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
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the 40D. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it other than cropping. Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little detail, but are not quite down to true black. I'd like to see the film that could give similar results. Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop: http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...wn%20world.jpg http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
HEY NOONS WERE U DRUNK WHEN U POSTED THE UPSIDE DOWN PIC LOL
"Noons" wrote in message ... Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM: Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the 40D. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it other than cropping. Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little detail, but are not quite down to true black. I'd like to see the film that could give similar results. Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop: http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...wn%20world.jpg http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
+**** YOU wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 11:01 PM:
HEY NOONS WERE U DRUNK WHEN U POSTED THE UPSIDE DOWN PIC LOL It's not upside down, dip****. But you're too stupid to realize that, aren't you? Go back to school, moron. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:31 AM:
On Sep 16, 7:31 am, Noons wrote: I'd like to see the film that could give similar results. Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6? Lotsa blown highlights there. Thanks for illustrating my point. There is not a single highlight blown in there. Thanks for demonstrating you don't have a clue what a blown highlight is. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:
In the first one http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with the reduced size image. Actually, it's called clouds. Not noise. And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of a good anti-film rant, shall we? The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in them. Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the high rez version. But of course shadows are shadows: if you expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks? Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree... If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show much DR at all. Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that you can see high DR? Of course, do not come back to me with an example where all tones are the same intensity: that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some folks call "high dr". And no: an image made out of multiple raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated digital mush. The other two photos don't show any more DR. Really? Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas? I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the years with reversal film, and I have very small DR. Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr. Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because it is not digital is pretty poor form. And no: a drab old non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing is NOT an example of high dr. Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your scene, hard to know. Exactly. Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters. I won't post it because it might shock Rita... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:
Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it. Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead of just accepting whatever is shown as reality... Thanks, I certainly shall! Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright. It does: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
"Scott W" wrote: I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film. Slide film would not have a chance IMO. People keep saying that, but I wonder. I suspect that color balance gets out of wack (or something else goes wrong) if you overexpose beyond what they are designed for. If overxposing were a sensible thing to do, the film mfrs would say so. But they don't. Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Hehe. Sounds about right. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:56 PM:
Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright. It does:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/ Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image. yeah, sure... At full resolution it is a bit soft. ANY digitised image at full resolution is a "bit soft"! Any other pearls of idiocy you'd like to share? An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at all. yeah su downsize and upsize a "lossless" file like jpg? Are you for real or you think everyone is an idiot? I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so. Sure. Try this: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/ ****: there goes the 5d2 rez, eh? Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens. BWAHAHAHA! Any other bull**** you'd like to propose? This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive. Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it? And no amount of crappola from the likes of you is gonna change that. Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6 camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels. wouldn't that be why I provided a cropped image as well? Or did you miss that little detail in your haste? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:
There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255. There are also areas that are 0,0,0. Good luck printing those. No problem whatsoever. It's called full dynamic range. Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos". Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside 200,200,200 and 100,100,100? You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had quite a few more zones than just 4-6. That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality, it's not really that hard and quite rewarding. In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work. I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most of the time, I'll let you know! Try this for REAL detail: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/ LOL! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:
This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the highlight and very deep shadows. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original Yeah, I know: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...mp-02-91534639 is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia or Astia! If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels. With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the shadows with a bit of dodging. Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has been doing for eons. "compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though 8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8. The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot. Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film? I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly, there is simply no difference. With film, saturation is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium format is different, though. I still haven't worked that one out, still trying to get it under control. I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else, the resulting compression range will be amazing. I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film. Slide film would not have a chance IMO. Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well, but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range. Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6 EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough* for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there. Although of course dynamic range compression is less the if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery to get slides to cover it. Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just different DR compression levels and ratios. Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers. The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range. Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means to an end. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D! | Noons | Digital Photography | 24 | September 26th 08 05:58 AM |
high dynamic range in P&S ?? | minnesotti | Digital Photography | 4 | October 27th 06 03:03 AM |
Measurung dynamic range... | Volker Hetzer | Digital Photography | 16 | August 14th 06 05:23 AM |
dynamic range | Paul Furman | Digital SLR Cameras | 36 | February 22nd 06 04:05 AM |
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range? | ThomasH | Digital Photography | 43 | January 1st 05 11:32 PM |