For Rich and his fans.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: bugbear on 4 Feb 2010 05:01 NameHere wrote: > If a value of 0 from a sensor's > photosite is converted to 0 in the JPG file, and a value of 1024, 4096, or > 16384 (10 to 14 bit dependent) from a photosite is converted to a value of > 255 in the JPG file, then the JPG file represents the whole dynamic range. Agreed. However colour resolution may have been lost. BugBear
From: DanP on 4 Feb 2010 05:26 On Feb 4, 2:34 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > On 2/3/2010 5:00 AM, DanP wrote: > > > the insufferable troll wrote: > >> BD wrote: > > >>> I'd like to find a P&S that allows the use of remote slave flashes for > >>> better control of subject lighting. > > >> They all can. > > > I own a P&S Canon SX100 which can only use the built in flash. > > Remote flashes can be triggered by flash, right? No TTL metering though. > > > Never seen one with f/2.0. And if there is it would be more expensive > > than my Canon 500D with a 50mm f/1.8. > > Similar, with much more zoom & less high ISO performance. > > > But if you want to taka a stab do thishttp://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4196700817/ > > ISO 800 1/4000 sec f/8.0 28mm eq. > Interesting perspective, I like that you did it with no flash. > > I met a guy doing travel photography, trying to make a living at it & > managing OK from what I could tell. He used a P&S because he liked to > travel obscure places in India & be unobtrusive. He had lots of nice > work. Anything is possible. There are billions of stunning photos out > there that a cell phone could capture. I agree, P&S have the advantage of being discreet and easy to carry. I own one, it is a tool in the box. Different circumsances call for different tools. DanP
From: bugbear on 4 Feb 2010 06:38 NameHere wrote: > > And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth > of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper. You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels. What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix? AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010. Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing is advantageous. BugBear
From: NameHere on 4 Feb 2010 08:26 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >NameHere wrote: >> >> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth >> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper. > >You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels. >What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix? 6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution. 16,777,216 colors. There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints. Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels without dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32) > >AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010. All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can discern faithfully. > >Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves >rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing >is advantageous. > > BugBear This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as snapshooters failed to do in the first place. How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your brain so far.
From: NameHere on 4 Feb 2010 08:30
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >NameHere wrote: >> >> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth >> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper. > >You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels. >What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix? 6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution. 16,777,216 colors. There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints. Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels without unsightly dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32) > >AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010. All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can discern faithfully. > >Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves >rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing >is advantageous. > > BugBear This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as snapshooters failed to do in the first place. How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your brain so far. |