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
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
daveFaktor wrote:
John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best! Nonsense. It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their current (and future it world seem) technology. Likewise nonsense. Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable achievement. If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low noise images too. There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them. The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50 Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples he http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/ That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S. http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image, and there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a large print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used? The whole issue is not about fanatical devotion to a particular brand because you happen to own one but choosing the right tool for the job. I make movies in natural light, with a D90 set at ISO 3200. Maybe a RED camera might equal it's ability but I won't be shelling out $60,000 for one when a D90 does just as well - *FOR MY USE*. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:30 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote: daveFaktor wrote: John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best! Nonsense. It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their current (and future it world seem) technology. Likewise nonsense. Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable achievement. If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low noise images too. There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them. The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50 Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples he http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/ That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S. http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image, and there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a large print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used? Wrong-o, simpleton moron beginner gear-head ( = not a photographer). The printable size of the image depends solely on the content and subject matter. It has very little to nothing to do with the resolution of the camera's image. You'll figure it out, someday. Maybe. Probably not. Tell me, just how large can you print an eye-catchingly beautiful mist-shrouded water-scene from a 5 megapixel camera when using adequate upsampling interpolation, before the viewer will ever notice? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a strong composition of bold geometrics from a 1 megapixel camera before the viewer ever notices? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a tight-shot of the assassination of some world-loved political leader when taken with a 3 megapixel camera? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. Content means EVERYTHING. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:30:50 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote: John Navas wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:18:52 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two. I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR lens, which makes up for the difference. In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8 primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^) Had you checked the EXIF data of my image, you would have found that I was much too far away to use a 50 mm lens. According to your EXIF, your 35mm equivalent FL was 200mm. On my 1Dmk2, I could've used my EF135mm/F2L for an equivalent 175mm @ F2. Or I could've dug out the 10D, used the same lens for an effective 216mm @ F2. ;^) While having to haul another 4 lbs. of weight (3 to 4 times more weight than any whole P&S camera alone), this isn't even considering the annoying weight and size of your DSLR brick added in. Then being stopped at the door because they're not going to let you use it during a public performance. Preventing you from disturbing everyone with the loud and obnoxious clattering mirror and shutter. So yes, you could have used it, but certainly not to get any photos. You could have obtained exercise and disappointment perhaps, but no photos. You DSLR fools are all alike. Never once considering reality. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
Holy **** - the morons never quit wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:30 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: daveFaktor wrote: John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best! Nonsense. It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their current (and future it world seem) technology. Likewise nonsense. Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable achievement. If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low noise images too. There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them. The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50 Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples he http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/ That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S. http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image, and there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a large print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used? Wrong-o, simpleton moron beginner gear-head ( = not a photographer). The printable size of the image depends solely on the content and subject matter. It has very little to nothing to do with the resolution of the camera's image. You'll figure it out, someday. Maybe. Probably not. Tell me, just how large can you print an eye-catchingly beautiful mist-shrouded water-scene from a 5 megapixel camera when using adequate upsampling interpolation, before the viewer will ever notice? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a strong composition of bold geometrics from a 1 megapixel camera before the viewer ever notices? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a tight-shot of the assassination of some world-loved political leader when taken with a 3 megapixel camera? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. Content means EVERYTHING. Your personal attacks indicate that you know you are wrong, and don't have a cogent thought on the subject. IF the content is all important (and it IS a factor, but only one factor), then I should be able to make such a large print from even a 1.3 mp P&S, right? No? Proves who is wrong here, doesn't it? BTW, your repetition of the phrase doesn't improve your argument, only makes you look like a petulant child. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
daveFaktor wrote:
It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their current (and future it world seem) technology. Which is a damn shame since if you shop by specs and features alone the Panasonics would appear to be an excellent choice, while in reality the poor dynamic range and high noise make them among the worst choices. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
daveFaktor wrote:
The whole issue is not about fanatical devotion to a particular brand because you happen to own one but choosing the right tool for the job. It's always amusing to see posts where the premise is, "I bought it, so it must be the best product." The FZ28 is a strange animal. Every review complains about soft, noisy photos, due to the sensor and the noise reduction (though if you shoot in raw mode you can get around the noise reduction and apply your own post-processing). Yet the one thing they could have done to help users mitigate the noise issue was to include a hot shoe for a powerful external flash. The Canon SX10IS is a better choice for a ZLR due to it's lower noise and hot shoe. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
Ron Hunter wrote:
Holy **** - the morons never quit wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:30 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: daveFaktor wrote: John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best! Nonsense. It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their current (and future it world seem) technology. Likewise nonsense. Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable achievement. If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low noise images too. There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them. The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50 Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples he http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/ That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S. http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image, and there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a large print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used? Wrong-o, simpleton moron beginner gear-head ( = not a photographer). The printable size of the image depends solely on the content and subject matter. It has very little to nothing to do with the resolution of the camera's image. You'll figure it out, someday. Maybe. Probably not. Tell me, just how large can you print an eye-catchingly beautiful mist-shrouded water-scene from a 5 megapixel camera when using adequate upsampling interpolation, before the viewer will ever notice? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a strong composition of bold geometrics from a 1 megapixel camera before the viewer ever notices? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a tight-shot of the assassination of some world-loved political leader when taken with a 3 megapixel camera? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. Content means EVERYTHING. Your personal attacks indicate that you know you are wrong, and don't have a cogent thought on the subject. IF the content is all important (and it IS a factor, but only one factor), then I should be able to make such a large print from even a 1.3 mp P&S, right? No? Proves who is wrong here, doesn't it? BTW, your repetition of the phrase doesn't improve your argument, only makes you look like a petulant child. I think what he's trying to say Ron is that an image with 3 vertical colour bars in it that is 1 Mp in size could be enlarged to massive size where a same size an image with wispy hair and lots of detail (content) might show it's jaggies at as little as a 5x7 inch print and wouldn't enlarge (upsize) very far at all. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:06:13 +1000, daveFaktor
wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Holy **** - the morons never quit wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:04:30 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: daveFaktor wrote: John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:36:33 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:56:02 +1000, daveFaktor wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg Wow! The light was so low it blew the the highlights on old grey haired bloke in the background. Now *THAT* is low light photography at it's best! Nonsense. It only goes to demonstrate the narrow dynamic range of Panasonic sensors. Try as they might, Panasonic can't do much about with their current (and future it world seem) technology. Likewise nonsense. Had you (1) an open mind and (2) bothered to look at the EXIF data, you would have seen that this handheld image was actually a remarkable achievement. If you qualified that with "for a P&S" you might have gained some credibility. The fact is John - and one you consistently fail to recognise - is that just the miniature sensors in P&S cameras guarantee a noisey picture. 3 or 4 other factors work against them producing low noise images too. There are some things a P&S can do that a DSLR is either hard pushed to achieve or can't achieve at all but noise control is not one of them. The only reason your camera can take a low light picture at all is the extremely low shutter speeds you can use. We used to use FZ50 Panasonic's at 1/15th (hand held) for low light shots. There's examples he http://www.d-mac.info/previews/scott-katrina/ That doesn't mean I'd use one for action capture or critical work where large prints are expected. Like this one. The canvas print is over six feet wide. A totally impossible shot for a P&S. http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm The size of a print depends on the resolution of the original image, and there are plenty of 10mp P&S cameras that can supply data to a large print. So what is the resolution of the camera you used? Wrong-o, simpleton moron beginner gear-head ( = not a photographer). The printable size of the image depends solely on the content and subject matter. It has very little to nothing to do with the resolution of the camera's image. You'll figure it out, someday. Maybe. Probably not. Tell me, just how large can you print an eye-catchingly beautiful mist-shrouded water-scene from a 5 megapixel camera when using adequate upsampling interpolation, before the viewer will ever notice? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a strong composition of bold geometrics from a 1 megapixel camera before the viewer ever notices? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. How large can you upsample and print a tight-shot of the assassination of some world-loved political leader when taken with a 3 megapixel camera? Wrong guess, try again, you ****ingly stupid moron. Content means EVERYTHING. Your personal attacks indicate that you know you are wrong, and don't have a cogent thought on the subject. IF the content is all important (and it IS a factor, but only one factor), then I should be able to make such a large print from even a 1.3 mp P&S, right? No? Proves who is wrong here, doesn't it? BTW, your repetition of the phrase doesn't improve your argument, only makes you look like a petulant child. I think what he's trying to say Ron is that an image with 3 vertical colour bars in it that is 1 Mp in size could be enlarged to massive size where a same size an image with wispy hair and lots of detail (content) might show it's jaggies at as little as a 5x7 inch print and wouldn't enlarge (upsize) very far at all. It goes far beyond that. It's not just the amount of detail and type of detail in the image. The message conveyed or the human-impact made by the image can also withstand extraordinary amounts of upsampling for large-size printing. Take for example: While I was traversing the wilds a few years back, an apprentice of mine photographed some poachers burning what was left of their meal. Good group of guys, all subsistence-living types. The so-called "endangered" 'gator is so plentiful there that you could walk on their backs without touching water for miles. (Slight exaggeration but almost true in many places.) All that my apprentice had was a 1024x768 (a lowly 0.79 megapixel) resolution camera to learn with at the time. His very first digital. That's all that anyone really needs to learn on. Anyway, the poachers built a large bonfire that night then threw what was left of the 15-foot 'gator carcass on the fire so as not to leave any evidence behind. The 'gator's head was facing outward from deep within the flames. He snapped off a photo of it that night with his "beginner's" camera. I didn't bother, I was too drunk, sated on 'gator-tail, and enjoying the camaraderie. Now thinking I should have taken a photo of it, but that's now water under the kayak. Later in the week when we were back at our own base-camp and printing some of the previous days' & nights' photos he started to learn what all those DPI, PPI, and other digital-image-processing variables were for. When he printed that burning-'gator photo at 8x10 the image was a mass of pixel blocks easy to see from a good distance. He was so disappointed. I then showed him how upsampling will smooth out those pixels for printing, just as an exercise to show him what all those numbers were for and why they matter for digital photography. (A good teaching example, he finally had an "Ah-hah" moment over the whole ordeal where it finally clicked.) Surprisingly this image is so striking that we were able to, through a process of upsampling steps and tightening the edges each time by using a Fourier transform, print that image to a 13"x19" size in the end. I too learned a valuable lesson from this image. The skull of that 'gator burning in an intense fire is so overwhelming to the viewer that they don't even see the soft edges. The flames themselves mask that. And the glowing edges of the 'gator's skull and teeth look even more intense because of their softness. The viewer's mind doesn't care about "details" because the content of the image itself jaw-drop-astounds them. That 13"x19" photo is now expensively framed and hanging proudly in a posh big-game-hunter's lodge. Nobody ever realizing that it only came from a "lowly" 1024x768 resolution image, nor do any of them care what its original resolution was. They still paid handsomely for that image and were glad to do so. It's not just 3 straight bars that can be printed to billboard size. An assassination of some beloved leader if taken only with a cell-phone camera could be printed billboard size too and nobody would ever complain about the snide mocking-voice on "image quality". snide mocking-voice off It's __**NEVER**__ about the pixel resolution, it's __**ALWAYS**__ about the content. Ignorant internet taught bit-heads, gear-heads, and bean-counters can cry about this all they want but them's the facts of reality and human perception. Deal with it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:07:39 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote: A Parade of DSLR-Idiots wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:30:50 +1000, Bob Larter wrote: John Navas wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:18:52 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in : John Navas wrote: Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of low light stage photography. http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two. I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR lens, which makes up for the difference. In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8 primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^) Had you checked the EXIF data of my image, you would have found that I was much too far away to use a 50 mm lens. According to your EXIF, your 35mm equivalent FL was 200mm. On my 1Dmk2, I could've used my EF135mm/F2L for an equivalent 175mm @ F2. Or I could've dug out the 10D, used the same lens for an effective 216mm @ F2. ;^) While having to haul another 4 lbs. of weight (3 to 4 times more weight than any whole P&S camera alone), this isn't even considering the annoying weight and size of your DSLR brick added in. Then being stopped at the door because they're not going to let you use it during a public performance. You think? - I've photographed numerous public performances with my DSLR 'bricks', because I'm smart enough to arrange permission in advance, or have checked that I don't need permission. Numerous? As in the 2-5% of public performances and public places that might allow you through the door with a DSLR? What vast photographic opportunities you have. I bet it reflects in all the photos from the small sum of your experience too. I noticed that you snipped out the part about how you are a public nuisance and annoyance everywhere you go, permission or not. Bothered you to read that, did it? Bothered you to have anyone else read that again, did it? Someday you'll start to pay attention to all those people that are cringing and making faces whenever you are around with your annoying and obnoxiously loud and large (required-penis-extender) camera. It won't change your behavior though. Your crippled-ego is so desperate that you need any attention you can get, good or bad, you even publicly beg for it daily. PS: We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S shots. And wait you shall. Wear out another set of knee-pads while groveling and begging. LOL!!!!!! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LED flashlight (torch light) as cheap video light | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | April 24th 08 03:02 PM |
Bright up your advertising with a slim light box !----11 mm LED light box in China! | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | June 28th 07 06:37 AM |
LED light box display--Only 11 mm LED slim light box in China! | jenny | Digital Photography | 0 | May 24th 07 10:01 AM |
LED light box display--Only 11 mm LED slim light box in China! | jenny | Digital Photography | 0 | May 24th 07 10:01 AM |
FA: Yashica Super 40 Super 8 Movie Camera with SuperMate Movie Light | rpowers | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | March 29th 05 04:02 AM |