dSLR thread

[LunarMist]

PTGUI should be fine for that, though I've not tried 32-bit space. Output is usually done to .psb if files are large.

 

[ddrueding]

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.

 

[LunarMist]

Why does it need to be in 32-bit mode again? Most printers are only good for 7 bits anyway.

 

[e_dawg]

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.

From PTGui's Support FAQ:
http://www.ptgui.com/support.html#9_1

9.12. I've chosen a 16 bit file format for my HDR output and the generated output is very dark. Why?
True HDR file formats (like .exr and .hdr) have a virtually unlimited dynamic range, they don't have a maximum brightness value that can be represented. On the other hand, 8 bit and 16 bit file formats do have a maximum brightness value of 255 and 65535, respectively. Any pixel brighter than this maximum would be clipped to the maximum allowed brightness. Clipped pixels are lost forever, reducing the brightness afterwards would not recover them. To prevent clipping when HDR data is written to 16 bit files, PTGui Pro reduces the brightness of the images such that the brightest pixel in all images does not exceed the maximum value of 65535.

Note that the 16 bit HDR output should be regarded as 'pseudo HDR': it can be used to edit layered HDR files in any 16 bit capable application. But if post processing is done in an HDR capable application, it's better to choose a true 32 bit HDR output format such as .hdr or .exr.

 

[ddrueding]

That is the new version. I'm using the last, and it doesn't support output to .hdr or .exr

That is one of the reasons I'm looking to buy the new version.

After giving Photoshop all night to chew, it seems to have came up with a good result. Just under 1GP @ 32BPP; I told it to save and then left for work; It would be awesome if the image fits on a DVD

 

[udaman]

interesting news:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1224662427.html

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.

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!

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.

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).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/page36.asp

 

[Tea]

People just don't get it: full frame sensors are expensive, and a full frame camera manufactured to Rebel quality standards would cost very little less that a 5D (which is essentially a full-frame 20D) or a 5D II (which is essentially a full-frame 50D). To see this, compare the existing XXD and XXXD lines: the price difference between a 40D and a 450D right now is $200AU. Allow a bit because the 40D is more heavily discounted (being older than the 450D) and call it $300. That's how much cheaper a Rebel-quality 5D would be than the current XXD-quality ones.

In other words, a FF version of a Rebel would be nowhere near a 50D price range, but very close indeed to the 5D II price range.

Does anybody who cares that much about a $300 difference ever go out and spend the several thousand it costs to buy a full frame system? I doubt it.

Now, repeat after me: big chips cost big money. Say it a couple of hundred times before bed every night. Don't despair! You can get your mind around this one if you keep working at it.

 

[paugie]

I would agree. those insisting on larger sensor MUST have specific needs the current popular sensor sizes can't provide;

or they take lousy pictures and NEED to blame that on the sensor size;

or they don't take pictures for pictures' sake, they just want to be seen with the big camera.

 

[Stereodude]

So, it looks like the 50D is a big turd, but dpreview didn't have the balls to call it one.

link

 

[udaman]

So, it looks like the 50D is a big turd, but dpreview didn't have the balls to call it one.

link

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).

• 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

I'm still waiting for that <$1.3k, full-frame Rebel, of "only 14MP"...killer app .

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.

 

[Stereodude]

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).

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.

I guess if you're concerned about impressing others with your high resolution LCD screen, HDMI output, and other bells and whistle the 50D might be the camera for you.

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.

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.

 

[Pradeep]

People just don't get it: full frame sensors are expensive,

Whilst this was certainly true in the past, prices for full format sensors has dropped precipitously in the last five years. 1Ds MkI/II tech initially around $8000K+, now in cameras at the $2000 pricepoint. It's all a matter of process engineering. The other biggie is the speed/capabilities of the DSPs in the cameras, as well as memory interface speed increases. The 1Ds Mk I was a slothy turd compared to it's modern counterparts.

 

[mubs]

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?

 

[e_dawg]

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?

You don't have to invest in anything that hurts. There's no sense in predicting what you'll want to use down the road unless you even know what you want right now.

Just get something... anything (not too expensive) and just use it. Over time, you'll figure out what types of pics you gravitate towards and you'll notice what shots you tend to have difficulty with. Eventually, you'll establish why you have difficulty with certain shots, and how much of that difficulty is due to your equipment's limitations (vs your skills as a photographer).

Everything will become clear. You will know what your priorities are and what equipment you need to help facilitate the kinds of shots that you prioritize.

There is no such thing as a perfect system or format. Nikon vs Canon, Full-Frame vs APS-C vs Four-Thirds... They all have their pros and cons, and you can't expect any one system and format to meet all of your needs. Eventually, you will have different equipment that is optimized for different types of shots.

What you get now is irrelevant. IMO, too many people worry about investing all this money into a given system and format at the start and that they'll wake up one morning realizing that it isn't what they really wanted... that it wasn't the right system after all. Well, there's only one way to find out. (And it's not by reading countless reviews*, test results, comparing sample pics at every ISO setting, and talking with people on every camera / lens / photographic discussion board on the planet.)

Buy whatever and use it. If it turns out not to be the right system for you, sell it and get something else. That's what eBay is for. Don't think of it as wasting money or losing resale value doing that. Think of it as education. You have just taken a course on knowing what you like to shoot, what your challenges are, and how your equipment can limit / facilitate certain shots. I don't call that wasting money. I call that education, and money well spent.

* - That wise old curmudgeon had it right: why waste your time reading crap from equipment reviewers? The more I read this stuff, the more I realize what crap they're spewing. Who actually takes pictures that look like dpreview's test charts in controlled studio lighting with the default camera settings or using ACR on default settings? And obsesses over the noise at high ISO at the pixel level as if they were actually representative of real prints of real photographic situations?

The dpreview reviews uda points to is a perfect example of that. I think probably many thousands of people say they would never buy a Sony A900 because it's "way too noisy" at high ISOs. And that the 50D is a disappointing camera because it is just too noisy and has worse DR than its predecessor. Uh-huh. Looking back on all the pics I have taken, what really mattered to me? Was it really the noise and high ISO? You know what? I don't recall that ever being a big issue despite poring over the charts and test results when figuring out what camera to buy earlier on. You know what really mattered? "Could I get the shot with this camera or not?" "Did it make it easier for me or get in my way all the time?" "And can I rely on it to get the critical shot in challenging conditions or not?". And that's not something most reviews actually test for. At all. Resolution and ISO tests in controlled studio conditions? Please.

 

[mubs]

Thanks, e_d.

I know what probs I face and what I need my equipment to do. I can't keep changing it - that's my problem. Both buying (availability, price) and selling are a problem, so pretty much whatever I get, I will be keeping for a very long time. Hence the caution and the desire to get as high a percentage right as I can. I'd not want to invest in APS-C and have it go away in under 5 years. The glass I plan to buy is the higher end (I need fast glass) so at the least I probably need to stick to full-frame lenses even if the body I buy is DX.

 

[ddrueding]

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.

 

[udaman]

Ericsson: cellphones to record 1080p by 2012



http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/11/07/ericsson.on.cellphone.cams/

Ah heck, might as well skip the dSLR and just replace my aging 8yr old cell phone with one of these^^^ 20MP too, whoo hoo, just like the 5DmkII...except pixel size of course !

 

[udaman]

Coming to a Sony Ericsson camphone near you.

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news_details.php?id=17019

Below is a picture taken with the IMX060PQ and its 12.25Mpix.

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news_pics/17019/SONY_IMX060PQ_2.jpg

 

[Stereodude]

Uh, hotlinking images doesn't work there ace...

 

[Handruin]

fixed...

 

[e_dawg]

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...

 

[ddrueding]

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).

I really like this one. Where is it?

Seems not many pros like my pics, but most of my friends and family do. C&C welcome...

I'm in the same boat. People at work and friends like my stuff and have even purchased some of it, going so far as to say i should be selling it online/wherever. All the pros make it clear that my work isn't there yet, without necessarily saying why. :dunno:

 

[udaman]

Image Quality: What's Really Going on in the Sensor? (A solution is at hand)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1226923202.html

^^^interesting stuff from DxO Labs. Note 'real' ISO, from what the manufacturers are doing. The D700's 25.6K ISO setting is really much closer to true 12.8k!

See DNR differences, Canon D50, not so good, Nikon better

 

[e_dawg]

I really like this one. Where is it?

Sony Center in Potsdamer Platz, Berlin.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Potsdamer-Platz

http://www.flickr.com/photos/capocchione/page2/

 

[LunarMist]

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.

It is definitely advisable to wait at least 3 months after release. Canon has been foisting half-baked products on the market and letting the buyers do the beta testing for far too long now. 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.

 

[ddrueding]

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.

That is the plan. Whatever I end up getting to replace the 10-22 for FF duty will be a prime (possibly two). I'm actually getting quite used to framing/walking as needed with a prime as opposed to zooming to everything. Walking around while looking at something tends to yield better results.

 

[LunarMist]

You know, it is still not too late to straighten up and fly right with Nikon.

 

[ddrueding]

LOL

 

[LunarMist]

http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/11/nikon_unveils_a_digital_master.php

 

[ddrueding]

http://press.nikonusa.com/2008/11/nikon_unveils_a_digital_master.php

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.

 

[Stereodude]

I hope it doesn't suck like the Sony that uses the same sensor...

 

[udaman]

I hope it doesn't suck like the Sony that uses the same sensor...

From Galbraith:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9318-9761

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.

... and a staggering $3k price differential that has Rockwell's blood boiling.

I say, just boycott all of the expensive dSLR's, we need a <$1.3k full-frame Rebel, damn it! Even the D40 @$400 is too much.

Course Rockwell is on his rants again, about how with scanning film is superior, that digital is the new dinosaur, lol.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

[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.

From a technical numbers standpoint, or actual utility? Isn't a Canon 5D's 21MP enough, given potential better IQ via (not to mention high-ISO) Canon's tweaks?

How Important is Resolution?


http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/how_important_is_resolution/

Carlton Bale was already mentioned by jtr, IIRC in a post a while ago.

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:
  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.
  
  ​
  [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.]
• 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.

umm, you're not convinced dd?

Oh alright, then might as well lust after some fun vaporware dual use still/motion, Red Epic 65MP medium format 645 size sensor, same 6micron pixels. or sometime say in the year 2010/11 via Intel's roadmap , the 617 format Red Epic with 2.5x IMAX size sensor, 6micron, 281MP, lol. sensor size 188mmx58mm, or 28000x9334, 13+stop claimed DR.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/sgentry/story/here_is_red_scarlet_epic/

Hmm, Jannard seems to have the Steveo nack for marketing, and almost as many billions to have a personal camera collection of supposedly 1,500...ought to open a museum .

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/freshdv/story/red_renders_previous_koolaid_vouchers_obsolete/

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…

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/

 

[Stereodude]

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/

The 5D MkII certainly puts Nikon's D90 video capability to shame.

 

[LunarMist]

Video on a DSLR is a kludge.

 

[e_dawg]

I hope it doesn't suck like the Sony that uses the same sensor...

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. It's a fine camera and represents greater value than the $8,000 D3x based on the same basic sensor (Nikon uses customized Bayer filters, microlenses, and a different AA/IR filter, but it uses the same silicon sensel, from what I've heard). Add to that some great Zeiss AF lenses that are unavailable for any other mount and the only in-body FF IS system that stabilizes every lens you own, and it's a compelling choice in the FF market.

 

[e_dawg]

... and a staggering $3k price differential that has Rockwell's blood boiling.

Why do you even bother reading Rockwell's crap?

Canon’s accidental viral marketing genius continues selling DSLRs

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...

 

[ddrueding]

A friend who will be shooting my wedding Saturday will be doing so with some 5DIIs. I'm almost looking forward to playing with them more than the wedding.

 

[ddrueding]

Video on a DSLR is a kludge.

Video on DSLR is an afterthought, but a rig like this seems to make it less kludgy. It is, of course, still video. And therefore not what I am interested in. But it doesn't seem specifically worse than any other 1080P video camera.

 

[Stereodude]

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.

I'm not parroting any FUD. I looked at the samples on dpreview and in the other reviews and wasn't impressed...

 

[Stereodude]

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...

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.