Printable View
The 9 or 10 stops of dynamic range you have here is not my idea of the "extreme" of pushing the DR. Film photographers routinely use 12-13 stops of dynamic range. I'd consider 17 stops to be pretty extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Here is a good test:Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
5D2: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/t/canon-mk3-2b.jpg
D800: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/t/nikon2b.jpg
I don't know if you have ever used Aperture, it has a default setting of 3.0 for black point (as far as I know for camera. I've used 1DsmkII, 5DmkII and 5DmkIII). This setting was left untouched when I did this questionable experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Again, Aperture clipped the blacks. It's not the DR Fairy, it's Aperture. The raw converter is using *very* different raw conversions for each camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Personally, I consider the pattern noise improvement to be rather limited, but even if you consider it to be a significant improvement, you have to admit it's still 10 times worse than the D800.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Wow! Sorry Dr. Cooper.
I never claimed exact science just tried to give some real world example to the folks that actually operate in the real world. You can tear it apart anyway you'd like. The 5DIII's images have shown to have more detail. I'm sorry it isn't the 20 stops of DR you are looking for.
I often wondered why this board is so slow these days.
Aperture, like most commercial raw converters, treats cameras differently *even when the settings are the same*. In other words, the black point of "3.0" might mean 2048 ADU on the 5D3, but 4096 on the 5D2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
5d3?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
#corrections
Silly questions for the day.
1) When comparing camera noise levels why are both not shown at native resolution? Upsizing and downsizing is known to affect apparent noise. Even though it is nice to bring both to same size for easier direct detail capture comparison, why can't we also get the originals for both to assess whether resizing software has also changed the noise levels?
2) Much is made of the Nikon blacks and how they can be pushed up to such high levels. It is also known that Nikon clips the blacks in the camera. Is it possible to determine the levels in the blacks to see at what level they have been clipped in the Nikon shots and compare that to the Canon shots to see if that is one possible source of the noise? So many people go on about the need for the same treatment of the files, but if it is to be done should not the differences of in-camera processing be adjusted for as well?
Not trying to fan any flames here, just hoping to increase my understanding.
Because that's not how the images are used in real life. If I was trying to decide between two cameras and I was comparing noise, I would print out images at the same size. Increasing magnification on just one of the cameras wouldn't provide an equal footing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw
Quite right. While you should always apply resizing in order to get realistic results, different programs do resizing very differently. That's why I prefer to get the raw files and do the conversion and resizing myself, so I can see how they perform with my particular set of software and methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw
I don't know why. Usually when I post comparisons, I also post the raw files.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw
Yes, it's possible to determine the black levels. It's always at or very near to the read noise floor. It's about the place where most Canon raw converters will clip blacks -- and in fact most of them do it before any other processing, so you get the exact same result as if it was done in camera. (A few converters, such as RawTherapee, don't clip it right away though, which is smart.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw
And no, that is definitely not the source of the noise difference. Nikon clips the blacks way, way below the level at which Canon becomes unusable.
Yes. That is always a good point to remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrw
@ HDNitehawk [QUOTE=HDNitehawk;68891]@Jks_photo; what printer are you using?
hi im using a noristsu QSS3201 ;), its an RA4 process digital Mini LAB. What often happens is that pictures look good or at least acceptable on its terminals but when it comes to the proprietary software that will "read" and preview the picture for the "printer" [ the person who will be printing] pictures will look way off but with the 5dIII there's little if no change, and If i did my partin achieving proper exposure then no corrections as well, which I could not do even with the 5d II.
@ DB will try using current DPP to process my olr 5dII raw to check if I can get same results.... THANKS DB your posts are always so enlingtening.....