Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 8 Jul 2010 18:52 "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote in message news:4q7a36lbls1hr4t8kt54d0iac9nnehb1t5(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:25:57 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >>In article <4c351a02$0$22128$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> >>> > the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target >>> > market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter >>> > that much. >>> >>> It's also because they don't want to be compelled to document it and >>> then to field expensive support calls from the people trying to use it. >> >>that's basically the same thing. the target market isn't interested. >>those who know about the benefits of raw won't be buying low end >>cameras anyway. > > Benefits of RAW: > > 1. Trying to correct your under or over exposures manually and tediously > because you or your camera failed to capture your image properly in the > first place. > > 2. Trying to correct your white-balance manually and tediously because you > or your camera failed to capture your image properly in the first place. > > Yup, that's about it! Equally important, the adjustments are non-destructive. -- Peter
From: Peter on 8 Jul 2010 18:55 "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:89lgevFh11U2(a)mid.individual.net... > In rec.photo.digital John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:16:38 +1200, in <i135dk$672$1(a)news.albasani.net>, >> Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>>On 8/07/2010 11:56 a.m., John Navas wrote: >>>> On 07 Jul 2010 23:30:48 GMT, in >>>> <4c350e28$0$4840$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Stuffed Crust >>>> <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote: > >>>>> Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now >>>>> correct >>>>> the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when >>>>> generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to >>>>> apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change >>>>> at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance. >>>>> >>>>> So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's >>>>> a >>>>> hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image... >>>> >>>> Bingo! >>>> >>>How well does PTlens go in correcting this distortion? >>>Last time I used it, it would read metadata in jpeg, camera model, lens >>>including focal length the zoom was set at, and make a correction from >>>the database automatically (okay - sometimes you would need to intervene >>>to select the lens if it misidentified slr lenses of the same type/focal >>>length, but this is not very hard to do). >>>It also corrects complex ("moustache" pattern) commonly found on wide >>>zooms. The internal interpolation algorithm used by PTlens seems good, >>>even on jpegs, and options for recompression after editing are >>>available. Last time I used it, CA correction was manual - so that was >>>slower and less precise than automatic CA correction. >>>There seems to be quite a range of compact cameras supported: >>>http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/ > >> I used to use PTLens, but eventually gave up on it because: (a) I rarely >> need any distortion correction with current cameras; (b) PTLens was a >> pain to use, and (c) Photoshop got so good at distortion correction. > > Has Photoshop got around to doing complex distortion correction such > as moustache? Last time I looked people were complaining that it > didn't. Does it do specific lens correcyions from a database? That's > essential if you're very fussy about geometry distortions. A bit of > barrel distortion doesn't matter much in landscape, and (especially at > the edges of a wide view) can be aesthetically advantageous in > portraits, but are a serious problem in architectural photography. > > For very precise geometry correction and perspective adjustments the > problem with PTLens is the lack of easy access to a high degrees of > pannable zoom for tiny fractional corrections. Lines which look > straight enough on a screen can be obviously squint on a A2 print. But > PTLens is so good and precise at the corrections it can do that when I > need such precision for a gallery sized print I'll jump between PTLens > and a fast zoomable viewer just to get things precisely right. > > If Photoshop is now as precise and accurate as PTLens, but a lot > easier to use, I might consider getting it. Download a trial version and see if it works for you. -- Peter
From: Peter on 8 Jul 2010 19:15 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:k0ob36lt6l3kt36ukmsic705guh0shfdh0(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:21:50 +0100, in > <udmb365fs9bnja9uadreaag34mkj6nkuag(a)4ax.com>, Bruce > <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>I couldn't work out from the section of the review which dealt with >>the Panasonic FZ-35/38 why the RAW feature got such poor marks. Ir >>was mentioned only in passing: "It is also one of four cameras in this >>group that capture RAW files. This allows you to remove the camera's >>default noise reduction and to process the images exactly as you wish. >>However, in our tests this did not get us much more resolution." >> >>Perhaps the reviewer missed the point? The greatest value of using >>RAW is to extract the maximum possible dynamic range for the final >>image. Except for avoiding the smudging caused by over-powerful >>in-camera noise reduction, RAW doesn't materially increase resolution. >> >>And in the Summary, the reviewer, having criticised and marked down >>the RAW feature, actually included it on the "We like" list! I think >>the conclusion is that this particular DPReviewer doesn't really >>understand what the feature is for. DPReview strikes again! > > Fair observation, except for the childish taunt at the end. > > The key is to learn how to use a given tool effectively. I personally > find less and less need for RAW output from my FZ28 as I get better and > better at using it. > > For example, when shooting sailboats (with large white sails), if I set > the metering mode properly and exposure bias of -1/3, I get consistent > good results right out of camera. > Interesting. I have found underexposure by as much as -1.3 works. But I guess that may depend upon how much of your image is pure white and the metering system you choose for that shot. In snow I have used between -2 & -3. Obviously, you mileage varies. -- Peter
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 19:57 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:15:22 -0400, in <4c365c4e$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:k0ob36lt6l3kt36ukmsic705guh0shfdh0(a)4ax.com... >> The key is to learn how to use a given tool effectively. I personally >> find less and less need for RAW output from my FZ28 as I get better and >> better at using it. >> >> For example, when shooting sailboats (with large white sails), if I set >> the metering mode properly and exposure bias of -1/3, I get consistent >> good results right out of camera. > >Interesting. I have found underexposure by as much as -1.3 works. But I >guess that may depend upon how much of your image is pure white and the >metering system you choose for that shot. In snow I have used between -2 >& -3. >Obviously, you mileage varies. Sure. You want to minimize fooling of the exposure metering by the white sails or snow, and compensate for whatever error is left, which will be different in different cases. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: Peter on 8 Jul 2010 21:03
"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ibpc36dtiok98iqpl1th564a8ddtgrq9je(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:15:22 -0400, in > <4c365c4e$0$5507$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>Interesting. I have found underexposure by as much as -1.3 works. But I >>guess that may depend upon how much of your image is pure white and the >>metering system you choose for that shot. In snow I have used between -2 >>& -3. >>Obviously, you mileage varies. > > Sure. You want to minimize fooling of the exposure metering by the > white sails or snow, and compensate for whatever error is left, which > will be different in different cases. > Glad you realize that my comment was intended to convey that there is no one formula that works in all situations. -- Peter Still bracketing after 65 years of shooting. |