How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: tony cooper on 10 Jul 2010 21:58 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:09:46 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >news:4c38be4d$0$5505$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >> news:hbmdnf1KIZgLCKrRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >> >>> If I said things fall DOWN and not UP, you would disagree. Your >>> disagreement in this carries no weight, it is just silly. >>> >> >> Obviously you are not from Australia. > >Correct, but I'm confident up and down remain the same in that hemisphere. >I've seen many movies made in Australia and none of them had people walking >around on their heads. You were probably positioned incorrectly for watching an Australian movie. This is the proper way: http://www.healthylivingnyou.com/upper-body-exercise/images/handstand_push-ups.jpg -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bruce on 11 Jul 2010 04:37 On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:18:09 -0500, Phil B. <pblackwell(a)spamlessyahoo.com> wrote: > >Proving yet again how little you know about any cameras. Digital-zoom is >NOT empty zoom. Unless you have access to the RAW data in a camera, digital >zoom, upsampling directly from the sensor data in-camera, will provide more >detail than can be obtained by simply upsampling a camera's JPG output in >post-processing where no further detail can be extracted. Thanks for demonstrating again, if it were needed, the value of RAW.
From: DanP on 11 Jul 2010 05:38 On Jul 11, 2:22 am, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <XvednVMatMHxgaTRnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...(a)giganews.com>, Neil > > Harrington <nob...(a)homehere.net> wrote: > > The first point-and-shoot cameras did not zoom at all; they had FFL lenses. > > I still have one, a Konica Big Mini. > > big mini? what an odd name. was there a mini mini? No need, Big Mini covered the whole market. DanP
From: Phil B. on 11 Jul 2010 06:04 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:37:47 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:18:09 -0500, Phil B. ><pblackwell(a)spamlessyahoo.com> wrote: >> >>Proving yet again how little you know about any cameras. Digital-zoom is >>NOT empty zoom. Unless you have access to the RAW data in a camera, digital >>zoom, upsampling directly from the sensor data in-camera, will provide more >>detail than can be obtained by simply upsampling a camera's JPG output in >>post-processing where no further detail can be extracted. > > >Thanks for demonstrating again, if it were needed, the value of RAW. Except you don't know how much extra resolution is available. Don't bet a plug-nickel for it. The extra resolution is there, barely measurable. On a ISO-12233 resolution test-target where I did my tests on quite a few cameras, where (for example) JPG output was providing 60 line-pairs resolution, 63 line-pairs would be how much extra resolution you can extract from the RAW, a whopping 5% resolution increase. Whoopdie-do! It's sometimes useful, rarely, but hardly worth the bother to try to extract it with a post-processing RAW converter when the in-camera digital-zoom to JPG output does just as well, more simply, and a whole lot faster. Now ... what were you saying?
From: Bruce on 11 Jul 2010 11:16
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:04:25 -0500, Phil B. <pblackwell(a)spamlessyahoo.com> wrote: > >Except you don't know how much extra resolution is available. Don't bet a >plug-nickel for it. The extra resolution is there, barely measurable. As I have said several times before - and I will repeat it once again for your benefit - I do not use RAW to gain extra resolution. I use it to gain extra dynamic range. from experience, depending on the camera, RAW can give between 1.0 and 3.0 stops of extra dynamic range over an in-camera JPEG. Typically, the improvement is 1.5 to 2.0 stops. The improvement is of particular importance when using small-sensor digital cameras whose dynamic range tends to be quite limited. An extra 1.5 to 2.0 stops is a significant improvement. However, I do recognise that probably >99% of digital camera users have not the faintest idea what dynamic range is, nor why it is so important. All they seem to understand, and judge cameras by, is the numbers of megapixels that are crammed on to their very tiny sensors. |