A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

One area film has it over digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 24th 12, 01:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default One area film has it over digital

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
: leaving the base of the film.
: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)

Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your digital
images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the highlights too, if
that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were trying to achieve by
jacking up the illumination level).

Bob
  #2  
Old March 25th 12, 02:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Rich[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,081
Default One area film has it over digital

Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
: leaving the base of the film.
: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)

Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).

Bob


The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.
  #3  
Old March 25th 12, 04:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default One area film has it over digital

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, Rich wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote in
: :
:
: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
: : Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
: : of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
: : raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
: : background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
: : simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
: : leaving the base of the film.
: : (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
:
: Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
:
: Bob
:
:
: The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.

Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
better job of rendering dark areas?

Bob
  #4  
Old March 25th 12, 07:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default One area film has it over digital

On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote:
: Robert wrote in
: :
:
: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
: wrote:
:: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
:: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
:: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
:: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
:: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
:: leaving the base of the film.
:: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
:
: Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
:
: Bob
:
:
: The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.

Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
better job of rendering dark areas?

Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
recovery?
Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor. The D800 has
better DR/noise characteristics at ISO 800, than the 5D3 has at ISO 100.
At ISO 3200, the D800 has about the same DR as a D200 at ISO 200.

  #5  
Old March 25th 12, 08:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default One area film has it over digital

Me wrote:
On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote:
: Robert wrote in
: :
:
: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
: wrote:
:: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
:: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
:: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
:: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
:: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
:: leaving the base of the film.
:: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
:
: Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
:
: Bob
:
:
: The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.

Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
better job of rendering dark areas?

Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
recovery?
Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor.


And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
measure the read noise from the sensor?

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

  #6  
Old March 25th 12, 09:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default One area film has it over digital

On 25/03/2012 8:01 p.m., Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote:
: Robert wrote in
: :
:
: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
: wrote:
:: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
:: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
:: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
:: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
:: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
:: leaving the base of the film.
:: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
:
: Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
:
: Bob
:
:
: The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.

Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
better job of rendering dark areas?

Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
recovery?
Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor.


And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
measure the read noise from the sensor?

http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm
and
http://www.sensorgen.info/
I'm confident DXOMark will confirm the above in their own tests.
  #7  
Old March 25th 12, 02:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default One area film has it over digital

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:20:08 +1300, Me wrote:
: On 25/03/2012 8:01 p.m., Ray Fischer wrote:
: wrote:
: On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote:
: : Robert wrote in
: : :
: :
: : On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
: : wrote:
: :: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
: :: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
: :: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
: :: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
: :: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
: :: leaving the base of the film.
: :: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
: :
: : Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: : digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: : highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: : trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
: :
: : Bob
: :
: :
: : The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: : wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.
:
: Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
: better job of rendering dark areas?
:
: Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
: recovery?
: Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
: competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor.
:
: And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
: Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
: measure the read noise from the sensor?
:
: http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

"Check on the camera model in list ..." What list? Is there some trick to
seeing it? Or something wrong with my browser?

: and
: http://www.sensorgen.info/
: I'm confident DXOMark will confirm the above in their own tests.

The text suggests that DXOMark doesn't accept the validity of the "figures of
merit" that underlie your interpretation of the data. Are you expecting them
to change their minds or something?

I'd say Ray is right to be skeptical.

Bob
  #8  
Old March 25th 12, 08:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 241
Default One area film has it over digital

On 26/03/2012 2:05 a.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:20:08 +1300, wrote:
: On 25/03/2012 8:01 p.m., Ray Fischer wrote:
: wrote:
: On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote:
: : Robert wrote in
: : :
: :
: : On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
: : wrote:
: :: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
: :: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
: :: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
: :: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
: :: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
: :: leaving the base of the film.
: :: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
: :
: : Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: : digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: : highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: : trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
: :
: : Bob
: :
: :
: : The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: : wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.
:
: Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
: better job of rendering dark areas?
:
: Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
: recovery?
: Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
: competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor.
:
: And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
: Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
: measure the read noise from the sensor?
:
: http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

"Check on the camera model in list ..." What list? Is there some trick to
seeing it? Or something wrong with my browser?

: and
: http://www.sensorgen.info/
: I'm confident DXOMark will confirm the above in their own tests.

The text suggests that DXOMark doesn't accept the validity of the "figures of
merit" that underlie your interpretation of the data. Are you expecting them
to change their minds or something?

I'd say Ray is right to be skeptical.

That's not what the text suggests. It states that DXOMark "have decided
to present that information so as not to give the three major 'figures
of merit' which are commonly used by designers of imaging equipment".

Anyway, you can "re-order" DXOMark results, including selecting to
compare cameras of the same format - as it's pointless looking at MF
digital sensor performance if you want or need a u4/3 format camera.

The usual rebuttal of conclusions which may be drawn from the data is
"so what - if you expose correctly, then you never need to adjust to the
extent in post-processing that Canon's DR performance is an issue".
That might be true for some people, but doesn't exclude the reality that
some people want or need as much DR as possible, and that for sensor
technology, Canon is clearly falling behind.

I've seen arguments that Canon's sensor fab facilities are out of date,
and lack the precision to match Sony's column parallel AD converters at
FX sensor size. Whether this is true or not I don't know - nor whether
if it is true, the cost for a new sensor fab could be recovered by
future sales of FX sized sensors.
Perhaps that's why the 5D3 is so expensive for what you get.



  #9  
Old March 26th 12, 02:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default One area film has it over digital

Me wrote:
On 25/03/2012 8:01 p.m., Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:


Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
better job of rendering dark areas?

Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
recovery?
Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor.


And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
measure the read noise from the sensor?

http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm


A chart of estimated values.

http://www.sensorgen.info/


A chart based upon images taken from the web.

I'm confident DXOMark will confirm the above in their own tests.


There is nothing to certify. There is guesswork.

Color me unimpressed.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

  #10  
Old March 26th 12, 03:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default One area film has it over digital

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Me wrote:
And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
measure the read noise from the sensor?

http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

A chart of estimated values.


Wrong. All of them are *measured* values. Read the details and
don't take words out of context to change their meaning.

Regardless, DXOmark.com now also has evaluate both the D4 and
the D800, and Bill Claff's data is confirmed.

http://www.sensorgen.info/


A chart based upon images taken from the web.


Eh? What difference is that supposed to make?

I'm confident DXOMark will confirm the above in their own tests.


There is nothing to certify. There is guesswork.


Well lets, see... in addition to those three, Marianne Oelund
has published similar data. So there are multiple source all
showing similar results, leaving no wiggle room for arguement.

Color me unimpressed.


So?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One area film has it over digital Ray Fischer Digital SLR Cameras 12 March 26th 12 06:04 AM
One area film has it over digital Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 6 March 25th 12 05:17 AM
One area film has it over digital [email protected] Digital SLR Cameras 0 March 24th 12 02:19 AM
Looking for darkroom in LA area for graduate student film per_of_vision In The Darkroom 7 February 7th 05 01:07 PM
Area of 35mm film Frank Pittel Film & Labs 13 September 21st 04 09:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.