PTGUI should be fine for that, though I've not tried 32-bit space. Output is usually done to .psb if files are large.
Nope. It doesn't like the 32-bit part. It just spit out a highly underexposed 16-bit TIFF. Time to try the Photomerge function in CS3. Shame it doesn't give the same kinds of controls. If that doesn't work, I'll have to try doing the tone mapping to the individual images before the stitch, which could make the blending problematic.
Eye of the beholder, but I would be surprised if you could get enough image detail from a -3EV shot, -2 would be nice though. Push a Rebel 450 or D50 2 stops. LOL, now if they could only make a dSLR that would auto white balance well under HPS street lighting, that would be a feat!DxO has also released 59 new Correction Modules, and we're also told that the pace of module releases will increase now that DxO has opened a second calibration facility, effectively doubling its production capacity. Among the images we viewed at Photokina was a 1/800 second Nikon D700 image shot at night under street lighting. The camera was set to ISO 6,400 sensitivity, and deliberately underexposed by 3.0EV. This was then pushed to ISO 51,200 equivalent with DxO Optics Pro 5.3. The resulting image looked very useable, with good color saturation and surprisingly fine detail / low noise levels, relatively speaking.
Think the new Sony A900 needs this badly^^^, also as mentioned by DP conclusion, a price drop to $2k (not that it would 'fly' off the shelves even at that price...a 5DMkII would have flown off the shelves @that price...maybe next revision, maybe a FF version of a Rebel @near 50D price range would fly off the shelf, if conservative Canon ever gets with the market demand for one).New RAW conversion technology turns the promises of very high ISO (up to 25 600) into reality
Most of the recent DSLRs feature impressive high ISO settings, sometimes as high as 25 600 ISO. But until now, these high sensitivities were of little practical use to photographers due to the very poor resulting image quality.
- High ISO performance worse than 40D
- Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
- Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
- High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
- Poor white balance performance under artificial light
- Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
- Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners
Uhh... it has worse dynamic range and more noise due to Canon's decision to play in the megapixel wars. If the camera doesn't take pictures with top notch image quality, what good are all the other bells and whistles on the camera? I didn't see much of any real improvement from the 40D in terms of actual picture resolution from all those extra megapixels, but all those extra megapixels sure brought along a pile of negative side effects.Umm, that would be *your* interpretation, what you're reading into the article. I'm sure Tannin will come along and provide a counterpoint .
Did you read the long list of "pro" for the 50D, by chance?
Were you solely focused on only the "con" list?
From the "cons" list, the only 'negatives' dp found about the camera (which won't mean that much to those who want all the new positives about it).
No idea. I'm personally not very interested in this market segment. I'm more interested in the 5D MkII. My Rebel XSi covers my needs in a crop sensor body just fine.So the D300 is the better buy? All of these 'prosumer' 'mid-level' dSLR's are way too expensive, you're better of forking out $2.5k for the 5DmkII or D700, IMHO.
People just don't get it: full frame sensors are expensive,
So would it be unwise to invest in an APS-C system (body, glass)? Is it better to jump into full-frame even though it will hurt a lot initially?
Below is a picture taken with the IMX060PQ and its 12.25Mpix.
Finally got some of my pics from Europe this summer online. Feel free to check out my gallery:
http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/gallery/6305472_snS9z/1/398249211_Ehzn2
Anyone think I should watermark / copyright my photos? I think it's cheesy, but I keep hearing about people using photos without consent on their sites for who knows what, and some even pass it off as their work for stock photos and selling prints (although the resolution isn't high enough to make good prints out of these).
Seems not many pros like my pics, but most of my friends and family do. C&C welcome...
I really like this one. Where is it?
Getting nothing but full-frame glass isn't a bad idea. With a couple exceptions (10-22 and the kit lens) I've done the same. I have no regrets about going out and getting the XSi, it is a great camera and truth be told is likely not limiting my shots at all. I still plan on getting a 5DII by early next year, but that is the geek in me.
I also advise you to buy more prime lenses and a larger bag. Canon's wide zooms are sub-par @21MP below the 70-200 range.
I hope it doesn't suck like the Sony that uses the same sensor...
... and a staggering $3k price differential that has Rockwell's blood boiling.While it's acknowledged that Nikon uses image sensors principally designed by Sony in many of its digital SLRs past and present, the D3X's sensor was described in a recent briefing by Nikon USA's Silverman as an "original Nikon design" that does not and will not appear in cameras from other digital SLR manufacturers... Summarizing the new model is easy: the D3X is a D3 with more pixels.
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Don't bite. The price is $5,500, or no deal. If we all stand firm, and it seems everyone is, we ought to have the D3X at $5,500 by March or April 2009. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It only costs Nikon about $200 more in parts to make the D3X over the D3, and with scales of economy and tricks learned with 18 months of D3 production, the D3X most likely costs less to produce today than the D3 did back in 2007. [/FONT]
I followed the link and started reading. My first thought was "this sounds like a press release"...check the headline...doh, too early. But a resolution of 6048 x 4032 would be pretty awesome.
umm, you're not convinced dd?SD, 408p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p… 2k, 4k, UDTV… it seems like the big push is to get ever-higher resolution. It’s true that given two pictures, identical in every other way, that the higher-res image will look better—if you’re close enough to see the difference. But it turns out that resolution isn’t as important as you might think.
- In an internal technical paper written for ABC, Randy Hoffner said:
A typical study assigns the following weights to brightness, contrast, and resolution:[I asked Mr. Hoffner if he could dig up that study, but he wasn’t able to (his paper was written several years ago while he was at ABC; he’s since moved on to greener pastures—presumably contrastier, brighter, and higher-resolution ones); however, I’ve seen various other reports that come to similar conclusions.]
Contrast 64%
Resolution 21%
Brightness 15%
Resolution, then, is only a factor, and not the largest factor, in the determination of the subjective quality of a television picture.
- For many people, upscaled SD (at least progressive 480p24, as on DVDs) looks just fine, with multiple reports (here, and here, and here, to link a few) saying that folks are happy enough with upconverted SD DVDs that they aren’t buying Blu-Ray (admittedly, cost is an issue too). I know from my own experience that a good unconverter makes proscan SD DVDs look amazing: several times I’ve had to get close to the screen to look for aliasing on fine detail to see whether Netflix sent us an HD-DVD instead of a standard-def DVD.
- Unless you’re sitting close to the screen, higher resolution doesn’t buy you much. Carlton Bale ran the numbers to show that unless you’re sitting within 12 feet of a 40” screen, 480p is all the detail you need; you don’t see all 720p has to offer unless you’re within 8 feet of the screen; and you won’t see the full benefit of 1080p unless you’re within 5 feet (in other words, your feet will touch the TV if you’re lounging in front of it!). From my own tests with a 40” screen, I can vouch for the veracity of his calculations.
- HDTVs are getting smaller, not larger, both as the economy declines and as reality sets in: big screens are big as well as pricey, and let’s face it, interlaced SD writ large on the big screen really shows its limits. As the novelty of bigness wears off, people may opt for smaller, more room-friendly sets, especially for second and third TVs.
Or you could just buy a Canon 5D MkII *now* and shot 1080p video .The latest non-news on the Red Digital Cinema front is Jim Jannard’s coy announcement of yet another announcement date for their latest announcement. This one will be December 3rd. Predictably, the tagline reads “Everything has changed...”
Well at least they are honest about it. At least people know what they are getting into when they plunk down cash months (or arguably years) in advance of product delivery to finance a concept in development. At least Red admits they can and will change specifications and targets, based on their whims and sense of the market, and not necessarily what their customers have requested. At least Red One owners are aware of the fact that their camera system will be left unfinished, frequently buggy, and still a moving development target for years. It’s hard for me to be frustrated when I’ve poured my own tall glass of Red-flavored koolaid, and knew exactly what I was doing all along…
The 5D MkII certainly puts Nikon's D90 video capability to shame.Or you could just buy a Canon 5D MkII *now* and shot 1080p video .
Canon’s accidental viral marketing genius continues selling DSLRs
http://provideocoalition.com/index....nt_laforet_posted_another_canon_5d_mk2_video/
I hope it doesn't suck like the Sony that uses the same sensor...
... and a staggering $3k price differential that has Rockwell's blood boiling.
Canon’s accidental viral marketing genius continues selling DSLRs
Video on a DSLR is a kludge.
I'm not parroting any FUD. I looked at the samples on dpreview and in the other reviews and wasn't impressed...Parroting the uninformed FUD floating around out there that the Sony sensor is crap, are we? Perhaps you should use a 24 MP image stabilized FF body and compare it to a D700, D300, E-3, and any other leading dSLR before making that assessment. I have, and decided to keep the Sony.
Apparently someone pee'd in youe Wheaties today. Just keep grinding that axe. You're bound to get a nice edge on it soon or later.I've lost respect for Vincent Laforet. He's such a blatant Canon shill it's not even funny. We all know Canon is all about marketing, but you would think that Laforet would have some level of self-respect and know when and where to draw the line. Obviously, he has decided that it's far more profitable whoring himself out to Canon...