ddrueding
Fixture
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
D700 FX, tomorrow or next week?
Must be one of the most common rumors, what happened to the 5D update???
. Seems like Nikon's rumors beat Samsung's announcements to market faster than any or the former's vaporware SSD's.
Must be one of the most common rumors, what happened to the 5D update???
. Seems like Nikon's rumors beat Samsung's announcements to market faster than any or the former's vaporware SSD's.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Oh sorry
, I forgot that flicker has a section for that , but besides, I'm trying to cut down on my post lengths, and pretend I'm ADD like everyone else and never bother to click on links, such that you are required to post up that info *in* your post. Now following along that line of ADD, and not going back to actually look, did you shot handheld or on tripod, and why ISO100, I would have done ISO200 and 1/400th, or manually focused on the tomato in the center front that seems out of focus, used F11 & 1/200-400, ISO400 for the multishot? Either way, wonder if the wind might have had anything to do with slight, very slight lack of sharpness overall with the 1/200th & 140mm FL? Which lens was it again?Nikon D700 & one of their new TS-E lenses like the $1.7k 90mm would have taken a wicked sharp, max DOF image under same conditions., in just one image, done. Move on to the next image, and so on.
It is useful for some particular purposes, but I have been using PS for that since the 90s. Ideally the DOF of each frame should overlap. Major differences in focus distance will create artifacts from the difference in viewing angle/magnification and often look unnatural as well. Make sure to use a sturdy tripod.
D700 FX, tomorrow or next week?
Must be one of the most common rumors, what happened to the 5D update???
Unless the D700 has more than 12 MP what is the big deal in a 2008 body?
ddrueding
Fixture
I shot on a tripod; there is no way I could keep the exact shooting position while changing focus. When I'm on a tripod I shoot ISO100 because it is has (just a bit) less noise than ISO200, and I can't think of a reason not to. I wasn't actually looking at the tomato, I was looking at the frame of leaves, and wanted the edges of them to be sharp; I thought that gave a better sense of depth. Some of the blurriness is due to the elements being out of focus in one of the exposures; even though it is in focus in the other, there is some obstruction going on. Touch up should be able to resolve that issue if I invested more time. The lens was a 75-300 III.
It would have (after considerable setup time) put the whole thing in focus. I just wanted the two sections in focus.
ddrueding
Fixture
How to you do it in Photoshop? If you don't want the whole frame in focus, what are your tips?
The DOF is not changed when a tilt lens is used.
Did I miss something?
When people that don't know sh*t read something about it on the internet.
ddrueding
Fixture
Critique please. I am actually proud of this shot, and deserve to be taken down a few notches
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
I march to the beat of a different drummer, so my critique is not worthy .
We interupt for a correction to my previous post, it's 85mm, not 90mm, and not only does that and the 45mm PC-E seem to be ready for prime time...not tomorrow, not soon....
The $3k D700 has been announced today! Kind of slow in fps compared to the D300, of which it is more similar in size, but we know LM can fix that with the accessory battery which will make it almost the same size, albeit still slower than the D3 @8fps, but it's FF/FX w/CLEAN ISO6400 and faster that way than the D300.
Still - it's too expensive, would have liked it much better if is came in @$2k, and the D300 simultaneously dropped to a price closer to the 40D. That would have really, really put the heat on Canon to bring in a sub $2k 5D update....again, where is the 5D update? Canon's gonna get it's arse whipped if the D3X comes out at Photokinkya
The D700 pre-production preview on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/
.We interupt for a correction to my previous post, it's 85mm, not 90mm, and not only does that and the 45mm PC-E seem to be ready for prime time...not tomorrow, not soon....
The $3k D700 has been announced today! Kind of slow in fps compared to the D300, of which it is more similar in size, but we know LM can fix that with the accessory battery which will make it almost the same size, albeit still slower than the D3 @8fps, but it's FF/FX w/CLEAN ISO6400 and faster that way than the D300.
Still - it's too expensive, would have liked it much better if is came in @$2k, and the D300 simultaneously dropped to a price closer to the 40D. That would have really, really put the heat on Canon to bring in a sub $2k 5D update....again, where is the 5D update? Canon's gonna get it's arse whipped if the D3X comes out at Photokinkya
The D700 pre-production preview on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I quite like that shot. Nice composition and light. Some technical critique might include exposure / contrast / sharpness. I would prefer maybe 1/2 of a stop less exposure, greater contrast, and more clarity / local contrast / sharpness.
Something like this. keep in mind that I wasn't there, so i had no idea what the original scene was like. So the adjustment I made was what I envision in my mind's eye... my ideal vision of what a forested area like that "should" look like. (quick and dirty adjustment made in IrfanView, so the technical quality just isn't there, but you get the picture...)
Something like this. keep in mind that I wasn't there, so i had no idea what the original scene was like. So the adjustment I made was what I envision in my mind's eye... my ideal vision of what a forested area like that "should" look like. (quick and dirty adjustment made in IrfanView, so the technical quality just isn't there, but you get the picture...)
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I know what I want for xmas now.
Stereodude
Not really a
Canon, where are thou 5D Mk II? The gauntlet has been thrown down by Nikon. You must awaken from your slumber to vanquish the beast!
ddrueding
Fixture
No kidding. How am I going to waste all the money I don't have unless the product actually exists?
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for the ideas e_dawg. Getting some more perspectives helps me think about what I want. I still think I like mine more
, but there is always room for improvement.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
What a load of donkey manure. With rebate you can get the 5D for <$2k, the rumored <$2k price on Sony's 24MP A900 should provide some healthy price competition, and that's at the heart of the equation.
I'd like to see a $2k 5D replacement with 16MP & ISO6400, plastic body (but full weather sealing), and Canon would kick some serious arse if they dropped the old 5D sensor into a $1k Rebel FF---but then few would buy the 40D, so that's never going to happen.
I doubt the FF sensors in any of these 'pro' models contributes more than $500 to the cost, if dSLR manufacturers would accept lower profit margins, I'm sure we'd have these lower priced FF dSLR's sooner(now!). Now if Nikon will just slap an FX sensor into the D90
.D700 is still a pretty hefty/fatty brick, might be slightly thinner, but attach the optional battery pack/grip and you've got essentially the same weight as the *faster* D3. D3 has 2x the rated shutter mech life, not an inconsequential matter considering how much these cost to replace- out of warranty, just ask Tannin
.e_dawg
Storage Freak
No problem. I re-did it in Photoshop so it has better technical quality:
What lens did you use btw? The image looks a little blurry.
What lens did you use btw? The image looks a little blurry.
Stereodude
Not really a
Uhh... You can get the 5D for under $2k without a rebate. link
Stereodude
Not really a
It looks terrible (oversharpened / too much JPEG compression) on my screen here.No problem. I re-did it in Photoshop so it has better technical quality:
What lens did you use btw? The image looks a little blurry.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Oversharpened? Yeah, I can see that. It partly depends on what viewing distance you use, but I admit that it is a little oversharpened. For a small image that's been downsized / downsampled quite a bit, it's difficult to retain detail and contrast. You need to sharpen it as much as you can without inducing too much artifacting. I went a little too far using a standard set of actions that probably isn't 100% appropriate for this image.
Downsampling a 12 MP JPEG does not make for a great image, but I tried to reconstruct the fine detail as best I could in the tiny 800 x 570 image. I don't know how much success you've had with downsampling landscape photos, but it's not easy to strike the right balance of sharpness vs artifacting, especially when you don't know the viewing distance that it will be viewed at.
Also, if you take an slightly blurry image devoid of fine detail, it looks a bit unnatural when you sharpen and have an imbalance of excessive medium and low frequency contrast without the corresponding high frequency detail. It looks a little pixelated and, well, oversharpened.
Downsampling a 12 MP JPEG does not make for a great image, but I tried to reconstruct the fine detail as best I could in the tiny 800 x 570 image. I don't know how much success you've had with downsampling landscape photos, but it's not easy to strike the right balance of sharpness vs artifacting, especially when you don't know the viewing distance that it will be viewed at.
Also, if you take an slightly blurry image devoid of fine detail, it looks a bit unnatural when you sharpen and have an imbalance of excessive medium and low frequency contrast without the corresponding high frequency detail. It looks a little pixelated and, well, oversharpened.
ddrueding
Fixture
That is an EF-S 10-22 @ 10mm f8. But it is actually 16 pictures. The only way to get the dynamic range was to HDR it, and I was also trying to get higher DOF, so I combined 4 different focal lengths (each with it's own HDR set). That makes some bits of it blurry, but I like that the leaves in the foreground are sharp and so are the trees in the back.
Stereodude
Not really a
I have a better analogy. The picture looks aliased. Like it was resized using nearest neighbor instead of bicubic.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Eh... well, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I took great pains to avoid aliasing when downsampling from 4890 x 3456 to 800 x 670 (17 MP to 0.5 MP) (trust me, I have done extensive testing with many, many filters / interpolation algorithms for resizing to minimize aliasing and artifacts while maximizing resolution and contrast retention). What you're seeing is a lot of the original pixel structure, resolution, and contrast being thrown out during the resampling and sharpening applied at the end to compensate. And the consequences are what I described in my previous post.
Better yet, try downsizing to 16% of the original image size and tell me how it looks
Better yet, try downsizing to 16% of the original image size and tell me how it looks
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Eh... well, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I took great pains to avoid aliasing when downsampling from 4890 x 3456 to 800 x 670 (17 MP to 0.5 MP) (trust me, I have done extensive testing with many, many filters / interpolation algorithms for resizing to minimize aliasing and artifacts while maximizing resolution and contrast retention). What you're seeing is (1) a blurry source image, (2) a lot of the original pixel structure, resolution, and contrast being thrown out during the downsampling, and (3) excessive sharpening applied at the end to compensate. And the consequences are what I described in my previous post.
Better yet, try downsizing to 16% of the original image size and tell me how it looks
Better yet, try downsizing to 16% of the original image size and tell me how it looks
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Eh... well, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I took great pains to avoid aliasing when downsampling from 4890 x 3456 to 800 x 670 (17 MP to 0.5 MP) (trust me, I have done extensive testing with many, many filters / interpolation algorithms for resizing to minimize aliasing and artifacts while maximizing resolution and contrast retention). What you're seeing is (1) a blurry source image, (2) a lot of the original pixel structure, resolution, and contrast being thrown out during the downsampling, and (3) excessive sharpening applied at the end to compensate. And the consequences are what I described in my previous post.
Better yet, try downsizing to 16% of the original image size and tell me how it looks
I don't down size to 800 pixels, I use PS only at 1/2's- ie 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5% etc. PS seems to do best with those, along w/checked boxes: Constrain proportions, resample image: Bicubic
That's if I'm trying to maintain max. fidelity, which usually isn't the case for online stuff...seen all the massive artifacts from <30 level of compression....yuck, go down to <10 and it really looks bad.
But remember we had as discussion about how online image sharing sites do their own f**kin up with the image, and in the recent prior post I linked to a detailed discussion of how images will appear unsatisfactory as far color gamut, and parity with what you have on your screen while you're editing it, especially with browsers that are not ICC aware...so it's pretty much all a crap shoot posting online
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Well how do you guys feel about a downsizing / downsampling challenge? If I post a high quality 39 MP image (7200 x 5408, 111 MB file size) from my Hassy MF digital, who wants to try downsizing it to 1600 x 1200? I'd love to see if you guys have any tricks up your sleeve to maintain image quality at such a severe reduction in size (22% of the original).
I ask because 111 MB is not a small file; I don't want to upload it if people are not going to bother to download it...
Who's up for a challenge? dd? LM? uda? SD?
I ask because 111 MB is not a small file; I don't want to upload it if people are not going to bother to download it...
Who's up for a challenge? dd? LM? uda? SD?
Stereodude
Not really a
I'll try it. And when did you get a medium format digital camera?
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Not I. I was not complaining about the web sized image. It is fine for the purpose. However, some images are just not the right subjects for the web. It is not unlike the difference between shooting for gallery prints compared to shooting for stock.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Oh, and I was just kidding about the Hassy MF. I don't have that kind of scratch lying around...
ddrueding
Fixture
I'll chew on it after I'm done messing with the pictures I took today. Shame I'm not a better photographer, it was beautiful where I was.
ddrueding
Fixture
The download was <9MB? Is that what you meant?
ddrueding
Fixture
ddrueding
Fixture
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Hmm... it is only < 9 MB. I don't know why the image properties showed 11.1 MB in IrfanView after saving as JPEG.
ddrueding
Fixture
1600x1200 is tricky to post in the forum, how about 640x480?
paugie
Storage is cool
IMO, the pic was worth the day. But, of course, the photograper is always wanting more.
I would be content (if I were the photographer) for a week.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Well you won't really see any detail at all at 640 x 480. How about this? Upload a 1600 x 1200 "original" to flickr or whatever hosting service you use but post a 640 x 480 crop of an area in the left center part that includes the air vent, top edge of the door, and the first "horizontal" seam on the metal flashing on the right of the roof. These features will indicate the relative degree of aliasing.
Precisely, the top left of the cropped area should start at pixel x-y coordinates (305, 450) and be 640 x 480 in size (so the bottom right corner will be at (945, 930)).
Thumbnail to show where to crop:
