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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... (Sabineellen) writes: As a result, with the little lowly HP, I can expect that in most cases I'll look at the images and see a white balance that I won't disagree much with, but with the Canon I can expect that many images in varying lighting situations will need to be corrected, and that's too much unnecessary work. So you're saying that the HP makes a better point&shoot camera than the much more expensive 20D, at least with respect to auto white balance. That's your complaint, right? It's not necessary to repeat it over and over again. You seem to expect the 20D to be better at being a P&S camera than the HP (which is designed as a P&S), while a variety of other people either don't expect that or don't care. Nobody seems likely to change their mind. Dave He only keeps up his trolling because people keep responding to him. I made the mistake of contributing, but he likes these posts that try to show him he is misguided. He is trolling, pure and simple and needs to be ignored. DDDD |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
end of an era m8
Now if we could see into the future who'd have thought that digital cameras would re-invent photography on such a grand largesse scale (I'd have bought shares just in the lowest slump) Aerticus "Bryce" wrote in message ... Oh.... the T90! I still have my T70 body from highschool days. The T-90 and T-70 were great cameras. Still are! "Aerticus" wrote in message ... I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using the device - any device whether it be software or hardware. This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment. On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure that RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings. If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific. Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed? Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post processing My 2c Aerticus |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
This is one of those things in which (IMHO) you are both correct.
However, satisfaction at one end of the balance is automatic where at the other end it is an aesthetic Be happy - you are both spot-on As a philosphical aside - one danger of mathematics is conditioning that encourages single point answers Of course the real world is far more complicated and many answers (some conditional) are all equally valid Aerticus wrote in message news Kibo informs me that (Sabineellen) stated that: Nonsense. Just how do you think an autosetting works? How is it nonsense? It's trivial for the camera to correct for a preset WB, because it merely requires a fixed adjustment to each colour channel. Figuring out the temperature of the dominant light source in a given shot is quite difficult, & can even be impossible in a scene with mixed lighting, because it's possible that there *isn't* a dominant light source, & even if the camera can detect multiple sources, it would have to be able to read the user's mind to know which one to work from. (That said, the highest temp light source in the shot is likely to be the best choice.) I actually sat down with two cameras and tested them against each other, one with a competent AWB, and the other with a poorly performing AWB; the one with the poorly performing auto white balance got it a little better with its incandescent preset than with its auto setting, but still, compared to the other camera with the competent AWB, the preset was still quite poor, and that's not surprising, as there's no univesral incandescent that a preset will always meet. You may say it's tunable, and I'll say that doesn't change the fact that the AUTO setting is poorly performing and the person would have to do work with nearly every image to get it right. Of course, you're assuming that the output of your HP on AWB /is/ correct - I wouldn't be greatly surprised if the results of AWB on your HP would be completely unacceptable to someone like me. I often see consumer digicam photos on websites that the owners think are fine, but are clearly shot with the digital equivalent of daylight film. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Sabineellen" wrote in message
... .... I have a jewel and you have a piece of junk. Also, I'm not the one who's seemingly upset and being defensive or a canon apologist. I'm being objective and clear about it; Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB, and .... Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective and clear", the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*, not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are not quite as objective as you might imagine. } that shouldn't be the case, especially when a low-budget camera has an excellent one. Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand, this is an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual WB or the Tungsten preset." -- Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no space)[com] =============================== "I need a sign to let me know you're here Cause my tv set just keeps it all from being clear I want a reason for the way things have to be I need a hand to help build up some kind of hope inside of me" |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Sabineellen" wrote in message
... .... I have a jewel and you have a piece of junk. Also, I'm not the one who's seemingly upset and being defensive or a canon apologist. I'm being objective and clear about it; Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB, and .... Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective and clear", the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*, not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are not quite as objective as you might imagine. } that shouldn't be the case, especially when a low-budget camera has an excellent one. Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand, this is an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual WB or the Tungsten preset." -- Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no space)[com] =============================== "I need a sign to let me know you're here Cause my tv set just keeps it all from being clear I want a reason for the way things have to be I need a hand to help build up some kind of hope inside of me" |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective and clear", the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*, not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are not quite as objective as you might imagine. } Hi, before I posted I had checked a few Canon cameras. The Canon 20D just happened to be the last one i checked. I came to the conclusion it's symptomatic of Canon cameras. Here's what C|Net said in its review of the A95 (I know, C|Net are not a good source of photographic reviews, but this is a basic enough thing and there's almost a consensus in the reviews from other sources) "As usual for Canon, the A95's auto white balance failed miserably under our difficult tungsten lights." Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand, this is an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual WB or the Tungsten preset." Easily surmountable it may be, but it's simply a timewaster if you have to do it for too many shots. When a person puts something on AUTO, it's not unreasonable to expect a competent AUTO function; not perfect, but at least as good if not better than a much, much cheaper camera. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective and clear", the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*, not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are not quite as objective as you might imagine. } Hi, before I posted I had checked a few Canon cameras. The Canon 20D just happened to be the last one i checked. I came to the conclusion it's symptomatic of Canon cameras. Here's what C|Net said in its review of the A95 (I know, C|Net are not a good source of photographic reviews, but this is a basic enough thing and there's almost a consensus in the reviews from other sources) "As usual for Canon, the A95's auto white balance failed miserably under our difficult tungsten lights." Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand, this is an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual WB or the Tungsten preset." Easily surmountable it may be, but it's simply a timewaster if you have to do it for too many shots. When a person puts something on AUTO, it's not unreasonable to expect a competent AUTO function; not perfect, but at least as good if not better than a much, much cheaper camera. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
It's trivial for the camera to correct for a preset WB, because it
merely requires a fixed adjustment to each colour channel. Figuring out the temperature of the dominant light source in a given shot is quite difficult, & can even be impossible in a scene with mixed lighting, In general it is impossible to figure out the WB just by analyzing a scene. Different objects reflect light differently, and when the camera only has the reflected light (as it does), any WB setting will be a guess. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
It's trivial for the camera to correct for a preset WB, because it
merely requires a fixed adjustment to each colour channel. Figuring out the temperature of the dominant light source in a given shot is quite difficult, & can even be impossible in a scene with mixed lighting, In general it is impossible to figure out the WB just by analyzing a scene. Different objects reflect light differently, and when the camera only has the reflected light (as it does), any WB setting will be a guess. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|