Prev: DSL video capability
Next: Canon 100-400mm lens focus problem
From: Bob Larter on 24 Dec 2009 08:30
On 20/12/2009 9:55 PM, bugbear wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
>> that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do. Further, I will NOT post
>> shots concerning noise when I leave Photo Shops default 25% chroma
>> noise reduction ON during raw processing!"
>
> Aren't you the idiot who competely misinterpreted
> the noise in a sub-sampled G10 shot?

I thought that was the P&S Troll. (Admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised
if RichA did it as well...)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. on 24 Dec 2009 08:39
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 00:30:30 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 20/12/2009 9:55 PM, bugbear wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>>> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
>>> that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do. Further, I will NOT post
>>> shots concerning noise when I leave Photo Shops default 25% chroma
>>> noise reduction ON during raw processing!"
>>
>> Aren't you the idiot who competely misinterpreted
>> the noise in a sub-sampled G10 shot?
>
>I thought that was the P&S Troll. (Admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised
>if RichA did it as well...)


Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
From: Paul Furman on 25 Dec 2009 16:18
John Sheehy wrote:
> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:72119278-6bf3-43d0-913e-
> e1ebc2685f35(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I know
>> that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do.
>
> I can understand the sentiment here, especially when the Exposure indices
> are not especially high. but when we start talking about ISOs of 50K and
> greater on high MP cameras, we're not talking about somethiong where large
> images are expected. Web-sized images, for journalistic purposes and small
> prints, are what we are using these super-high-ISO shots for, in general.
>
> Here's my 7D at ISO 3200, under-exposed 4 stops, for ISO 50K:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/118813835/original

Well done.


> You can't do that with a 10D, even a 5D (without banding). You can't do
> that with any Olympus or Pentax. You can't do that with the older Nikons,
> like the D200 or D2X.
>
> So, I would say there is some value in showing small images - *IF* it
> actually means something.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Rich on 25 Dec 2009 18:12
John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote in
news:Xns9CE8B493E8E58jpsnokomm(a)216.168.3.70:

> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:72119278-6bf3-43d0-913e-
> e1ebc2685f35(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> "I, (whomever) will not post sized-reduced shots when attempting to
>> demonstrate noise-handling characteristics of cameras. Because I
>> know that it means absolutely NOTHING when I do.
>
> I can understand the sentiment here, especially when the Exposure
> indices are not especially high. but when we start talking about ISOs
> of 50K and greater on high MP cameras, we're not talking about
> somethiong where large images are expected. Web-sized images, for
> journalistic purposes and small prints, are what we are using these
> super-high-ISO shots for, in general.
>
> Here's my 7D at ISO 3200, under-exposed 4 stops, for ISO 50K:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/118813835/original
>
> You can't do that with a 10D, even a 5D (without banding). You can't
> do that with any Olympus or Pentax. You can't do that with the older
> Nikons, like the D200 or D2X.
>
> So, I would say there is some value in showing small images - *IF* it
> actually means something.

The bird shot looks pretty good. There can be some value in showing any
image, at any size. But, not to illustrate noise control or resolution.
If I were to simply take that shot at face value, I'd say, yes, it looks
like 6400 ISO on a D300. But that would be at 100%. Knowing that is a
reduced-size crop, I have no way of actually understanding how noise
looks in the camera for comparative purposes. I'd literally need another
shot, taking at the same exposure levels with a camera I did know in
order to determine what the Canon's actual noise levels were.
From: Chrlz on 28 Dec 2009 02:53
(Inappropriately re-cross-posted, seeing he is ignoring me...)

On Dec 24, 8:00 pm, Chrlz <mark.thoma...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:18 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > metal will heat up and conduct it to the internals of the camera faster
> > > than plastic will.
>
> > Conducts heat better yes, heats up faster, no and not as hot.  I've
> > tested this.  Paint or anodizing on a metal surface (black) does not
> > absorb IR as much as black molded plastic used for camera bodies does.
>
> OK, Rich, I CALL.  Please post all the details of your 'test'.
>
> After all, this goes to the core of your credibility here...
>
> I *do* hope it was done correctly and scientifically.


So Rich, this was a post and run, then?

You are not coming back to tell us about your test?

Just a reminder - you said:

"I'VE TESTED THIS."

...while referring to thermal effects on images taken on metal v.
plastic cameras.

So now, I'm asking you to back that up. Tell us all about the test.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: DSL video capability
Next: Canon 100-400mm lens focus problem