hair, and fabric textures from Olympus E-1, on 1024x768 size. I could pass it as a digital Hasselblad to anyone. So yes, those are wonderful cameras but you can see a difference only if you print big. On screen or on a small print, almost everything can give them a run for their money.
Logged

Danijel
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2012, 04:12:52 AM »
ReplyReply

For the record, I guessed either compact or phone.  Not to say that it isn't a nice picture.

Not knowing, I would probably bet on a Canon G9 or a similar high-end compact, and looking carefully the shadows show noise patterns specific to compacts or phones, but the tonality on the clouds is as good as a dSLR. The detail doesn't really show anything other than my choice of sharpening in gimp. There is something a bit cartoonish about the colors that would tend to exclude a really big sensor but I could attribute this to stronger saturation.

It's an iPhone 4s. My wife couldn't tell. She could tell it's not 5d because the palette is slightly different but she couldn't tell which camera I used. When I told her she almost stumbled on her jaw.
Logged

Danijel
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad