The P&S that thinks it's a DSLR...too bad it's wrong

bucky3 wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:10 pm, Rich wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09...0exr.asp#press

Hmm, digital bokeh? I'm curious to see some test images.

You know what it looks like... All square dots?

bucky3 wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:50 am, Alienjones wrote:
You know what it looks like... All square dots?

Well, according to the description, it takes 2-3 burst shots, then
combines the in-focus foreground with a defocused background.


That's not how the Fuji tech's explained it to me but hey,
they couldn't show me a shot either. I'll reserve my opinion
here. It is asking a lot of a consumer grade camera to take 3
shots in rapid succession at the best of times.

To be able to get a bit of unsharp masking (for grain control)
is not theoretically impossible but given the speed of a P&S,
I'd doubt that's how they are doing it.

The truth is: Fuji have conveniently not told anyone how it's
being done. Instead they are using Canon vapour ware
technology to "announce" it is being done. Serious differences
there.

Many, many years ago I used to make monochrome masks to narrow
the dynamic range of prints enlarged onto cibachrome.

I also used colour masks to sharpen enlargements that were a
little soft. These were the original unsharp mask. One think I
did notice was if I stacked several negatives I'd made via
contract printing and enlarged the result, There was less
grain in the print.

OK so if Fuji have resurrected this technique and digitised
it, it is quite likely they shoot one frame, duplicate it x2
and merge the three frames for an image with less noise and
possible more sharpness and greater dynamic range.

If they've managed to pull this one off, I'll take my hat off
to them. Until we know, I'll remain sceptical.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:03:01 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

bucky3 wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:50 am, Alienjones wrote:
You know what it looks like... All square dots?

Well, according to the description, it takes 2-3 burst shots, then
combines the in-focus foreground with a defocused background.


That's not how the Fuji tech's explained it to me but hey,
they couldn't show me a shot either. I'll reserve my opinion
here. It is asking a lot of a consumer grade camera to take 3
shots in rapid succession at the best of times.

To be able to get a bit of unsharp masking (for grain control)
is not theoretically impossible but given the speed of a P&S,
I'd doubt that's how they are doing it.

The truth is: Fuji have conveniently not told anyone how it's
being done. Instead they are using Canon vapour ware
technology to "announce" it is being done. Serious differences
there.

Many, many years ago I used to make monochrome masks to narrow
the dynamic range of prints enlarged onto cibachrome.

I also used colour masks to sharpen enlargements that were a
little soft. These were the original unsharp mask. One think I
did notice was if I stacked several negatives I'd made via
contract printing and enlarged the result, There was less
grain in the print.

OK so if Fuji have resurrected this technique and digitised
it, it is quite likely they shoot one frame, duplicate it x2
and merge the three frames for an image with less noise and
possible more sharpness and greater dynamic range.

If they've managed to pull this one off, I'll take my hat off
to them. Until we know, I'll remain sceptical.

Where have you been living? Under a rock? Frame stacking to reduce noise
has been going on in digital circles for decades. In fact the CHDK capable
P&S cameras already do this in-camera with its RAW Develop feature and the
built-in HDR high-speed bracketing.

Frame-stacking is also used to increase image resolution by 4-fold or more
using the very same sensor. See "PhotoAcute Studio" for one example.

Vaporware? It's about time that some companies started to catch up to all
the features in CHDK supported P&S cameras. Maybe all the CHDK advances
will trickle-down into DSLRs one day. Hold your breath while you wait,
it'll do everyone good.

Educating the Pretend-Photographers wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:03:01 +1000, Alienjones wrote:



OK so if Fuji have resurrected this technique and digitised
it, it is quite likely they shoot one frame, duplicate it x2
and merge the three frames for an image with less noise and
possible more sharpness and greater dynamic range.

If they've managed to pull this one off, I'll take my hat off
to them. Until we know, I'll remain sceptical.

Where have you been living? Under a rock? Frame stacking to reduce noise
has been going on in digital circles for decades. In fact the CHDK capable
P&S cameras already do this in-camera with its RAW Develop feature and the
built-in HDR high-speed bracketing.

Frame-stacking is also used to increase image resolution by 4-fold or more
using the very same sensor. See "PhotoAcute Studio" for one example.

Vaporware? It's about time that some companies started to catch up to all
the features in CHDK supported P&S cameras. Maybe all the CHDK advances
will trickle-down into DSLRs one day. Hold your breath while you wait,
it'll do everyone good.



Well... I believe CHDK is exclusive to Canon cameras. I don't
own a Canon anything any more. I got rid of all of it. SO I am
unable to agree or disagree with you there.

Even when I had it, frame stacking was impossible with a P&S
and unless you used Photoshop, not anywhere as easy as you
make out with a DSLR.

Photo Acute might be usable but the examples I saw did nothing
to impress me. Stand by until tomorrow and I'll post a quick
and dirty page on frame stacking with a free program (or an
expensive one) the process itself is not exclusively for any
program. Can you wait? I think not.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:12:00 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

Educating the Pretend-Photographers wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:03:01 +1000, Alienjones wrote:



OK so if Fuji have resurrected this technique and digitised
it, it is quite likely they shoot one frame, duplicate it x2
and merge the three frames for an image with less noise and
possible more sharpness and greater dynamic range.

If they've managed to pull this one off, I'll take my hat off
to them. Until we know, I'll remain sceptical.

Where have you been living? Under a rock? Frame stacking to reduce noise
has been going on in digital circles for decades. In fact the CHDK capable
P&S cameras already do this in-camera with its RAW Develop feature and the
built-in HDR high-speed bracketing.

Frame-stacking is also used to increase image resolution by 4-fold or more
using the very same sensor. See "PhotoAcute Studio" for one example.

Vaporware? It's about time that some companies started to catch up to all
the features in CHDK supported P&S cameras. Maybe all the CHDK advances
will trickle-down into DSLRs one day. Hold your breath while you wait,
it'll do everyone good.



Well... I believe CHDK is exclusive to Canon cameras. I don't
own a Canon anything any more. I got rid of all of it. SO I am
unable to agree or disagree with you there.

Even when I had it, frame stacking was impossible with a P&S
and unless you used Photoshop, not anywhere as easy as you
make out with a DSLR.

Photo Acute might be usable but the examples I saw did nothing
to impress me. Stand by until tomorrow and I'll post a quick
and dirty page on frame stacking with a free program (or an
expensive one) the process itself is not exclusively for any
program. Can you wait? I think not.


Wait? What for? What you are wanting to "prove" has already been done for
decades by any manner of digital images (RAW, JPG, TIF, etc.) with tons of
software, much of it freeware. Astronomers have been using these techniques
for decades. You want easy to use frame-stacking software? Try RegiStax
(freeware), or MaxDSLR (costware) for readily available stacking software,
for just a minor example of all the many examples of software that you
claim would impress and astound you because you believe it is only
vaporware.

Sorry, but you're still back in kindergarten trying to speak to college
graduates and professors. You're only embarrassing yourself. Quit while
you're behind.

You are a moron. Do you know that? If not, all others know it now. Keep
repeating to yourself "I am a moron", "I am a moron". It might sink in one
day.

Educating the Pretend-Photographers wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:12:00 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

Educating the Pretend-Photographers wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:03:01 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

OK so if Fuji have resurrected this technique and digitised
it, it is quite likely they shoot one frame, duplicate it x2
and merge the three frames for an image with less noise and
possible more sharpness and greater dynamic range.

If they've managed to pull this one off, I'll take my hat off
to them. Until we know, I'll remain sceptical.
Where have you been living? Under a rock? Frame stacking to reduce noise
has been going on in digital circles for decades. In fact the CHDK capable
P&S cameras already do this in-camera with its RAW Develop feature and the
built-in HDR high-speed bracketing.

Frame-stacking is also used to increase image resolution by 4-fold or more
using the very same sensor. See "PhotoAcute Studio" for one example.

Vaporware? It's about time that some companies started to catch up to all
the features in CHDK supported P&S cameras. Maybe all the CHDK advances
will trickle-down into DSLRs one day. Hold your breath while you wait,
it'll do everyone good.


Well... I believe CHDK is exclusive to Canon cameras. I don't
own a Canon anything any more. I got rid of all of it. SO I am
unable to agree or disagree with you there.

Even when I had it, frame stacking was impossible with a P&S
and unless you used Photoshop, not anywhere as easy as you
make out with a DSLR.

Photo Acute might be usable but the examples I saw did nothing
to impress me. Stand by until tomorrow and I'll post a quick
and dirty page on frame stacking with a free program (or an
expensive one) the process itself is not exclusively for any
program. Can you wait? I think not.


Wait? What for? What you are wanting to "prove" has already been done for
decades by any manner of digital images (RAW, JPG, TIF, etc.) with tons of
software, much of it freeware. Astronomers have been using these techniques
for decades. You want easy to use frame-stacking software? Try RegiStax
(freeware), or MaxDSLR (costware) for readily available stacking software,
for just a minor example of all the many examples of software that you
claim would impress and astound you because you believe it is only
vaporware.

Sorry, but you're still back in kindergarten trying to speak to college
graduates and professors. You're only embarrassing yourself. Quit while
you're behind.

You are a moron. Do you know that? If not, all others know it now. Keep
repeating to yourself "I am a moron", "I am a moron". It might sink in one
day.


Those asto programs are next to useless for everyday use on
landscapes and people but you'll no doubt still try to peddle
that broken bike.

I'll tell you what I'm not. I'm not silly enough to try and
provoke an argument just for the sake of arguing. Even though
you register 10 out of 10 on the troll meter, I still thought
you might have had a valid point to make, just didn't have the
social skills to do it inoffensively.

Well... I was wrong there, wasn't I? Chances are you are an
intelligent individual with some knowledge you once tried to
share and got done over by a persona like the one you are
trying to be now. Good luck. It will be terribly lonely for
you in the bozzo bins of the world. You'll be extra lonely in
mine being the only one there.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:43:54 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

Educating the Pretend-Photographers wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:12:00 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

Educating the Pretend-Photographers wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:03:01 +1000, Alienjones wrote:

OK so if Fuji have resurrected this technique and digitised
it, it is quite likely they shoot one frame, duplicate it x2
and merge the three frames for an image with less noise and
possible more sharpness and greater dynamic range.

If they've managed to pull this one off, I'll take my hat off
to them. Until we know, I'll remain sceptical.
Where have you been living? Under a rock? Frame stacking to reduce noise
has been going on in digital circles for decades. In fact the CHDK capable
P&S cameras already do this in-camera with its RAW Develop feature and the
built-in HDR high-speed bracketing.

Frame-stacking is also used to increase image resolution by 4-fold or more
using the very same sensor. See "PhotoAcute Studio" for one example.

Vaporware? It's about time that some companies started to catch up to all
the features in CHDK supported P&S cameras. Maybe all the CHDK advances
will trickle-down into DSLRs one day. Hold your breath while you wait,
it'll do everyone good.


Well... I believe CHDK is exclusive to Canon cameras. I don't
own a Canon anything any more. I got rid of all of it. SO I am
unable to agree or disagree with you there.

Even when I had it, frame stacking was impossible with a P&S
and unless you used Photoshop, not anywhere as easy as you
make out with a DSLR.

Photo Acute might be usable but the examples I saw did nothing
to impress me. Stand by until tomorrow and I'll post a quick
and dirty page on frame stacking with a free program (or an
expensive one) the process itself is not exclusively for any
program. Can you wait? I think not.


Wait? What for? What you are wanting to "prove" has already been done for
decades by any manner of digital images (RAW, JPG, TIF, etc.) with tons of
software, much of it freeware. Astronomers have been using these techniques
for decades. You want easy to use frame-stacking software? Try RegiStax
(freeware), or MaxDSLR (costware) for readily available stacking software,
for just a minor example of all the many examples of software that you
claim would impress and astound you because you believe it is only
vaporware.

Sorry, but you're still back in kindergarten trying to speak to college
graduates and professors. You're only embarrassing yourself. Quit while
you're behind.

You are a moron. Do you know that? If not, all others know it now. Keep
repeating to yourself "I am a moron", "I am a moron". It might sink in one
day.


Those asto programs are next to useless for everyday use on
landscapes and people but you'll no doubt still try to peddle
that broken bike.

I'll tell you what I'm not. I'm not silly enough to try and
provoke an argument just for the sake of arguing. Even though
you register 10 out of 10 on the troll meter, I still thought
you might have had a valid point to make, just didn't have the
social skills to do it inoffensively.

Well... I was wrong there, wasn't I? Chances are you are an
intelligent individual with some knowledge you once tried to
share and got done over by a persona like the one you are
trying to be now. Good luck. It will be terribly lonely for
you in the bozzo bins of the world. You'll be extra lonely in
mine being the only one there.

Feeling better? Now that you did your kindergartner's level of venting.

Take a nap, have your bottle. It'll be okay tomorrow ... as long as you
educate yourself before spewing your ignorance to the world.

Psssst... some people don't look for the interment for companionship. I
could care less if you were ever born or ever existed. This is why your
threats of loneliness reflect more on why you're here than why anyone else
is here. Catching onto how "projection" works yet?

Gawd, these beginners. You have to teach them EVERYthing!

LOL

bucky3 wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09...filmf70exr.asp

...digital bokeh...

Well, according to the description, it takes 2-3 burst shots, then
combines the in-focus foreground with a defocused background.

That does seem a bit far fetched to automate but I guess it could work
for the right situation. Maybe face detection determines what gets
masked out. The page also describes a low light performance enhancement
with the same technique, presumably adjusting the x,y position
differences to overcome camera shake, although moving subjects would
become 'fractured'. There is also some mumbo jumbo about high detail
modes versus high dynamic range, etc. which must mean downsampling when
high ISO is used or HDR type processing is applied. I guess that all
makes sense but they don't admit to the downsampling directly.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam