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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |