Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil

  1. #51

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    All this 14 bit discussion is really funny! If I was a Canon marketing manager I'd have gone all the way and put in all Canon cameras, in big shiny letters, 32 BIT SUPER EXTRA HIGH QUALITY RAW IMAGE FORMAT! (who cares?, the "real" quality is 10 bits anyway, so I can put any number just to attract customers! [])

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
    if the user is patient, it can be virtually eliminated it in software- improving DR by several stops.

    Well, it's only the late-stage read noise component that is improved here (e.g. noise in the row-level components, secondary gain stage, ADC, etc.). For Canon, that's where most of the read noise is, so we could get 2-3 stops improvement at ISO 100 with multiple readouts. It's similar to the benefit we get with image stacking in astrophotography (but not as huge). For Nikon the benefit is smaller because their read noise is more largely composed of early stage read noise (e.g. rts, trapped carriers, etc.).


    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
    I mean, why stop at 4 reads? Why not do 100? Or as many as it takes?

    It would be nice if Canon let us control options like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
    Metadata ISO and auto ISO are a horse of one color.

    You're quite right.



    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

    <div>


    Quote Originally Posted by Alan


    The bigger question is: when is the technology going to be available to freeze my head?[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

    <div>[]</div>
    </div>



    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
    <div>


    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Lindado


    All this 14 bit discussion is really funny! If I was a Canon marketing manager I'd have gone all the way and put in all Canon cameras, in big shiny letters, 32 BIT SUPER EXTRA HIGH QUALITY RAW IMAGE FORMAT! (who cares?, the "real" quality is 10 bits anyway, so I can put any number just to attract customers![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img])



    I know, me too. If the customers ask why our new 32-bit files are the same size as 10-bit files, we can tell them it's an advanced new lossless compression technology called "debunking".
    </div>

  3. #53

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    After reading all of this, i feel bad for scooby, he lost his job on this one :/ poor scooby-doo, Dang it Daniel why you make him lose his job. ^^


    I wonder if canon is like "oh snaps we been busted" pack up and run away, or "man now we have to do some work around here"

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    246

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Steven23


    I wonder if canon is like "oh snaps we been busted" pack up and run away, or "man now we have to do some work around here"



    How do we make them, and everybody else, notice this discussion here?



  5. #55
    Alan
    Guest

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Colin500


    How do we make them, and everybody else, notice this discussion here?
    <div style="clear: both;"]</div>


    We don't. Daniel's tried, and all he gets is form letters in return.


    Canon is in the business to make money and they, like any other company, gauge their business with marketing studies. They're not going to listen to a tiny minority, when they can sell bazillions of cameras now, knowing that they can improve them incrementally, and have the same people that bought the previous versions, go out and buy the new ones. It's just the way the business world works.


    That's why these discussions don't do much, other than let people banter/rant about what could be, or should be.


    It's a Mobius strip conversation, which has no end.



  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    1,275

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan
    That's why these discussions don't do much, other than let people banter/rant about what could be, or should be.

    Not much?!? Some of us live to rant []



  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle


    Not much?!? Some of us live to rant [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]


    And some of us live to find those people and goad them into ranting. (You just love seeing me foam at the mouth, don't you, Jon?) []

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    1,275

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
    And some of us live to find those people and goad them into ranting

    [8o|]



  9. #59
    Alan
    Guest

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle


    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
    And some of us live to find those people and goad them into ranting

    [img]/emoticons/emotion-39.gif[/img]
    <div style="clear: both;"]</div>


    I love a good rant, too. I doubt, though, that Daniel has foamed at the mouth. []

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956

    Re: Myth busted: Canon's 14-bit snake oil



    I forgot to respond to this earlier:


    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle


    I looked at DXOMark. They give the D700 a dynamic range score of 12.2 stops and the 5DII a score of 11.9 stops. Doesn't this mean that the D700 has only 0.3 stops more dynamic range? What am I missing? (One way to reconcile this would be that the canon exposes for more highlight headroom than the Nikon, but I don't think that is true).


    I meant to say D7000, not D700. The D7000 is where Nikon really made leaps and bounds in dynamic range. As for the 5D2's 11.9 stops, that's because DxOMark only measures random noise. If they were to measure non-random noise such as "banding" (temporal FPN), they would show a much lower number -- I'd say less than 10 stops.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •