1D3: BETTER THAN THIS?

frederick wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original

This was shot with my 20D at ISO 800.
This is a straight conversion from the RAW file with no other post-
processing done in Photoshop. To me, that looks like outstanding
low- noise performance from an ISO 800 shot. I want to see some
samples from the 1DMKIII at high ISO settings.
Preferably, something similar with a smooth OOF background where
noise would be obvious.

Get to it, PW!

BTW, I'd hate you less if you e-mailed me some RAW files shot with
your new cammy.

I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

There are jpegs, straight from the camera. I didn't use RAW
conversion, simply because that can introduce variables. Personally, I
am very pleased with the high ISO performance. -See what you
think... **There is a bit of texture to the felt...so I'll probably have
to
post another set with a better subject.

Noise becomes obvious at 6400, but is amazingly restrained at all
levels (basically non-existent at 800).
See below:

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

That's impressive. Your really slow ISO- 800, heh! shows just the
felt. The 6400 one, though, the speckles aren't just the felt. It's
noise, and maybe in five years we'll get noise free 6400, but what
you've got there now is fantastic.
==

It is impressive. But you can see from the loss of texture on the
surface of the ball and the threads, that some heavy NR is applied
in-camera to the jpgs.

That's likely true.
I'll have to shoot them again with all camera NR turned off and compare.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
frederick wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original

This was shot with my 20D at ISO 800.
This is a straight conversion from the RAW file with no other
post- processing done in Photoshop. To me, that looks like
outstanding low- noise performance from an ISO 800 shot. I want
to see some samples from the 1DMKIII at high ISO settings.
Preferably, something similar with a smooth OOF background where
noise would be obvious.

Get to it, PW!

BTW, I'd hate you less if you e-mailed me some RAW files shot with
your new cammy.

I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

There are jpegs, straight from the camera. I didn't use RAW
conversion, simply because that can introduce variables.
Personally, I am very pleased with the high ISO performance. -See
what you think... **There is a bit of texture to the felt...so I'll
probably have to
post another set with a better subject.

Noise becomes obvious at 6400, but is amazingly restrained at all
levels (basically non-existent at 800).
See below:

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

That's impressive. Your really slow ISO- 800, heh! shows just the
felt. The 6400 one, though, the speckles aren't just the felt. It's
noise, and maybe in five years we'll get noise free 6400, but what
you've got there now is fantastic.
==

It is impressive. But you can see from the loss of texture on the
surface of the ball and the threads, that some heavy NR is applied
in-camera to the jpgs.

That's likely true.
I'll have to shoot them again with all camera NR turned off and
compare.

That said... -For a bit of perspective, here's an image of the full frame
shot.
If this were printed at 8x12, I think you can imagine that it would be
extremely useable, and the noise would basically disappear:
http://www.pbase.com/image/79936805/original

6400 ISO is entirely usable.

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
Mark² wrote:
frederick wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original

This was shot with my 20D at ISO 800.
This is a straight conversion from the RAW file with no other
post- processing done in Photoshop. To me, that looks like
outstanding low- noise performance from an ISO 800 shot. I want
to see some samples from the 1DMKIII at high ISO settings.
Preferably, something similar with a smooth OOF background where
noise would be obvious.

Get to it, PW!

BTW, I'd hate you less if you e-mailed me some RAW files shot with
your new cammy.
I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

There are jpegs, straight from the camera. I didn't use RAW
conversion, simply because that can introduce variables.
Personally, I am very pleased with the high ISO performance. -See
what you think... **There is a bit of texture to the felt...so I'll
probably have to
post another set with a better subject.

Noise becomes obvious at 6400, but is amazingly restrained at all
levels (basically non-existent at 800).
See below:

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

That's impressive. Your really slow ISO- 800, heh! shows just the
felt. The 6400 one, though, the speckles aren't just the felt. It's
noise, and maybe in five years we'll get noise free 6400, but what
you've got there now is fantastic.
==
It is impressive. But you can see from the loss of texture on the
surface of the ball and the threads, that some heavy NR is applied
in-camera to the jpgs.
That's likely true.
I'll have to shoot them again with all camera NR turned off and
compare.

That said... -For a bit of perspective, here's an image of the full frame
shot.
If this were printed at 8x12, I think you can imagine that it would be
extremely useable, and the noise would basically disappear:
http://www.pbase.com/image/79936805/original

6400 ISO is entirely usable.

-Mark²

Yeah - it looks like it from the 100% crop. I know I've held back
printing high iso shots printed large because of visible noise on
screen, then printed them anyway - and have been pleasantly surprised.
Noise in prints is always *much* less noticeable in print than on screen.
I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has to be about
the same as for the 5d, so sensor noise has to be be about the same.
I guess that Roger N Clark will have the answer on that.

frederick wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Mark² wrote:
frederick wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's an actual sized crop from a photo I took today:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79898815/original

This was shot with my 20D at ISO 800.
This is a straight conversion from the RAW file with no other
post- processing done in Photoshop. To me, that looks like
outstanding low- noise performance from an ISO 800 shot. I want
to see some samples from the 1DMKIII at high ISO settings.
Preferably, something similar with a smooth OOF background where
noise would be obvious.

Get to it, PW!

BTW, I'd hate you less if you e-mailed me some RAW files shot
with your new cammy.
I just posted four 100% crops...800...1600...3200...6400.

There are jpegs, straight from the camera. I didn't use RAW
conversion, simply because that can introduce variables.
Personally, I am very pleased with the high ISO performance. -See
what you think... **There is a bit of texture to the
felt...so I'll probably have to
post another set with a better subject.

Noise becomes obvious at 6400, but is amazingly restrained at all
levels (basically non-existent at 800).
See below:

**NOTE: Each "original" size file is about 0.8MB...
800:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933906/original
1600:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933903/original
3200:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933904/original
6400:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/79933905/original

That's impressive. Your really slow ISO- 800, heh! shows just the
felt. The 6400 one, though, the speckles aren't just the felt.
It's noise, and maybe in five years we'll get noise free 6400,
but what you've got there now is fantastic.
==
It is impressive. But you can see from the loss of texture on the
surface of the ball and the threads, that some heavy NR is applied
in-camera to the jpgs.
That's likely true.
I'll have to shoot them again with all camera NR turned off and
compare.

That said... -For a bit of perspective, here's an image of the full
frame shot.
If this were printed at 8x12, I think you can imagine that it would
be extremely useable, and the noise would basically disappear:
http://www.pbase.com/image/79936805/original

6400 ISO is entirely usable.

-Mark²

Yeah - it looks like it from the 100% crop. I know I've held back
printing high iso shots printed large because of visible noise on
screen, then printed them anyway - and have been pleasantly surprised.
Noise in prints is always *much* less noticeable in print than on
screen. I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has
to be about the same as for the 5d, so sensor noise has to be be
about the same. I guess that Roger N Clark will have the answer on that.

Ya, Roger will be sure to give me a headache with all his number crunching.
It's nice to have his input on these things, because my patience for that
aspect is pretty thin. There are several people on this forum who are quite
handy with the number calculations. I'll leave that to them, though I'd be
happy to do a test made to order at some point.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180939485.812421@ftpsrv1...

Yeah - it looks like it from the 100% crop. I know I've held back
printing high iso shots printed large because of visible noise on screen,
then printed them anyway - and have been pleasantly surprised.
Noise in prints is always *much* less noticeable in print than on screen.
I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has to be about
the same as for the 5d, so sensor noise has to be be about the same.
I guess that Roger N Clark will have the answer on that.

Assuming its an inkjet printer then they don't really have the resolution
needed to print every pixel (even the 5000 dpi ones) so they average them
out.
This reduces noise (but also detail).

If you have a dyesub then you will probably see more of the noise.

dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180939485.812421@ftpsrv1...

Yeah - it looks like it from the 100% crop. I know I've held back
printing high iso shots printed large because of visible noise on screen,
then printed them anyway - and have been pleasantly surprised.
Noise in prints is always *much* less noticeable in print than on screen.
I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has to be about
the same as for the 5d, so sensor noise has to be be about the same.
I guess that Roger N Clark will have the answer on that.

Assuming its an inkjet printer then they don't really have the resolution
needed to print every pixel (even the 5000 dpi ones) so they average them
out.
This reduces noise (but also detail).

If you have a dyesub then you will probably see more of the noise.


lol.
Do you know what "sublimation" means, and what the impact of that
process on resolution may be? Most dye subs are around 300dpi native
maximum.
http://www.crystalcanyons.net/pages/...00Printer.shtm
(and note that they didn't know to feed the R800 at divisors of 1440dpi
(ie for their test probably 720dpi), and that this was done in 2004.

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180946027.385140@ftpsrv1...

Do you know what "sublimation" means, and what the impact of that process
on resolution may be? Most dye subs are around 300dpi native maximum.
http://www.crystalcanyons.net/pages/...00Printer.shtm
(and note that they didn't know to feed the R800 at divisors of 1440dpi
(ie for their test probably 720dpi), and that this was done in 2004.


Yes I do know what sublimation means.
Do you know the difference between a dot produced by a dyesub and a dot
produced by an inkjet printer?

Do you know how many dots it takes from an R800 printer to make 1 dot that
is equivalent to one of those dots on the dyesub printer?
Work it out and you will understand why 300 dpi on a dyesub is *far* better
than an R800.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:50:07 +1200, frederick wrote:



Yeah - it looks like it from the 100% crop. I know I've held back
printing high iso shots printed large because of visible noise on
screen, then printed them anyway - and have been pleasantly surprised.
Noise in prints is always *much* less noticeable in print than on screen.
I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has to be about
the same as for the 5d, so sensor noise has to be be about the same.
I guess that Roger N Clark will have the answer on that.


You must be looking at the screen image at pixel size. Try looking for
noise in the same image at print size which will approximate what you
can expect in an actual print. If your image processor doesn't offer
a print size option then just hit the minus key once which will be
equal to about 170ppi in a print.

Ben

dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180946027.385140@ftpsrv1...

Do you know what "sublimation" means, and what the impact of that process
on resolution may be? Most dye subs are around 300dpi native maximum.
http://www.crystalcanyons.net/pages/...00Printer.shtm
(and note that they didn't know to feed the R800 at divisors of 1440dpi
(ie for their test probably 720dpi), and that this was done in 2004.


Yes I do know what sublimation means.
Do you know the difference between a dot produced by a dyesub and a dot
produced by an inkjet printer?

Do you know how many dots it takes from an R800 printer to make 1 dot that
is equivalent to one of those dots on the dyesub printer?
Work it out and you will understand why 300 dpi on a dyesub is *far* better
than an R800.


You are either confusing dpi and ppi and/or not understanding that
inkjets use variable droplet size and placement.

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180949146.521038@ftpsrv1...
dennis@home wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1180946027.385140@ftpsrv1...

Do you know what "sublimation" means, and what the impact of that
process on resolution may be? Most dye subs are around 300dpi native
maximum.
http://www.crystalcanyons.net/pages/...00Printer.shtm
(and note that they didn't know to feed the R800 at divisors of 1440dpi
(ie for their test probably 720dpi), and that this was done in 2004.


Yes I do know what sublimation means.
Do you know the difference between a dot produced by a dyesub and a dot
produced by an inkjet printer?

Do you know how many dots it takes from an R800 printer to make 1 dot
that is equivalent to one of those dots on the dyesub printer?
Work it out and you will understand why 300 dpi on a dyesub is *far*
better than an R800.
You are either confusing dpi and ppi and/or not understanding that inkjets
use variable droplet size and placement.


No I am not confusing either, are you?.

Say the R800 uses 4 drop sizes.
So we have 4 levels of intensity from the drop size so we need another 64
levels of intensity per colour to match the dyesub.
So that is 64 dots x four (or is it seven as its a seven colour printer? No
we will say four as it shouldn't need more than four).

So that's 256 dots per dot on the dye sub.
So that's 16 times the number of dpi to be equivalent.

So an inkjet would have to have 4 drop sizes and do about 4800 x 4800 dpi to
give the same tonal range as a 300 dpi dyesub.

Is the R800 4800x4800 dpi?
No it isn't and this is the best case there are circumstances where it will
be much worse.