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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
RichA wrote:
MarkČ lowest even number here 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 There is noticeably progressive detail diminshment going up in ISO, but the results are still astonishing. 6400 properly exposed (note dark area) is eminently usable. I think the detail loss you see is due to high ISO noise reduction. I can turn that off...so I'll have to try it again with zero NR. The seal photos were shot with NR turned off... and the 2000 ISO shots were excellent...though there was SOME visible. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
On Jun 4, 8:44 pm, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote: RichA wrote: MarkČ lowest even number here 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 There is noticeably progressive detail diminshment going up in ISO, but the results are still astonishing. 6400 properly exposed (note dark area) is eminently usable. I think the detail loss you see is due to high ISO noise reduction. I can turn that off...so I'll have to try it again with zero NR. The seal photos were shot with NR turned off... and the 2000 ISO shots were excellent...though there was SOME visible. I think the form factor of the sensor is a good compromise. Most of the image quality (maybe as much because it's new?) of the FF with less of the edge issues you see with WA film lenses with the FF's. If you can image at 6400, apply some NR in post-process and lose a minimal amount of detail compared to 800, you are way ahead of most of what is out there right now. For Olympus, I'd settle for a dead clean 400 ISO and a reasonably clean 800. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
frederick wrote in news:1180939485.812421@ftpsrv1:
I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has to be about the same as for the 5d, The 5D has the same pixel density as the 1DmkII. The mkIII has a slightly higher pixel density. -- John P Sheehy |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
: I think the detail loss you see is due to high ISO noise reduction. I can turn that off...so I'll have to try it again with zero NR. The seal photos were shot with NR turned off... and the 2000 ISO shots were excellent...though there was SOME visible. These JPEGs don't tell much of a story, IMO. They can all be explained by Digic III. One ISO 6400 RAW would tell all I need to know about the only meaningful variable, IMO; RAW read noise. There's a big fat unexposed strip on the left side of every Canon RAW that tells exactly what the read noise is, both statistically, and in character. -- John P Sheehy |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
John Sheehy wrote:
frederick wrote in news:1180939485.812421@ftpsrv1: I haven't worked it out, but pixel density of the 1dIII has to be about the same as for the 5d, The 5D has the same pixel density as the 1DmkII. The mkIII has a slightly higher pixel density. Yes, but... (I forget the details...) but the m3 has some additional tech to overcome that. Something about packing bigger pixels into the space with less waste between them... someone will fill us in... also, I believe more pixels does really give more detail & less noise... not per pixel but per photo/print... probably at a small cost of dynamic range... it all depends on how and what you count. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
John Sheehy wrote in
: "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in : I think the detail loss you see is due to high ISO noise reduction. I can turn that off...so I'll have to try it again with zero NR. The seal photos were shot with NR turned off... and the 2000 ISO shots were excellent...though there was SOME visible. These JPEGs don't tell much of a story, IMO. They can all be explained by Digic III. One ISO 6400 RAW would tell all I need to know about the only meaningful variable, IMO; RAW read noise. There's a big fat unexposed strip on the left side of every Canon RAW that tells exactly what the read noise is, both statistically, and in character. Well, I got my hands on an ISO 3200 RAW from the 1Dmk3. Read noise is a bit better than the 1Dmk2/20D/5D RAW noise (which are all about the same at the pixel level). At 14 bits, the blackframe sigma is 24.3, or 6.08 in 12- bit scale, as compared to the 9.2 or 9.4 in the other cameras, so it's about 1/2 stop better. 6400 should be exatly double that, or 48.6 (12.15). I got the RAW from a mk2/mk3 comparison, and the mk3, although having lower statistical noise with generally low contrast, had more exceptional bright pixels than the mk2 used in the comparison. It could be that the pixels are not mapped out in that camera, though. The mk3 had less banding, clearly. -- John P Sheehy |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
On Jun 3, 11:23 pm, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote: MarkČ wrote: frederick wrote: John McWilliams wrote: MarkČ 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. -MarkČ It takes balls to say that! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
BETTER THAN THIS? *Some 100% crops*
Paul Furman wrote in
. net: Yes, but... (I forget the details...) but the m3 has some additional tech to overcome that. Something about packing bigger pixels into the space with less waste between them... someone will fill us in... also, I believe more pixels does really give more detail & less noise... not per pixel but per photo/print... probably at a small cost of dynamic range... it all depends on how and what you count. Well, what counts most is what you see. I don't think that there is any loss of DR in the image, as long as overall quantum efficiency isn't significantly undermined, and read noise increases stay within very liberal limits. Having more noise per pixel and more pixels can actually increase highlight capture. That's because larger pixels or pixels that are binned will clip rather uniformly, while smaller, noisier ones will dither in some extra highlight headroom. This can be verified by binning RAW greyscale images 2x2 and comparing the results to the original; the binned will have uniformly clipped, flat areas while the original rolls in some extra headroom by having some pixels that do not clip, when the clipping point is exactly 4x as high in the binned image. -- John P Sheehy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|