*** 5Dc vs 60D resolution test ***

Started Mar 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 15,999Gear list
Re: please don't twist my photos
In reply to MAC, Apr 1, 2013

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

MAC wrote:

schmegg wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

I said you twisted it because you did completely wrong by zooming in LR that is only for viewing purpose but not for photo enlargement. The right way is thru Photoshop Bicubic enlargement.  If you did that correct way you will see the result I showed that is truly untwisted.  I gave the steps that everyone can duplicate.

It's not 'dark magic', it's simply zooming in on the raw data to see what has been recorded.

That is totally wrong way.  As I suggested, try bicubic enlargement in PS.  Again here is 100% cropped between two.  Look how different from yours.  This is the right way to show the real difference.

I'm sorry Peter, but this is just plain wrong.

If you use any type of enlargement algorithm such as "bicubic sharper" then you are interpolating, or 'inventing', detail that has simply not been recorded by the sensor! LOL!

What you are essentially saying here is that the difference will be in favour of the 5D if you use mathematics to estimate and insert information that does not exist in the raw file.

Sadly, mathematically inventing image detail does not equate to "more resolving abilities" - it is, in fact, a workaround one uses when they need more detail than the camera was capable of recording in the first place!

don't upsize or downsize.  just leave them side by side in photoshop and choose split screen and magnify/scale them together - then take screen shots

Do you or anyone generate JPEG files by taking snapshots in ACR/LR?  At least you need to generate the final JPEGs before comparing.   I upsampling 5D files for easier comparing at the same output size otherwise someone may get delusion that a bigger size is resolving more details.  Or we should leave them at their original sizes and compare the default processed JPEGs as DPR and IR labs do.  They don't compare photos in ACR/LR screen but default processed JPEGs.

In Lightroom generate the full size 16 bit psd's or tiffs to photoshop CS

leave them alone. fov is the same.  view them at the image level.  split the screen, then magnify the same way/size.  then screen capture the magnified screen shots

That sounds too complicated.  Why not generate JPEGs thru ACR/LR or DPP by default/zero setting and then compare them side by side with whatever photo viewer (such as Windows photo viewer)?  That's all creditable labs do such as DPR and IR.

jpg's are a quality reduction

You didn't realize your eyes do see RAW files directly but thru software interpretation.  Whatever you see in RAW processing software such as ACR is not better than converted JPEG.  No labs use ACR screenshots to compare IQ, no mention that's not your final result you will get anyway.  Even we leave in ACR by default at their respective original sizes, I still don't see 60D files have better IQ and resolve more details on outdoor school building.

it was obvious to me, you didn't control focus pt and dof in the building shots

Yes I do.  Believe me or not, I tried to give 60D every advantage by using MF with 10x LV that's why it doesn't show focus point.  But 60D focus at the exact the same focus point as in 5D files.  Next time I will also use AF in 60D.  Sigh, I know no matter how I do, someone just cannot be satisfied but trying to find every excuse if the test result in not their way.  I can choose only post outdoor school building photos but I also post in close-up dollar bill shots despite it may give 60D an advantage in such scenarios.  I am truly unbiased without any agenda.  I own both camera and no reasons why I biased one against another one.  See my experience is all different from yours.  I own 5D first before any Canon cameras and I bought 60D several years later.  I also hope small and less can take more like everyone else wishes.  But in end, the Law of Physics still rules on the earth.

You are not biased to FF.  Yeah, right.

you need to shoot a scape -- like a scape is shot -- deep dof.  use zero on the sharpness slider.  And multiply the crop dof by 1.6.  And raise the FF iso by 2.5.  And keep the ss the same.  And most important -- convince us that the focal point was identical -- not an easy task for the 5dc without live view

Quit reading dxo between formats.  You don't know how they did those tests.  Nothing from the 18 Mpxl sensor scores above 12.  I don't believe that.  There is bias in their testing.  I think they moved the crop sensor farther away.

Your only fair test was the dollar test and it clearly showed your 60d has more resolution than your 5dc.  And that doesn't agree with dxo -- so dxo must be wrong.

what I find interesting is that Peter picks and chooses what information from them he wants.  If he misreads something that he thinks is DxO saying the 5D is better, he posts it as empirically correct data.  Yet, in the sensor ranking, because Canon doesn't even make it to the top 12, he proclaims their method to be incorrect and invalid, and makes excuses for it.  Very interesting scientific method....especially considering he doesn't understand how they do their testing.....despite being told by a couple of dozen forum members here around 50 times in the last year alone.

keep the files whole 

Yeah, thru default/zero processing and we process respectively.  Remember you don't see RAW data directly but thru a software anyway

even zero in LR might not be zero

right but that's what you saw in LR/ACR right?  Your eyes just don't see original RAW data.  Therefore I first used DPP as I still believe DPP is the only one faithfully convert Canon own CR2 without applying any enhanced processing.

DPP sucks.

Professionals use Adobe -- for good reason

DPP is about the worst for bringing out detail....and for control over the raw image.

psd and tiff are better than 8 bit jpg -  for prints also - keep in 16 bit

but not in viewing on computer screen  Whatever you see in ACR window is not better than viewing converted JPEG (even at the default/zero setting).

Prints are better test.  You don't need to haul around 10's of thousands of dollars of "heavy" gear, to display photos on computer screens.  Many less expensive set-ups can achieve the same results on computer screens

Peter has already said he doesn't make large prints.  That of course hasn't  stopped him from arguing about the best way to interpolate enlargements in PS.  Of course, he was wrong there as well.....didn't stop him from arguing it through a dozen posts telling everyone else they were all wrong.

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow