hermanofarias: I think there is some kind of demosicing. If you use dcraw to extract a B&W tiff file from the raw, of any dslr, without demosicing, at 1:1 view, you actually see the the pixels, and not a smooth image such the examples in the DPR preview.
I think you're very confused. These look "smooth" as you say because there is no Bayer filter. That's why you need demosaicing for the output from any old DSLR.
Direct link |
Posted on May 11, 2012 at 15:05:42 UTC
AnHund: Some people complain about the lack of a "small raw" recording format. But there are several options to reduce size of files.
1. If you want small raw you can select "Lossless compressed raw recording" which will reduce file size with 20-40%.
2. You can also choose to use "Compressed raw recording" which will reduce file size by 33-55%, but you will loose some info.
3. Another option is to use 12bit instead of 14bit color depth.
4. If you can live with jpeg the file size is only something like 15-20MB.
So plenty of options to reduce size.
@Tonio most likely the 4fps limit is caused by the sensor read time, and to produce binned 9MP files, you still have to do that.
(I think there's a misconception that pixel binning means throwing away pixel data, as is done in video, but it actually means summing. Binning=summing, hence 2x2 or 3x3 bins. I think throwing away data in video is just called line skipping.)
Direct link |
Posted on May 9, 2012 at 17:59:36 UTC
I've checked 3 or 4 sample images, did you really shoot with the non-VR version of the 18-55? It says " Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II" for lens on all images I checked.
Direct link |
Posted on Apr 30, 2012 at 02:41:36 UTC
as 11th comment
avgcitizen: I like the idea of a test with low level light to better map with real-world use, but this scene is far from useful. Too many similar smooth surfaces, no indicator of focus point, etc.. I'll bet most peepers are looking at the furry rat and trying to figure out what is noise reduction and what is just out of focus. Please, someone at DPReview, explain the use of this scene? Is parent company Amazon.com keeping you on a low budget diet?
I just checked out the low ISO images to find what was in focus, troll.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 3, 2012 at 03:17:38 UTC
jpr2: a minor point, but a major disappointment: NO diopter adjustment for the VF - shameful really to be so skimpy on essentials in a $1700 body - sad !!
But this viewfinder is completely different from a DSLR viewfinder.
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 14:26:30 UTC
Carol NY: Can I get a confirmation if the topic is Travel AND Nature? Or we can submit a photo either related to "Travel" or "Nature" but doesn't have to be both?
There is a difference there. The description says either, the challenge topic indicates both.
In a competition open to Travel or Nature you will get Travel and Nature entries.
Direct link |
Posted on Oct 14, 2011 at 02:58:59 UTC
In retrospect I really do think most votes came from people who viewed the thumbnail, and the bokeh isn't soft enough to show up as OOF in that view, and the bird is hardly discernible, so that's what hurt me. The front-focus is a genuine error and would prevent this shot from being used in any proper photographic competition, but that didn't hurt in this comp. I'm not being down, that's just the long and the short of it.
Direct link |
Posted on May 13, 2010 at 16:39:55 UTC
as 1st comment
>Chato wrote > >>Hynee wrote: >>All that being said, only 7 people viewed it out of \~30 votes, so most voted from the thumbnail. >>Thanks for the feedback guys. >You think that the "views" represents an accurate, err, picture of how many viewed the image? Well, I'd hope so, am I wrong?
>I not only view the thumbnail, but the information image AND the large size before voting. I got that from your first comment /But when I zoomed in on it, the detail fell apart/, and appreciate it.
>If I'm going to go thorugh the hassle of voting, I might as well do it right. Agreed
. . I had a quick play with the image, making it smaller and with using smart sharpen, but I couldn't really recover it to the quality of images I sampled in the top 50. It doesn't matter, I'll know better for next time, I was really surprised (but not upset!) that I didn't get higher. Shooting birds isn't really my thing, but I do it a bit because it's good practice and it's something that a SLR does much better than other camera types, plus it is genuinely interesting. Next time I'll go for shots with spot on focus, and tighter cropping too. Others from this session were in better focus, but this one was the most interesting, like an "I can haz cheezburger" shot.
Direct link |
Posted on May 10, 2010 at 18:26:04 UTC
as 3rd comment
You're both right--I noticed it during edit and considered the front-focus problem when entering, but I though the bird was hardly out-of-focus compared to the background, so it was worth a go. Looking at it now, the front focus does destroy details in the bird's feathers, and the eye-light is noticeably soft etc etc. It's too OOF to be a winner, oh well. I was in an action mindset when I took this, I was in AF-C and everything, but with still wildlife you really have to nail the focus I think. No half marks just because a bird can flit off at any moment. All that being said, only 7 people viewed it out of \~30 votes, so most voted from the thumbnail. Thanks for the feedback guys.
Direct link |
Posted on May 10, 2010 at 17:49:16 UTC
as 5th comment
Talk about lowly, I'm pretty sure I got hurt in this one because the bird is pretty obscured in the thumbnail view, and that's it. Oh well, next challenge!
Direct link |
Posted on May 10, 2010 at 14:35:33 UTC
as 8th comment
Great shot, Ansel Adams himself would have been blown away by #1 & #2 in this comp. Love the ultrawide angle, love the black sky with contrasted clouds. Gotta try out Raw Therapee.
Direct link |
Posted on Nov 30, 2009 at 10:59:10 UTC
as 1st comment
Melbourne , Australia
hermanofarias: I think there is some kind of demosicing. If you use dcraw to extract a B&W tiff file from the raw, of any dslr, without demosicing, at 1:1 view, you actually see the the pixels, and not a smooth image such the examples in the DPR preview.
I think you're very confused. These look "smooth" as you say because there is no Bayer filter. That's why you need demosaicing for the output from any old DSLR.
AnHund: Some people complain about the lack of a "small raw" recording format. But there are several options to reduce size of files.
1. If you want small raw you can select "Lossless compressed raw recording" which will reduce file size with 20-40%.
2. You can also choose to use "Compressed raw recording" which will reduce file size by 33-55%, but you will loose some info.
3. Another option is to use 12bit instead of 14bit color depth.
4. If you can live with jpeg the file size is only something like 15-20MB.
So plenty of options to reduce size.
@Tonio most likely the 4fps limit is caused by the sensor read time, and to produce binned 9MP files, you still have to do that.
(I think there's a misconception that pixel binning means throwing away pixel data, as is done in video, but it actually means summing. Binning=summing, hence 2x2 or 3x3 bins. I think throwing away data in video is just called line skipping.)
I've checked 3 or 4 sample images, did you really shoot with the non-VR version of the 18-55? It says " Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II" for lens on all images I checked.
panteraaa: won't u need a high quality glass for that 24MP??? how good will that kit lens be in this camera?
It's extremely good. (Yes I own one.)
bobsphotos: I like the jet in the tree.......
Yep.
avgcitizen: I like the idea of a test with low level light to better map with real-world use, but this scene is far from useful. Too many similar smooth surfaces, no indicator of focus point, etc.. I'll bet most peepers are looking at the furry rat and trying to figure out what is noise reduction and what is just out of focus. Please, someone at DPReview, explain the use of this scene? Is parent company Amazon.com keeping you on a low budget diet?
I just checked out the low ISO images to find what was in focus, troll.
Hynee: Why no crop video modes of the D4?
It could have gone all the way to 3.8x crop.
Apparently it has full 1080p in DX crop too, but I can't tease that out of the specs.
Why no crop video modes of the D4?
It could have gone all the way to 3.8x crop.
kelpdiver: A Nex5/7 + this adapter isn't much smaller than a T2i/T3i, yet gives up autofocus. What sort of message are you sending to Canon?
That Focus Peaking is the way of the future, and Canon's future lies in 3rd party lenses for Sony bodies?
jpr2: a minor point, but a major disappointment: NO diopter adjustment for the VF - shameful really to be so skimpy on essentials in a $1700 body - sad !!
But this viewfinder is completely different from a DSLR viewfinder.
Carol NY: Can I get a confirmation if the topic is Travel AND Nature? Or we can submit a photo either related to "Travel" or "Nature" but doesn't have to be both?
There is a difference there. The description says either, the challenge topic indicates both.
In a competition open to Travel or Nature you will get Travel and Nature entries.
Good snooping DPR, I hope to find out more. 0.25 MP isn't that bad either ;)
Good, it was annoying when multiple threads on one news item would appear in the News forum.
In retrospect I really do think most votes came from people who viewed the thumbnail, and the bokeh isn't soft enough to show up as OOF in that view, and the bird is hardly discernible, so that's what hurt me.
The front-focus is a genuine error and would prevent this shot from being used in any proper photographic competition, but that didn't hurt in this comp.
I'm not being down, that's just the long and the short of it.
>Chato wrote
>
>>Hynee wrote:
>>All that being said, only 7 people viewed it out of \~30 votes, so most voted from the thumbnail.
>>Thanks for the feedback guys.
>You think that the "views" represents an accurate, err, picture of how many viewed the image?
Well, I'd hope so, am I wrong?
>I not only view the thumbnail, but the information image AND the large size before voting.
I got that from your first comment /But when I zoomed in on it, the detail fell apart/, and appreciate it.
>If I'm going to go thorugh the hassle of voting, I might as well do it right.
Agreed
.
.
I had a quick play with the image, making it smaller and with using smart sharpen, but I couldn't really recover it to the quality of images I sampled in the top 50. It doesn't matter, I'll know better for next time, I was really surprised (but not upset!) that I didn't get higher.
Shooting birds isn't really my thing, but I do it a bit because it's good practice and it's something that a SLR does much better than other camera types, plus it is genuinely interesting.
Next time I'll go for shots with spot on focus, and tighter cropping too. Others from this session were in better focus, but this one was the most interesting, like an "I can haz cheezburger" shot.
You're both right--I noticed it during edit and considered the front-focus problem when entering, but I though the bird was hardly out-of-focus compared to the background, so it was worth a go.
Looking at it now, the front focus does destroy details in the bird's feathers, and the eye-light is noticeably soft etc etc. It's too OOF to be a winner, oh well.
I was in an action mindset when I took this, I was in AF-C and everything, but with still wildlife you really have to nail the focus I think. No half marks just because a bird can flit off at any moment.
All that being said, only 7 people viewed it out of \~30 votes, so most voted from the thumbnail.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
Talk about lowly, I'm pretty sure I got hurt in this one because the bird is pretty obscured in the thumbnail view, and that's it. Oh well, next challenge!
Great shot, Ansel Adams himself would have been blown away by #1 & #2 in this comp.
Love the ultrawide angle, love the black sky with contrasted clouds.
Gotta try out Raw Therapee.