If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On 29/02/2012 3:32 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:46:20 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote: http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t... "A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the statement “the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.” What I mean by this roughly twofold: 1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus, camera movement, mirror slap, etc. To prevent all this requires you to think more about your shots and also use a tripod (with good tripod technique) even more. 2. Files will be much much larger, demanding extra memory and computing power. Example, an uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB (!). A 16 bit tiff without layers is already 200MB, and even when just using 8 bit tiffs, we're still talking about 100MB files…" Regards, Eric Stevens Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now? In theory TIFF has the ability to carry images with multiple layers without requiring that they be merged or collapsed. Unfortunately the whole issue is so complicated that many applications lack either the ability to construct such files or to read such files compiled by other applications. In fact some applications cannot read even simple 16 bit files. Yes, but it's more (file size) efficient to retain the original, and save edits to the original not as "layers", but reversible steps either saved as a sidecar file, or as metadata in the file. Also avoids the need to convert formats to tiff, which may or may not cause other problems. A very heavily edited raw file (*nef) seems to grow to at most only about double original (lossless compressed) raw file size using Nikon Capture. I don't use other raw file software (perhaps I'm a masochist - who enjoys pain) so can't comment on the size sidecar files used by other raw editing programs typically grow to. Much of what I used to need layers for, doesn't need layers using CaptureNX, gradient blends ("digital ND filter" effect), brushing out masks, selective sharpening or NR with opacity adjustment and/or feathering when blending down etc. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
"Me" wrote in message ... I was asked to submit some files for publication in a brochure, the publishing dept sent me their strict requirements for minimum file size, 16 bit tiff format. So I emailed them about 30 jpegs from the shoot, resized to about 1800x1200, asked them to choose the ones they wanted, and I'd send them the tiffs. (No way was I emailing them 30 16 bit tiffs). Sure enough, next thing I'm presented with a hard copy of the brochure - after they'd printed over 100,000 copies using the jpegs. They looked okay (largest photo about A5 size, perhaps a bit more, on a4 sheets) but not brilliant. These were printed on a 4 colour offset press on inexpensive coated art paper (about the quality of paper/printing as the inside pages of a glossy magazine - not the cover) - 16 bit tiff was overkill, as is the insistence on 300dpi. I suspect that there are a lot of people working in publishing who learned what the minimum requirements for print should be, without understanding what's behind it. But rules are rules. Obviously not since they were quite happy to print from Lo-Res Jpegs despite demanding 16 bit Hi-Res Tiff files! So they not only don't understand their requirements, but don't care, and can't read. Maybe time to find another printer? Trevor. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:49:15 +1300, Me wrote:
On 29/02/2012 3:32 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:46:20 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote: http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t... "A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the statement “the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.” What I mean by this roughly twofold: 1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus, camera movement, mirror slap, etc. To prevent all this requires you to think more about your shots and also use a tripod (with good tripod technique) even more. 2. Files will be much much larger, demanding extra memory and computing power. Example, an uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB (!). A 16 bit tiff without layers is already 200MB, and even when just using 8 bit tiffs, we're still talking about 100MB files…" Regards, Eric Stevens Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now? In theory TIFF has the ability to carry images with multiple layers without requiring that they be merged or collapsed. Unfortunately the whole issue is so complicated that many applications lack either the ability to construct such files or to read such files compiled by other applications. In fact some applications cannot read even simple 16 bit files. Yes, but it's more (file size) efficient to retain the original, and save edits to the original not as "layers", but reversible steps either saved as a sidecar file, or as metadata in the file. That's a propietary file format. What happens if you are not using software which uses that format? Also avoids the need to convert formats to tiff, which may or may not cause other problems. A very heavily edited raw file (*nef) seems to grow to at most only about double original (lossless compressed) raw file size using Nikon Capture. It's all very well using NEF but how do you manage with a NEF file which contains editing information if you want to load it into an application which can't read it? I don't use other raw file software (perhaps I'm a masochist - who enjoys pain) so can't comment on the size sidecar files used by other raw editing programs typically grow to. Much of what I used to need layers for, doesn't need layers using CaptureNX, gradient blends ("digital ND filter" effect), brushing out masks, selective sharpening or NR with opacity adjustment and/or feathering when blending down etc. I think you will find they are still there. Its just that they are being hidden from you. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On 29/02/2012 9:37 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:49:15 +1300, wrote: I don't use other raw file software (perhaps I'm a masochist - who enjoys pain) so can't comment on the size sidecar files used by other raw editing programs typically grow to. Much of what I used to need layers for, doesn't need layers using CaptureNX, gradient blends ("digital ND filter" effect), brushing out masks, selective sharpening or NR with opacity adjustment and/or feathering when blending down etc. I think you will find they are still there. Its just that they are being hidden from you. No I don't think so - at least not in the same way layers are saved in Tiff, PSD, etc. If I do a gradient blend in photoshop with two layers, and save (tiff) before merging down, then file size (more than) doubles. If I select the entire image, adjust levels (ie on what would be equivalent to a "layer"), then use the gradient tool in Capture (to achieve the same effect merged down, but 100% fully "reversible" in steps on reopening the saved file), and save as an *nef, then file size increase is negligible - almost unnoticeable. I believe that the "edits" are saved as metadata within the *.nef file as vectors, instructions etc - not bitmap layers. The advantage is file size, and in the case of CaptureNX, portability between systems able to read/edit *nef files (as a "sidecar" file isn't used, the nef file on it's own can be opened on a different machine, with all edits intact and reversible). The disadvantage is that rather than just opening bitmap layers, the application has to process and render the edits to the image each time an "edited" file is opened. Hence it can be as slow as molasses to open heavily edited files - or batch convert them to another format. *.nef files aren't (strictly speaking) raw files, as even unedited ex camera nef files contain a compressed jpeg image as well as the raw data. That jpeg is used for review of raw files on the camera LCD - which is sometimes not so good, as compression artifacts can sometimes be seen at 100% view. Also the jpeg is rendered using the "picture control" which is set in the camera, so visual review, as well as the histogram, highlight warning etc is affected by contrast, saturation settings etc in camera. This is significant in assessing correct exposure, but few Nikon users who shoot raw seem to understand at all - that especially if using something like a "vivid" picture control, even though the raw file is unaffected, they'll think they're getting blown channels, adjust exposure accordingly, with the result that they may end up under-exposing significantly. Best to use "neutral" picture control seeting in all Nikon dslrs when shooting raw. On saving an edited *.nef, the "internal" jpeg is overwritten with a new one from the edited version of the *.nef. Proper *.nef (so-called) Codecs (which Nikon took an inexcusable number of years to finally release for 64 bit systems) enables the system to generate thumbnails using this jpeg, so icons/thumbnails show the edited nef - not the original. This is good (IMO). It all works brilliantly, except when it doesn't (crashes, and slow as mollases) but from a workflow POV, the concept is (IMO) the right one. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:
snip Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now? I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already accepted that for a fact. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2 -- Peter |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On 2/29/2012 8:33 AM, RichA wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote: http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t... "A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the statement “the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.” What I mean by this roughly twofold: 1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus, camera movement, mirror slap, etc. This is where DSLR's, particularly Canon and Nikon DSLRs, are weak. Not only do they lack in-body I.S. which means every lens without it is more likely to result in image blur, but mirror slap and large FF shutter slap are definitely apt to cause image blurring. Case in point, using a long lens with a D800 body will demand flawless technique and a monster of a tripod to avoid blur. It's time to update the old cliche of shooting at a shutter speed "1/camera lens focal length" with this one because it's not going to get the job done. The last time I looked, that formula was for full frame film. Also, the shutter speed as a reciprocal of the focal length should not be "LESS THAN" 1x the focal length. -- Peter Some people insist on proving their ignorance. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On 3/1/2012 12:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/29/2012 8:33 AM, RichA wrote: On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote: http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t... "A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the statement “the extremely high resolution requires different handling of the camera and also demand much more from post processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.” What I mean by this roughly twofold: 1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus, camera movement, mirror slap, etc. This is where DSLR's, particularly Canon and Nikon DSLRs, are weak. Not only do they lack in-body I.S. which means every lens without it is more likely to result in image blur, but mirror slap and large FF shutter slap are definitely apt to cause image blurring. Case in point, using a long lens with a D800 body will demand flawless technique and a monster of a tripod to avoid blur. It's time to update the old cliche of shooting at a shutter speed "1/camera lens focal length" with this one because it's not going to get the job done. The last time I looked, that formula was for full frame film. Also, the shutter speed as a reciprocal of the focal length should not be "LESS THAN" 1x the focal length. Oops left off the link: http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/macro/telephoto.html -- Peter |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:51:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote: On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote: snip Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now? I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already accepted that for a fact. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2 One reason why I would use TIFF instead of PSD (or PSB) is that I have no Adobe applications. I have a number of others which can use TIFF, although I find some will not recognise all aspects of TIFF. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
On 3/1/2012 4:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:51:22 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote: snip Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now? I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already accepted that for a fact. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2 One reason why I would use TIFF instead of PSD (or PSB) is that I have no Adobe applications. I have a number of others which can use TIFF, although I find some will not recognise all aspects of TIFF. I have always suspected that PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF. -- Peter |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Comment re D800 from Nikonians
PeterN wrote in news:4f4fa922$0$18676
: On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote: snip Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now? I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already accepted that for a fact. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2 Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikonians | MrB[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | August 14th 07 01:21 AM |
Nikonians.org FRAUD | Zoomring | Digital Photography | 19 | May 12th 06 10:03 PM |
Nikonians.org on the Nikon banding issue | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | April 23rd 06 04:47 PM |
Nikonians.org site = FRAUD | Zoomring | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | April 11th 06 05:00 AM |
It's now official: The Nikonians are the rabid bastrds | Slack | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 7th 05 01:01 PM |