|
Hulyss
|
 |
« Reply #860 on: March 21, 2013, 09:48:20 AM » |
 Reply
|
That's the most interesting moire example I've seen so far (#82). A result of jpeg compression or...?
There is no moire  ... This is just optical illusion due to low scale picture... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
francois
|
|
« Reply #861 on: March 21, 2013, 10:50:48 AM » |
Reply
|
There is no moire ... This is just optical illusion due to low scale picture... Right, when viewed in PS (or any other app) at 100%, the moiré disappears… |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
|
MrSmith
|
|
« Reply #862 on: March 21, 2013, 03:04:39 PM » |
Reply
|
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
|
|
« Reply #863 on: March 21, 2013, 04:07:28 PM » |
Reply
|
Around 90 mbs
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aduke
|
|
« Reply #864 on: March 21, 2013, 04:40:13 PM » |
Reply
|
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.  Alan |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 04:43:05 PM by aduke »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hulyss
|
|
« Reply #866 on: March 21, 2013, 05:48:55 PM » |
Reply
|
So can anyone tell me the pixel dimensions of a full sized tiff?  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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hulyss
|
|
« Reply #868 on: March 21, 2013, 06:29:10 PM » |
Reply
|
Don't rush, pour another if you fancy it.  Already done that Answered above |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MrSmith
|
|
« Reply #869 on: March 21, 2013, 06:54:00 PM » |
Reply
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
mezzoduomo
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 35
|
|
« Reply #871 on: March 21, 2013, 08:10:29 PM » |
Reply
|
Yea, my eyes often bleed  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... ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ed B
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
|
« Reply #872 on: March 21, 2013, 08:36:07 PM » |
Reply
|
There is no moire ... 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
|
|
« Reply #873 on: March 21, 2013, 09:04:25 PM » |
Reply
|
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
|
|
|
|
Ed B
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 65
|
|
« Reply #874 on: March 21, 2013, 09:34:51 PM » |
Reply
|
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
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #875 on: March 21, 2013, 11:07:42 PM » |
Reply
|
There is no moire ... 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
|
|
« Reply #876 on: March 22, 2013, 02:47:34 AM » |
Reply
|
What's next, Hulyss? Scanning electron microscope? (I'm smiling as I say this... ) 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 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"  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 02:50:58 AM by Hulyss »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pete_G
|
|
« Reply #877 on: March 22, 2013, 06:54:52 AM » |
Reply
|
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
|
|
|
|
SZRitter
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 36
|
|
« Reply #878 on: March 22, 2013, 12:37:11 PM » |
Reply
|
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
Posts: 14
|
|
« Reply #879 on: March 22, 2013, 01:58:54 PM » |
Reply
|
A question about b&w. I could experiment and find out but that is what forums are for. Is there a difference in quality between shooting in mono and shooting colour>monochrome? Thanks G |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
