Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:20:52 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an example
of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
superiority of image.

If you are unable to demonstrate it for yourself, then it probably doesn't
matter to *you* what the difference is. The rest of us already know and
choose our work flow accordingly.

I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
which most definitely provides the information he says that he
requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
I think he is a troll.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
. ..
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly
work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in
white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know
what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)


You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of
thousands
of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the
colour's
of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
humans are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness
values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)

My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
those days.

How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had to
to
choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those days.
My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg myself,
but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.

I was referring to the "data base of thousands of photos which it uses
to judge the exposure". I assumed that you would be aware that a film
camera had no ability to control colour balance.


Of course I am, YOU were the one replying to a post about AWB.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
which most definitely provides the information he says that he
requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
I think he is a troll.

Well he already admits he is ignorant at least, and doesn't appear to want
to change that.

Trevor.

On 05/12/2012 05:36, Trevor wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far
more
than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have control
over
the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6 stops!!!

False, because the RAW has a linear encoding, and the JPEG a
gamma-corrected coding, meaning that is can represent light levels far
lower than 1/256 of the white value. It's /not/ a simple 8-bit versus
14-bit comparison.

Of course it is, any clipping and gamma curve that is applied by the camera
(over which you have very little or no control) can also be applied to the
RAW file with complete control in post. All captured data remains available
in RAW for post processing in any way necessary for each individual image,
but NOT in Jpeg.

Trevor.

"All captured data remains available in RAW" - agreed with that, but not
agreed with the "full 6 stops [loss using JPEG]".
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 05/12/2012 05:30, Trevor wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
[]
The dynamic range of the 8-bit gamma-corrected JPEG is actually greater
than 12-14 bit RAW, but its precision is less.

What a load of crap. Yes a default curve is applied in camera to save a
little more than 8 stops, and thus reducing precision. However the dynamic
range is also reduced or all photo's would look terribly flat and dull. With
RAW you have the benefit of applying the exact curve and clipping points
required for each particular image after the fact. Something you simply
cannot do before OR after with in camera Jpeg.

Trevor.

You only need to do the maths to see that what I said is true. It is
the loss of precision, not dynamic range, which is the problem for
JPEGs, although when you have cameras offering a greater resolution than
the viewer is observing the effects of precision loss are averaged and
may be rather less visible. E.g. smaller prints or photos for Web or TV
viewing - typically 10 Mpix cameras but a 2 Mpix display.

If you are viewing down to the pixel level (e.g. large prints) or need a
fair amount of exposure correction in post-processing, RAW will be the
best choice.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

snip
I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
which most definitely provides the information he says that he
requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.

Thanks for that link. It was an interesting piece. I don't see the same
'flatness' in original RAWs that it shows. I'm using the same camera,
but I'm using Apple's Aperture. I think what happens is that even for
the 'original image' that Aperture displays, it is showing it with
default "RAW fine tuning" adjustments already made.
If I turn boost down to 0 in the RAW fine tuning, the adjusted version
goes flat like the slrlounge article displays, but the "original image"
stays very similar to the in-camera jpg.

So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:26:08 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
...
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly
work.
In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in
white
light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know
what
the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
confuse any AWB system.)


You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of
thousands
of
photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
quite
well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the
colour's
of
surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
humans are
about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness
values.
(Except for certain African's of course!)

My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
those days.

How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had to
to
choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those days.
My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg myself,
but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.

I was referring to the "data base of thousands of photos which it uses
to judge the exposure". I assumed that you would be aware that a film
camera had no ability to control colour balance.


Of course I am, YOU were the one replying to a post about AWB.

Correction: I was replying to a PARAGRAPH about "exposure and color".
I presumed that most persons knew that a film camera has no ability to
control colour balance and that the F801s could only control exposure.
It did this on the basis of a data base of thousands of images. It
must have had color sensitivity of some kind as, for example, it could
tell the difference between a large white-walled building and a snow
scene.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/4/2012 10:44 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:45:42 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , David Dyer-Bennet says...
Yeah, right. Ask anybody these days. Nikon is making the best DSLRs in
the market.

If they are the best, why is there is 3/4 stop exposure mistake?

Exposure mistakes are in the eye of the beholder... the camera thinks it
did
fine, but it doesn't have an incident light meter, which is the only way
to get
perfection.

And ALL cameras have that problem, as if you didn't know.

I often wondered why cameras couldn't have both incident and reflected
meters, and then average the two for the perfect exposure.

Gary Eickmeier



Why couldn't the old method of using a Styrofoam coffee cup over the
front of the lens be used as an incident light meter? I haven't found a
need to try it but some other old timer might have thought of using that
old trick.

On 2012.12.05 01:44 , Gary Eickmeier wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:45:42 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , David Dyer-Bennet says...
Yeah, right. Ask anybody these days. Nikon is making the best DSLRs in
the market.

If they are the best, why is there is 3/4 stop exposure mistake?

Exposure mistakes are in the eye of the beholder... the camera thinks it
did
fine, but it doesn't have an incident light meter, which is the only way
to get
perfection.

And ALL cameras have that problem, as if you didn't know.

I often wondered why cameras couldn't have both incident and reflected
meters, and then average the two for the perfect exposure.

Eh? With two wrong exposure readings average them to make a 3rd wrong
exposure reading.


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 2012.12.05 17:28 , nick c wrote:

Why couldn't the old method of using a Styrofoam coffee cup over the
front of the lens be used as an incident light meter? I haven't found a
need to try it but some other old timer might have thought of using that
old trick.

I tried that years ago to see if it worked (it did close enough), but
carrying around a styro coffee cup for that would only result in a
dirty, crushed styrofoam cup - or coffee dribbles on the lens.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald