Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: SMS on 7 Jul 2010 20:59 On 07/07/10 5:25 PM, nospam 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. > >> Those needing the control that RAW provides, and wanting the best >> quality results are using D-SLRs anyway. > > or high end compact p&s. That's the issue though, the SX20 IS is supposed to be a high end P&S but does not natively support RAW. CHDK is in beta for the SX20 IS and will presumably offer RAW capability, but so few people will care that it's moot. Most people using CHDK are using it on a pocket camera when they don't want to carry their larger D-SLR.
From: LOL! on 7 Jul 2010 21:04 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:59:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 07/07/10 5:25 PM, nospam 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. >> >>> Those needing the control that RAW provides, and wanting the best >>> quality results are using D-SLRs anyway. >> >> or high end compact p&s. > >That's the issue though, the SX20 IS is supposed to be a high end P&S >but does not natively support RAW. CHDK is in beta for the SX20 IS and >will presumably offer RAW capability, but so few people will care that >it's moot. Most people using CHDK are using it on a pocket camera when >they don't want to carry their larger D-SLR. Isn't it amazing how you know every photographer so intimately and personally as you do. I guess that goes with the territory -- OF YOUR PSYCHOSIS. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: LOL! on 7 Jul 2010 21:25 On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:59:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >CHDK is in beta for the SX20 IS and >will presumably offer RAW capability Proving again that you don't know anything at all about CHDK. It already DOES provides RAW capability for the SX20 in its beta phase. LOL! Keep 'em coming SMS! More people need to see you prove, all on your own, what a fuckingly pathetic role-playing pretend-photographer troll that we already know you to be. LOL!
From: John Navas on 7 Jul 2010 21:31 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. -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Chris Malcolm on 8 Jul 2010 04:27
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. -- Chris Malcolm Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact. |