Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview

"Dallas 2" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:48:49 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...
So, are we to asume that the EOS1Ds II doesn't provide 16 bit images?

It provides 12-bits in RAW mode, same as your D70.

Which converts to what file size for a 16MP image?

Are you able to tell the camera whether it should shoot RAW in 16 bit or 8
bit mode? I don't think the D70 allows you that. If the EOS1DsII doesn't
either, then you are going to need a **** load of disk space, because you
would have to keep two versions of the same file if you wanted to submit
an 8 bit to your agency and keep the 16 bit masterfile.

You seem fundamentally confused about what RAW files are.
They are neither.
They consist of simple data from the sensor.
This data has not been converted into ANY color-bit-ANYTHING yet.
You do this after the fact, and therefore don't determine ANYTHING prior to
shooting in RAW. Nothing. Zip.
While you can set a white balance, etc., this is only ONE WAY the raw data
can be interpreted later.

"Dallas 2" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:42:26 -0700, Mark M wrote:

We're talking about requirements for *submission* to agencies. Not the
camera's bit depth.
It's amazing what you are willing to argue about without even basic
knowledge of these things.
Of COURSE is provides 16 bit images.
You convert to 8 bit for submission...if that's the way they want it.

Hello my little stalker!

You never leave my posts alone...so say hello to the kettle.

Do you know what page we are on? We're not arguing yet, but I am sure with
your superior debating skills you already knew that, didn't you?

Just to put you in the picture, before you start frothing at the mouth
again, we're discussing (yes, discussing) the size of RAW files.

No. We were discussing the size of sumbission photos produced by the 1Ds
Mark II. You were confused about this, and various people have been
educating you.

I was
merely expressing my dismay that a 16.7MP camera would only produce a 50MB
file when my little D70 which is only 6MP produces a 35MB file.

After which it was pointed out to you that if you submitted that file in
8-bit mode, it would be about half that. The 16.7MP file would be larger in
16 bit mode.

As it turns out, my camera shoots only in 16-bit RAW mode (unless there's
a function I haven't discovered yet) and you lot were talking about 8 bit
images. I thank you all for your input (except you, Mark - you can kiss my
ass).

It says that because RAW files are CAPABLE of 16 bit, but whether you
interpret the RAW file (process it into a usable format) into an 8-bit tiff
or a 16-bit tiff is determined by the user during the process.

This is also true with Canon.
All RAW files can be translated into either 8 or 16 bit tiff files.
-But that is not determined by any RAW file switch.

"Dallas 2" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:50:38 +0000, Martin Francis wrote:

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article , ternet
says...
Have you even looked at the sample images?

Yup. Boring as hell.

The pictures, sure - they're promos! But the pixel-level detail is
amazing.

Fantastic! That's what the word of art is missing- more pixels!

Yup. More pixels please! That model is missing a few lines in her face! We
want more resolution!!

Bad vision in my left eye, sure. Monitor is okay, but hey- it could be
better. And I understand DPI/PPI (I think you meant PPI) and print size
too. Oddly enough, though, I like film. I don't worry about resolution,
just things like how good my pictures are, how good my lenses are, and
how
comfortable my camera is to use.

Martin, some advice: stop making sense. Shortly you will have Mark Morgan
the evangelist tailing your every move.

Wow! I'm the "stalker"...yet you keep bringing me up in conversations I'm
not in.

You're a funny fellow.

In article , dallas2
@pingmefirst.co.za says...
I'm guessing that at 16MP, 16-bit, you would have a 96MB file for every
image you shoot. Make a 50MB 8 bit version of the same thing and you are
up to 146MB per image taken on your hard drive.

No thanks!

If all you look at is file size, you won't be taking many stunning
pictures.

Also, way to ignore lossless compression.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , dallas2
@pingmefirst.co.za says...
What burning software are you using?

Nero 6.0 SE. My drive is limited to an 8x write, but I can't seem to find
any disks that are more than 4x (Verbatim is not an option for me - I have
a Verbatim graveyard outside).

Check your drive manufacturer's website to see which 4x media you can
write at 8x. A lot of the time, the difference between the 4x and 8x
media is the packaging.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
Stephen H. Westin wrote:

No, no, no. Raw files for most cameras these days are 12 bits.
On conversion, you have the choice of 8-bit or 16-bit TIFF files.
16 bits is just rounding up to the next integer number of bytes
per sample;

Actually, it's not. For a start, Photoshop in "16 bit mode" is actually only
15 bits + 1 (as in it uses values from 0 - 32768), and secondly, the camera
capture is linear and in the camera's own weird colour space. Converting
this to a 16 bit TIFF is more complex than a simple linear scaling of the
values.

In article ,
Stephen H. Westin wrote:

No, no, no. Raw files for most cameras these days are 12 bits.
On conversion, you have the choice of 8-bit or 16-bit TIFF files.
16 bits is just rounding up to the next integer number of bytes
per sample;

Actually, it's not. For a start, Photoshop in "16 bit mode" is actually only
15 bits + 1 (as in it uses values from 0 - 32768), and secondly, the camera
capture is linear and in the camera's own weird colour space. Converting
this to a 16 bit TIFF is more complex than a simple linear scaling of the
values.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:40:46 -0700, Mark M wrote:

Martin, some advice: stop making sense. Shortly you will have Mark
Morgan the evangelist tailing your every move.

Wow! I'm the "stalker"...yet you keep bringing me up in conversations I'm
not in.

You're a funny fellow.

And you're a stalker. Facts is facts.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com

"You know you're right! You're bloody well right!
You've bloody got a right to say!" ~ Supertramp

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:25:22 -0700, Mark M wrote:

The problem, my little stalker, is that you keep talking about Nikon
like they are having to play catch-up to your precious Canon and if they
don't they will surely fall down dead.

Yes...with a clarification.
They won't die quickly...rather slowly continue to recede...osrt of like
teh gums of folks who don't floss.
It has already begun, and the pattern is clear to all those with a shred
of objectivity.

Care to elaborate on that? Most of the press, fashion and wedding
photographers I know, all still use Nikon. Only area where there seems to
be a few more Canon photographers is in the sports arena - and that's
because those photographers don't have a choice when it comes to equipment
- their employers supply it, because Canon gives it to them at
surprisingly low lease rates. That is a fact.

IMO there is nothing to catch up to.

Unfortunately for Nikon, it appears that they agree with you.

Well explain it to us dimwitted Nikon folks, Mr Superior Debator. What
technologies, required for the professional photographer, do Canon have
that Nikon don't have? If you are referring to the 1DsII, full frame
16.7MP marvel, well, how many photographers do you think will be rushing
out to buy it at the premium price it will no doubt come into the market
at? For those professionals using Nikon who absolutely must have full
frame digital, there is the Kodak option. So, where is this void that you
speak of?

The only technologies that Canon are
using that Nikon haven't got are ECF (contraversial technology, but I
liked it on my EOS 30) and Diffractive Optics. With regards the latter,
I haven't seen a single person using one of those lenses, and I interact
with a lot of Canon photographers. Could it be that they are simply too
expensive?

You are a part of a handful of posters here who are totally obsessed
with what Nikon is doing, just in case they bring something out that
makes what you own look a little backwards. Here's a newsflash for you:
they're all just cameras and they all do exactly the same thing.

Please show me where I have suggested anything remotely in that spirit.
You can't. I like Nikon. I like Canon. I don't bad-mouth Nikon...EVER.

Does "heart surgery" ring any bells?

I DO make observations about both coompanies including positives and
negatives.
This is called objectivity. Ihave no problem pointing out Canon's faults
and flaws, and do...with regularity. You'll find positives for Both Nikon
and Canon in my posts.
Am I interested in what Nikon does?
You bet I am!
Nikon and Canon effect each other more than any other factor right now.
It's a fight to the finish, and what one company does (or doesn't do)
plays a MAJOR role in wht the other will produce...price...and offer to
all of us. If you have a problem with interest in equipment issues like
this, then what are you doing on this forum?

"Fight to the finish"? What finish?

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com

"You know you're right! You're bloody well right!
You've bloody got a right to say!" ~ Supertramp

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:07:27 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article , dallas2
@pingmefirst.co.za says...
I'm guessing that at 16MP, 16-bit, you would have a 96MB file for every
image you shoot. Make a 50MB 8 bit version of the same thing and you are
up to 146MB per image taken on your hard drive.

No thanks!

If all you look at is file size, you won't be taking many stunning
pictures.

Also, way to ignore lossless compression.

Tell me, do you own a digital SLR, Brian? What you are saying here is that
it is not possible to take stunning images with 6MP, am I right?

Well now, I took some pretty decent images with my D30 (back when it
worked).

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com

"You know you're right! You're bloody well right!
You've bloody got a right to say!" ~ Supertramp