Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 52 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sigma DP2 Merrill Experiences  (Read 252253 times)
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #860 on: March 21, 2013, 03:04:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Can't seem to find the info on the web but would like to know what the size of the tiffs are from the sigma's (pixel dimensions) have I read it right that there is no set sensor pixel to print pixel correlation? What size do people output at?

Logged
maxgruzen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #861 on: March 21, 2013, 04:07:28 PM »
ReplyReply


Around 90 mbs
Logged
aduke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 361


« Reply #862 on: March 21, 2013, 04:40:13 PM »
ReplyReply

There should be a close correlation between raw pixel count and tiff pixel count. There is little correlation between pixel count and raw file size in megabytes. This is due to the compression algorithm and is easily seen in finder or explorer. If you convert to tiff, there may be little correlation between pixel count and tiff file size, due to the compression you use while saving the image, not to mention the number of layers you've added. Smiley

Alan
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 04:43:05 PM by aduke » Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #863 on: March 21, 2013, 05:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

So can anyone tell me the pixel dimensions of a full sized tiff?  Undecided
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #864 on: March 21, 2013, 05:48:55 PM »
ReplyReply

So can anyone tell me the pixel dimensions of a full sized tiff?  Undecided

Ok so, You can have 3 sizes of Tiff 16 Bits out of SPP.

The half normal size at 21Mo/3.7Mp, the normal size at 90Mo/14.75Mp and the double size, equivalent in sharpness at what you get with a 5DMkIII with good glass but with a picture of 340Mo/50Mp
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:01:29 PM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #865 on: March 21, 2013, 05:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't rush, pour another if you fancy it. Grin
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #866 on: March 21, 2013, 06:29:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't rush, pour another if you fancy it. Grin

Already done that Smiley Answered above Smiley
Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #867 on: March 21, 2013, 06:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the info, I have been looking at jpegs on Flickr and 'full size' can obviously change, it did seem to me that a lot of people over sharpen the files though (I think amateurs often have a tendency to do this)
I'm certainly impressed by the lens quality and the tonality of the files from what I have seen.
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #868 on: March 21, 2013, 07:09:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Yea, my eyes often bleed  Tongue Shooting humans with the Merrill need some negative luminance setting to be accepted. This is a crop out of the DP2 Merrill :

« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 07:13:40 PM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #869 on: March 21, 2013, 08:10:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Yea, my eyes often bleed  Tongue Shooting humans with the Merrill need some negative luminance setting to be accepted. This is a crop out of the DP2 Merrill :

What's next, Hulyss? Scanning electron microscope?  (I'm smiling as I say this... Grin Grin Grin)
Logged
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #870 on: March 21, 2013, 08:36:07 PM »
ReplyReply

There is no moire  Roll Eyes ... This is just optical illusion due to low scale picture...

Maybe this is what Slobodan saw? I did a screen shot before it disappeared. It seemed to come out like that before the image fully loaded.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 08:46:06 PM by Ed B » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5884


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #871 on: March 21, 2013, 09:04:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe this is what Slobodan saw? I did a screen shot before it disappeared. It seemed to come out like that before the image fully loaded.

Yes, indeed! The bullseye effect on the roof cone. I saw it this morning on my iPad. I do not see it now on my iMac 24.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #872 on: March 21, 2013, 09:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, indeed! The bullseye effect on the roof cone. I saw it this morning on my iPad. I do not see it now on my iMac 24.

The other image in that post does it too but to a much lesser degree and it disapperars quicker. I've never seen this happen before.
Logged
paulormiston
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #873 on: March 21, 2013, 11:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

There is no moire  Roll Eyes ... This is just optical illusion due to low scale picture...

OK thanks -
Here is a rare (to me) example of a usable DP2M file in colour taken in artificial light in Central World Shopping Centre at ISO 2000 - F4.0 - 1/100th sec.
I cannot understand why this file is usable but pretty much all other high ISO photos I have taken were instant deletes. Maybe the fact that most of my photography is landscape and street shooting in natural light has a bearing on this but most posters seem to agree on 400 ISO being the max for colour.
I would be particularly interested in anyone's comments on black and white processing and the degree to which they use the new sigma 5.0 monochrome in their workflow in conjunction with Lightroom (rarely use PS) and if they find the new monochrome worth using. Also how high of an ISO setting is possible in B&W and what special techniques if any do they use: thanks if anyone has the time to spare.
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #874 on: March 22, 2013, 02:47:34 AM »
ReplyReply

What's next, Hulyss? Scanning electron microscope?  (I'm smiling as I say this... Grin Grin Grin)

 Grin

OK thanks -
Here is a rare (to me) example of a usable DP2M file in colour taken in artificial light in Central World Shopping Centre at ISO 2000 - F4.0 - 1/100th sec.
I cannot understand why this file is usable but pretty much all other high ISO photos I have taken were instant deletes. Maybe the fact that most of my photography is landscape and street shooting in natural light has a bearing on this but most posters seem to agree on 400 ISO being the max for colour.
I would be particularly interested in anyone's comments on black and white processing and the degree to which they use the new sigma 5.0 monochrome in their workflow in conjunction with Lightroom (rarely use PS) and if they find the new monochrome worth using. Also how high of an ISO setting is possible in B&W and what special techniques if any do they use: thanks if anyone has the time to spare.


I'm actually studying the new SPP with Black and White. This is not that easy because there is many possibility. On thing you need to know, for now, is that in contrasty situations, never use X3fill light, just expose correctly in spot metering or you will experiment Banding Paradise Smiley I have pretty good results at 3200 ISO.

For your photo here is my try on it. Hope you do not mind I edited it to show we can get rid of "color splotch" Wink


  
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 02:50:58 AM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #875 on: March 22, 2013, 06:54:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I am finding that SPP Monochrome can give some very good results at high ISO. I have gone as high as 1600 so far. I push the colour mixer all the way into the blue channel, I don't
add grain in SPP. In LR I adjust and reduce noise carefully, then add grain and adjust Clarity. It looks very "natural", very film like. It means the Sigmas can be used as B+W street cameras, something I need to investigate more when I have the time.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
SZRitter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #876 on: March 22, 2013, 12:37:11 PM »
ReplyReply

The other image in that post does it too but to a much lesser degree and it disapperars quicker. I've never seen this happen before.

It's coming from the browser resizing the image. First it loads the image as a whole, scrunched into that location, then it re-renders the in the correct size. If you resize the browser window you will see it happen again.
Logged
Gary Mulcahey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #877 on: March 22, 2013, 01:58:54 PM »
ReplyReply

A question about b&w. I could experiment and find out but that is what forums are for. Smiley

Is there a difference in quality between shooting in mono and shooting colour>monochrome?

Thanks
G
Logged

juan_amores
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #878 on: March 22, 2013, 05:19:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Some fishes  Wink


_SDI0733 por John Loves, en Flickr


_SDI0734 por John Loves, en Flickr
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



WWW
« Reply #879 on: March 22, 2013, 07:53:26 PM »
ReplyReply

A question about b&w. I could experiment and find out but that is what forums are for. Smiley

Is there a difference in quality between shooting in mono and shooting colour>monochrome?

Thanks
G

Hello Gary,

No there is no differences between shooting Raw Mono and Color to Mono in SPP. This is just more comfortable when you decide to compose your image in Black and White directly. I often end using B&W mode indoor, with Hight ISO.
Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 52 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad